Skip to comments.Indian state OKs shooting tiger poachers on sight
Posted on 05/29/2012 8:24:42 AM PDT by JerseyanExile
A state in western India has declared war on animal poaching by allowing forest guards to shoot hunters on sight in an effort to curb rampant attacks on tigers and other wildlife.
The government in Maharashtra says injuring or killing suspected poachers will no longer be considered a crime. Forest guards should not be "booked for human rights violations when they have taken action against poachers," Maharashtra Forest Minister Patangrao Kadam said Tuesday. The state also will send more rangers and jeeps into the forest, and will offer secret payments to informers who give tips about poachers and animal smugglers, he said.
No tiger poachers have ever been shot in Maharashtra, though cases of illegal loggers and fishermen being shot have led to charges against forest guards, according to the state's chief wildlife warden, S.W.H. Naqvi.
But the threat could act as a significant deterrent to wildlife criminals, conservationists said. A similar measure allowing guards to fire on poachers in Assam has helped the northeast state's population of endangered one-horned rhinos recover.
"These poachers have lost all fear. They just go in and poach what they want because they know the risks are low," said Divyabhanusinh Chavda, who heads the World Wildlife Fund in India and is a key member of the National Wildlife Board, which advises the prime minister. In many of India's reserves, guards are armed with little more than sticks.
India faces intense international scrutiny over its tiger conservation, as it holds half of the world's estimated 3,200 tigers in dozens of wildlife reserves set up since the 1970s, when hunting was banned.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Bounty of 10,000 rupees , what part of the tiger poacher do you have to turn in to get the money
What is that, about a buck and a half?
It’s 179 dollars at current exchange rates.
Now that is the way to do it. All it will cost India is a burial expense and problem solved.
Poachers will change their primary targets.
“Indian state OKs shooting tiger poachers on sight”
Some good news for a change.
For the really bad poachers tie a couple of mewing tiger cubs to them and send him out to visit mama tiger.
Animals are more valuable than people! Tiger life worth more than human life!
This is an enviro-whacko’s wet dream. Other intellectual perverts, all drooling out of control in ubison, over the Indian decision are animal rights whacko’s, Liberals, Progs, Cat Ladies and Obamoids.
Wildlife is a major revenue generator in some parts of the world. They’ve been killing poachers in Africa forever.
Not quite. Think of it this way, certain animals are worth more alive than the people who would kill them. Would a person be justified in killing a person who was attempting to kill a champion racehorse or prized breeding bull? If you walked into your paddock or barn and saw a man with a gun to the head of either of those animals, would you be justified in killing him? You may argue that you would, given the concept of personal property and your right to protect it. But does the state have the right and responsibility to protect the people’s resources by what ever means necessary? And when those resources are as limited as tigers, shouldn’t the action to protect them be vigorous?
No question about that. I’ve done some wildlife research in Namibia, and the approach to poachers is extreem. American and European hunters pay major coin for big game, far more than a poacher could make in a hundred years, and that money directly benefits the local tribes. They use the funds to develop conservancies, build infrastructure, and as income for tribal members. If poachers go in and clean an area out, they’ve killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. A single managed white rhino could probably support a village for a year, but if a poacher has bagged it and cut off its horn for a 100 bucks just so some rich guy in Shanghai can think he’s going to get rock-hard, everybody loses.
The world wildlife fund wants people killed? Liberals - they don’t mind guns at all as long as they get to determine who the guns are pointed at.
Tigers are few because they eat people. Americans cheering for the tigers is not unnoticed in the Second, Third, and Turd World areas.
Can you say “Ugly American”?
Try - you can do it. See! It didn’t hurt all that much did it?
Jokes aside, their land, their people being eaten by tigers. And, the Anglosphere chappies took away all their guns. How do you think they feel about being poor, weaponless, and knowing tigers eat lots of Indians every year?
“Wound them, disarm them and release them back in the wild. The tigers will thank you for the slow, soft prey without much in the line of teeth or claws.”
“Theyve been killing poachers in Africa forever.’
That’s good news too.
“Tigers are few because they eat people.”
To bad. Maybe this can be turned around.
47% of our moochers should take note.
Bring in the tigers and fatten them up.
Money is more valuable than people! Cash retention worth more than human life!
