(Warning: Graphic) American Rattlesnake Roundups [Archive]

Skyhilist

9th June 2013, 18:31

I wasn't sure where I should post this, sorry if it's in the wrong section. I've been involved with a group called Rise Against Rattlesnake Roundups for awhile and it's come to my attention that the vast majority of people don't even know what Rattlesnake Roundups are (don't worry this isn't a PETA-esque type thing).

Each year in the United States, dozens of events called 'Rattlesnake Roundups' take place, specifically in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Some of these roundups are in many ways good. the Noxen, Pennsylvania roundup and the Claxton, Georgia roundup for example provide education about the importance of snake conservation and do not harm or kill their animals.

Others on the other hand, are horrible. This isn't just because "oh they kill animals for food, and that's unethical." It's far more than that. Take the one in Apache, Oklahoma, for example. First, the snakes are placed in a freezer so that their blood crystallizes and they slow down. Then they're taken out. Their fangs are ripped out with pliers. Their mouths are then sewn shut. They are then taken to photo booths where people can pay money to take pictures with these snakes around their necks. Within a few hours these snakes die, usually from dehydration, trauma and a variety of other painful conditions. Snakes that aren't used for photo booths are placed in pins by the hundreds without food or water and also die in large numbers. They aren't just killed quickly and for food; they endure long and painful deaths.

This is a photo of a Rattlesnake with its mouth sewn shut:

http://i1061.photobucket.com/albums/t470/AtroxKR/SnakesmouthsewnshutApache2012.jpg

Roundups of this nature even break animal cruelty laws that are regarded as felonies in the states that they occur. Literally every authority who would ever deal with this matter has by contacted by my group (Rise Against Rattlesnake Roundups) and been given clear proof of this illegal cruelty. We are always ignored, and have even been told that we ourselves will get arrested if we ever make citizens arrests at these events.

The hatred of these creatures runs incredibly deep. At the largest Rattlesnake Roundup in Sweetwater, Texas, rattlesnakes are mocked by having their heads chopped off, then waving a hat around the decapitated head to show how it is still conscious for minutes as it dies. This is perhaps the most painful way to kill rattlesnakes because they feel immense pain for long minutes after they are decapitated (the chosen method by all roundups that kill them). At this same roundup, kids (often only 5-6 years old) are encouraged to soak their hands in rattlesnake blood and make bloody hand prints on the wall.

These roundups also have negative ecological implications. The Sweetwater roundup ALONE has been estimated to have eradicated a significant percentage of the rattlesnake population of Texas in the past few years, and often has to ship snakes in from other states. As a result of this, rodent borne diseases have increased in areas where rattlesnake populations have been decimated. At roundups in the southeastern U.S. (aside from Claxton, GA, which has stopped killing snakes), Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes, which are already a declining species, are harvested.

These roundups break animal cruelty laws, are horrible ecologically, and only perpetuate ophidiophobia (fear of snakes). The local authorities have refused to stop these events because they bring in millions of revenue each year. You don't have to be a supporter of animal rights to see that something is horribly wrong with these events -- in fact most people in Rise Against Rattlesnake Roundups do not consider themselves animal rights activists.

I just wanted to alert everyone of this issue as it's something that goes largely ignored. If this issue is one that has caused you concern, please, feel free to join Rise Against Rattlesnake Roundups (https://www.facebook.com/groups/2799875358/). We need all the help we can get fighting against this. Thank you.

rednordman

9th June 2013, 20:16

So its like a real like version of 'whacking day'. Honestly though, how can people do such cruel things to those snakes?

Ocean Seal

9th June 2013, 20:35

I'm disgusted by what people will do for exotic photos.

hatzel

9th June 2013, 21:10

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/104/6/9/don__t_tread_on_me_by_vekticolor-d4w6gro.png

(Sorry, kinda couldn't even begin to resist it...)

Goblin

9th June 2013, 21:31

This is some pretty sick shit.

The Douche

10th June 2013, 14:04

Literally every authority who would ever deal with this matter has by contacted by my group (Rise Against Rattlesnake Roundups) and been given clear proof of this illegal cruelty. We are always ignored, and have even been told that we ourselves will get arrested if we ever make citizens arrests at these events.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... You're part of an organization that calls the cops on people and tries to get them arrested?

