> As someone who has worked with ecologists in the field on a number of wildlife projects in rural Africa, I find this to be truly repugnant.

Really? You know that the majority of ecologists support Elephant Culling (killing elephant family groups wholesale from helicopters)?

> There are many ways of controlling "problem elephants" other than killing them

There is an oversupply of elephants and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone elephant bull is no problem.

I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as elephants) because some groups (such as PETA) opposed elephant culling.

How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly an elephant fucks up a tree? Elephants are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have animals.

I fail to see how anyone opposes elephant culling can label himself as an ecologist.

--PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE--:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Elephant-culling-in-Africa

There is an oversupply of humans and an undersupply of space. Killing a lone human male is no problem.

I find it sad that a lot of damage is done to the ecosystem and to other animals (which may not be as pretty as humans) because some groups (such as the UN) opposed human culling.

How long does it take for a tree to grow? How long for a beautiful Baobab? Do you know how quickly a human fucks up a tree? Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

And unfortunately due to stupid laws (making hunting difficult and other requirements) it is very expensive for private game farms to have humans.

I fail to see how anyone opposes human culling can label himself as an ecologist.

This satirical response only applies if you value human lives and elephant lives equally.

So true. The Bible says that we are created in God's image and that God gave us domain to do whatever we like to animals... just so long as we don't attempt to copulate with them. It should be a crime to even hint that an animal's life could be valued as a human life... Except for my trusty dog companion. </sarcasm>

Sorry if I actually subscribe to that belief. Neither did God give humans a free pass on torturing less valued species. Animals are given as a resource much like trees and oil. Animals also happen to have some capacity for emotion and intelligence. Since they are similar to us in some way we should respect them, lest we become callus with the taking of intelligent life.

As for pets, it's a cultural thing that we don't eat pets. The bible cautions against following culturally aberrant activities provided doing so doesn't infringe on your service to God.

I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.

(Sorry if I am less than clear, I'm typing this on my iPad and I can't edit stuff in text boxes very easily.)

> I would hope you will have some respect for other peoples' beliefs in the future.

Some beliefs don't deserve respect.

Look, you can be a smartass and try to criticize other's beliefs. But at least know what the beliefs of others are.

Criticizing a group of people based on your own naivety of their beliefs is both ignorant and arrogant.

Read this:

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/an-tpr-are-10.html

Many passages in the Bible explain that humans are stewards of nature.

> Humans are not an endangered specie –they are often a plague (due to limited natural predators, long life expectancy and the availability of water).

Tragically enough, in Africa humans have natural predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Africa

AIDS/HIV is just a tool, like claw. The predator here is just another human who spreads the virus.

Yes very droll. If a human was destroying the food supply of the village then things would probably end badly for them too.

Probably not being killed for meat though but YMMV.

This is a bit snarky, but I think it does represent a valid way of looking at things.

I'm not an ecologist and didn't claim to be one (I'm a computer scientist), and my comment wasn't about the benefits of elephant culling. As a last resort, yes it can sometimes be necessary, but there was no indication that it was necessary in this case. I'm opposed to lethal measures when there are other ways, and my point was that Bob Parsons could easily have paid for a relocation program had he wanted to, and won a lot of goodwill for himself and (perhaps more importantly) his brand in doing so. Instead, he's alienated a lot of potential customers, even from just this thread and the 178 current upvotes of the story's title.

Let's be realistic here -- this wasn't a planned "cull", this was a once-in-a-lifetime hunt for a rich guy.

We're supposed to believe one hubpages articles that doesn't cite any sources other than this guy who claims to work at the national park? Sorry, I need better sources than this to be convinced.

Then search the internet for sources - there are many. I cannot search properly (because it turns out the a country full of elephants has a lousy (and expensive) internet connection). Elephant culling has been widely debated in most countries. It is no secret.

The Kruger National Park even had a programme where they even tried to use contraceptives for Elephant Cows... What is next? An abstinence program?

Here is an article by Ron Thompson:

http://www.shakariconnection.com/culling-elephants-in-KNP.ht...