I wonder what the response would be if I posted something like that on a thread discussing a homeowner shooting a thief sneaking into his garage to steal his car, or a bank guard shooting a perp who snatched money. After all, is money 'worth a human life?'
These tigers are THE key hard currency resource for these areas, and in some places the only hard currency resource. Every tiger killed is an economic blow to the people, and one that cannot be afforded. In India, the lions of Gir forest (the home of the Asiatic lion and the only place one can find them outside Africa) they had to take similar steps to save the population - and the tourism that stems from it.
As for your later comments on how tigers should be killed since they 'eat people' (amazing logic!) I wonder if the same applies to deer (145 Americans per year) or dogs (which kill more humans than all big cats from all continents combined)?
Anyways - these 'liberal' measures are supported by the local communities who clearly understand that tourists will not spend their hard earned dollars and Euros to look at trees - but will do so to see tigers.
Absolutely - this is not the same as the Western US where wildcats, mountain lions, pumas, and the like are more and more frequently killing pets and then people because the enviro-leninists stop their management. This is regarding wildlife preserves where the cats are SUPPOSED to be.
And don’t think that any of those poachers would lose a minutes sleep over killing any and all forest agents who try to stop them. This just gives them freedom to do their jobs without fear of being second guessed when they return from the field with the body of the poacher strapped to their jeeps.
What we should be doing on the southron bordor.
“These tigers are THE key hard currency resource for these areas, and in some places the only hard currency resource.”
How silly of me, to forget that these peoples didn’t survive before eco-tourism came to their hovels. “Every tiger killed is an economic blow to the people, and one that cannot be afforded.”
Seems your MBA must have been from an urban institute with more than the usual share of the socialism infected Academented on the faculty. As a soi dissant management expert, shouldn’t you know that most ecotourism dollars stay in the hands of the tour operators, NOT the peasents on the tiger’s menu?
Do do consider the logic flaw in your conflation of a citizen using lethal force to defend his property or his life with an Indian peasent with no gun, forced by far away liberals and ‘crats to be risk on a daily basis being eaten by tigers so than rich Americans and Eurotrash can safely view the man eaters.
The peasent is disarmed! And, if he did have a gun and shot a threatening tiger, said peasent would be jailed and his family left to starve.
Much like American are forced by the treasonous in agencies to quarter wild beasts on their land, suffer the beasts to “eat out their (land owners) substance”, and all the while having to pay taxes on lands effectively devaluated by takings without compensation.
Your argument seems to be that tourism based on keeping man eating beasts is OK.
It is not.
Since you appear to be unaware of large cat behavior, when such cats learn what wolves in America were taught by the Settlers “nearly every man and boy carried a rifle” to avoid man, men women and children walked the land unmolested by wolves. Yet there were wolves, but the surviving wolves knew their place in the food chain.
Teach the same lesson to the “Lions of Gir forest” and assorted other ambulatory, unharvested, fur rugs why they must fear men, and the local poor inhabitants will be safe.
Your precious Urban eco-tourists can still watch a tiger which knows its place on the food chain by viewing a staked out animal under a blind. That is how man got a clear sight, followed by a clear shot at, such beasts throughout history.
Walking up on a large cat is a tad difficult due to their hearing, sense of smell, vision, etc. Please don’t bother to mention viewing from a howdah, as that works for cats accustomed to the dangers of man as taught by gunpowder just as well as as it does for the enviro-approved “fearless, wild, beast”.
PS It works for camera shooters as well as for real shooters.
“Animals are more valuable than people! Tiger life worth more than human life!”
That’s a no-brainer. Absa-freakin-lutely!!
How silly of me, to forget that Americans didn't survive before indoor plumbing and electricity came to their hovels. See - we could do this all day. Just because someone could 'survive' before a better level of existence came around doesn't mean they should stay where they were before.
Seems your MBA must have been from an urban institute with more than the usual share of the socialism infected Academented on the faculty. As a soi dissant management expert, shouldnt you know that most ecotourism dollars stay in the hands of the tour operators, NOT the peasents on the tigers menu?
Most of the ecotourism Dollars do stay in the hands of the tour operators and the government, however, there is still a portion that goes to the local communities that wouldn't have been there. Such amounts may seem small to you, but for them it is a big difference. It doesn't take an MBA to realize that ...just plain common sense. Scratch that ...not common sense, just an iota of functional intelligence.