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 21:25

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... You're part of an organization that calls the cops on people and tries to get them arrested?

Look we wanted to make a citizens arrest. We were told that if we did that we'd be arrested. We're not calling the cops expecting to actually get results. We're calling literally everyone who has the capabilities to deal with this and providing them proof to show how little the authorities care about the well being of these snakes. Sometimes that's what it takes for some people to be on board with us. We're not a political group; we need as much help as we can get fighting this, and it wouldn't be constructive if we only opened the group up to certain groups of people because we'd alienate many from the cause. So, yes, many of the people who join our group might need to know that we've already gone to all relevant authorities and brought this up before they join. Otherwise they might think "Oh well you haven't even pursued this legally, you're not even trying." I'm not saying this is rational or justified... but this is the way that many people look at things in modern society, and right now we need all the help we can get regardless of whether a person feels this way or not. In fact that's why the group never gets political... it would only be destructive and we'd risk losing a significant portion of the help that we already have.
So no, it's not that we think the cops are going to somehow further our cause to answer your question. That's not the reason.

Ele'ill

10th June 2013, 21:31

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 21:57

stop relying on local authorities to give you permission and doing so to make your organization 'legit', 'bigger' or 'comfortable for people' will still end up with the same result that is the authorities not giving you permission, it sounds like PETA is more radical, conservation is ecocide in disguise

Here's something that you're missing: Most of the cruelty takes place in Texas and Oklahoma in very conservative areas. Not a hell of a lot of revolutionaries around those parts. You're not going to sabotage an events that are as big as some of these roundups (Sweetwater, for example, attracts 50,000 people yearly) with the small handful of revolutionaries that live in these areas and can make it there. If that were an option then fine, but it's not. Given our situation we don't have many realistic options besides what we're already doing. And when such things have gone viral, similar events have been stopped in the past. For example, some of the same people involved in RARR were involved in fighting an event called Snapperfest, which broke animal cruelty laws against turtles. All it took was a video of this getting about 100k views on youtube to get enough pressure. Snapperfest is no longer. These are the only tactics that we have. But no, we're not like PETA in that we don't rely on sheer sensationalism.

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 22:09

Ele'ill

10th June 2013, 22:09

Here's something that you're missing: Most of the cruelty takes place in Texas and Oklahoma in very conservative areas. Not a hell of a lot of revolutionaries around those parts. You're not going to sabotage an events that are as big as some of these roundups (Sweetwater, for example, attracts 50,000 people yearly) with the small handful of revolutionaries that live in these areas and can make it there. If that were an option then fine, but it's not.

sometimes you have to realize that you're not going to make a change with any number of people and simply sabotage your own rage safety control valve, or maybe it's actually theirs I dunno depends how you look at it

Given our situation we don't have many realistic options besides what we're already doing. And when such things have gone viral, similar events have been stopped in the past. For example, some of the same people involved in RARR were involved in fighting an event called Snapperfest, which broke animal cruelty laws against turtles. All it took was a video of this getting about 100k views on youtube to get enough pressure. Snapperfest is no longer. These are the only tactics that we have. But no, we're not like PETA in that we don't rely on sheer sensationalism.how did 100k youtube views have anything to do with it, what pressure are you referring to, and why not other action as well? If you are relying on 'laws' to accomplish victories you are going to be sorely disappointed regardless if this turns out successful for you and calling the police on people isn't revolutionary, it isn't really strategic, but I see you already found this out as they won't do anything.

Ele'ill

10th June 2013, 22:22

Please though by any means gather up every revolutionary in the vicinity of Sweetwater, Texas and go ahead and try to take on these roundups and authorities by by force. Let me know how practical that strategy ends up being at let me know how many people you win over to your side :)

also I never said 'by force' *or that I wanted to 'win people' over to 'my' side. If you're going to critique my position, know my position first.

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 22:30

sometimes you have to realize that you're not going to make a change with any number of people and simply sabotage your own rage safety control valve, or maybe it's actually theirs I dunno depends how you look at it

I'm not even sure what specifically you're advocating here. Please clarify.

how did 100k youtube views have anything to do with it, what pressure are you referring to, and why not other action as well?

There were plenty of other actions (though no violent clashes like you perhaps might fetishize), but most people aren't aware of Snapperfest so just seeing it on youtube alone awakened thousands, including those in local media outlets who began covering it (due to bourgeois/petit-bourgeois pseudo-senses of morality maybe or due to exponentially growing public pressure I can't say, but I do know it got covered) once the message became spread widely enough.