Do do consider the logic flaw in your conflation of a citizen using lethal force to defend his property or his life with an Indian peasent with no gun, forced by far away liberals and crats to be risk on a daily basis being eaten by tigers so than rich Americans and Eurotrash can safely view the man eaters.
It is a sign of tepid cognitive acuity to always project one's local realities to those of other people in different circumstances. All this talk of liberals and 'crats snatching guns ...the gun laws in India go back to colonial times, when after the 1857 mutiny the British made some crazy regulations to try and prevent it happening again. This has led to the Indians setting up an NRA style organization (National Association for Gun Rights India) to fight for their rights. As for getting eaten by tigers ...the local communities are more concerned about their crops failing due to lack of money for fertilizer, or their kids dying due to lack of money for medicine to worry about the distant possibility of death-by-tiger (as I said, death by dog bite is a FAR higher probability than all big cats GLOBALLY combined). This is why those same local communities support tiger tourism that brings them much needed funds - but I am sure you, GladesGuru, knows what is best for these communities than they do themselves, right? You are so terribly intelligent that, even though the communities (that you claim are being decimated by tiger attack) want tiger tourism to continue and are themselves against the poachers, that you know what is best for them.
Much like American are forced by the treasonous in agencies to quarter wild beasts on their land, suffer the beasts to eat out their (land owners) substance, and all the while having to pay taxes on lands effectively devaluated by takings without compensation.
There is a big difference between a land-owner in America suffering under the heavy boot of over-legislative government, and a poor Indian or African community that is IN SUPPORT of increased tourism AND more stringent anti-poaching legislation. In the first case the American land-owner would rather the government shove off. In the latter the community knows that even if the tour operator/government takes 95% of the revenues, there is still 5% flowing in (which for them is a lot), PLUS the fact that the tourists will buy locally made souvenirs and the like. In Kenya, for instance, entire Maasai communities are maintained by tourists buying beaded artwork and hand-dyed clothing. But I am sure the lions that those tourists come to see should be killed off ...you know so much. More than these communities that are in support of the measures.
Your argument seems to be that tourism based on keeping man eating beasts is OK.
Do you know how rare man-eating is? In the last 8 decades tigers have killed 16,000 people in total. Sixteen thousand in 80 years. In India, cars kill 130,000 people per year. One hundred and thirty thousand. And as I said, dogs kill more than lions, leopards, tigers, jaguars, and pumas ...combined. We should also kill the dogs then?
Since you appear to be unaware of large cat behavior, when such cats learn what wolves in America were taught by the Settlers nearly every man and boy carried a rifle to avoid man, men women and children walked the land unmolested by wolves. Yet there were wolves, but the surviving wolves knew their place in the food chain.
Hilarious! I go to the Sweetwaters Tented Camp at Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya every year, where there is some sponsorship for Chimps and Rhinos I do since it is supported by private donations. I have worked with lions. Based on your comments on how local communities are being destroyed by 'man-eating' felines, even though those communities WANT those same 'murderous' cats, it is you I would say who doesn't know about big cats. Again, I ask, just how prevalent do you think man-eating is, and how high a danger do you think it is?
Teach the same lesson to the Lions of Gir forest and assorted other ambulatory, unharvested, fur rugs why they must fear men, and the local poor inhabitants will be safe.
Yet you know big cats? If you did you would know they absolutely fear humans. In Kenya, for instance, the Maasai normally walk in the park armed only with a stick (not a spear even), and the lions flee the moment they smell him. Even before seeing him. There is actually an interesting video on youtube of some Kenyan natives walking to a lion kill, making a pride of lions scatter simply by walking up, and walking away with the meat. The only lions that will not flee are mothers protecting cubs (and in Kenya killing one of those is considered self-defense and not charged), and man-eaters. Your favorite man-eaters, however, are extremely rare. There is a far greater chance of dying of an infected thorn injury (literally greater) than a man-eater. They are that rare.
Anyways ...bottom line. The communities want the tiger tourism, and they are against the poachers and welcome the stringent laws. I would say the local Indian communities know what is best for them in India than you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.