If you are relying on 'laws' to accomplish victories you are going to be sorely disappointed regardless if this turns out successful for you

Why would I be disappointed if it turned out successful? The bottom line is that if these events are stopped it's a good thing.

and calling the police on people isn't revolutionary, it isn't really strategic, but I see you already found this out as they won't do anything.

The police weren't who we went to first... they were near the bottom actually on a long list of people. The point of this was to prove that they've been notified and haven't cared so nobody in the public can say "you haven't even tried". Obviously that'd be fallacious but this is how the general public thinks. Not a ton of revolutionaries in Oklahoma or Texas. This is the way that we must operate. This type of action led to the elimination of Snapperfest. Do you really think 2 or 3 anarchists throwing Molotov cocktails would've been more effective?

They also used to kill the snakes at Pennsylvania roundups. That's now illegal. These reforms don't threaten anyone's class rule, so they're plausible using our methods. It'd be nice if they did, but that's not a realistic option right now. The bottom line is that if we can save these snakes from such treatments by any means necessary it is better than the shit that they face now. Gathering up the half a dozen or so revolutionaries in Texas and Oklahoma and smashing shit isn't going to do anything in this situation. Our methods on the other hand have ended events like Snapperfest and made killing the snakes (and mouth sewing, etc.) at roundups in Pennsylvania illegal.

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 22:32

also I never said 'by force' *or that I wanted to 'win people' over to 'my' side. If you're going to critique my position, know my position first.

Perhaps you should elaborate on your position then. What do you suggest? If you've got a better strategy (which you seemed to be implying), then make it known. But don't just attack methods that have actually succeeded in stopping similar events in the past if you've got no better alternative.

Ele'ill

10th June 2013, 22:43

I'm not even sure what specifically you're advocating here. Please clarify.

It sounds like you want 'the law' on your side, it never will be.

There were plenty of other actions (though no violent clashes like you perhaps might fetishize),

I never mentioned anything about violent clashes. I don't fantasize about 'the mass clash'.

but most people aren't aware of Snapperfest so just seeing it on youtube alone awakened thousands, including those in local media outlets who began covering it (due to bourgeois/petit-bourgeois pseudo-senses of morality maybe or due to exponentially growing public pressure I can't say, but I do know it got covered) once the message became spread widely enough.

what growing public pressure and how did any of this stop it

Why would I be disappointed if it turned out successful? The bottom line is that if these events are stopped it's a good thing.

The police weren't who we went to first... they were near the bottom actually on a long list of people.

and if they had jumped at this opportunity to incarcerate people into the PIC?

The point of this was to prove that they've been notified and haven't cared so nobody in the public can say "you haven't even tried".

so you did it to add numbers to your organization

Obviously that'd be fallacious but this is how the general public thinks. Not a ton of revolutionaries in Oklahoma or Texas.

there aren't a ton of 'revolutionaries' anywhere

This is the way that we must operate. This type of action led to the elimination of Snapperfest. Do you really think 2 or 3 anarchists throwing Molotov cocktails would've been more effective?

I never said anything about WMD's being used

They also used to kill the snakes at Pennsylvania roundups. That's now illegal. These reforms don't threaten anyone's class rule, so they're plausible using our methods. It'd be nice if they did, but that's not a realistic option right now. The bottom line is that if we can save these snakes from such treatments by any means necessary it is better than the shit that they face now. Gathering up the half a dozen or so revolutionaries in Texas and Oklahoma and smashing shit isn't going to do anything in this situation. Our methods on the other hand have ended events like Snapperfest and made killing the snakes (and mouth sewing, etc.) at roundups in Pennsylvania illegal.

I'm not doubting that reforms have been made but can you provide a couple links at least proving that this stuff is now illegal directly because of 'your methods' I think this forum could do with more linking to alleged happenings.

Ele'ill

10th June 2013, 22:46

Perhaps you should elaborate on your position then. What do you suggest? If you've got a better strategy (which you seemed to be implying), then make it known. But don't just attack methods that have actually succeeded in stopping similar events in the past if you've got no better alternative.

read what I'm posting and not what you want to see

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 22:58

It sounds like you want 'the law' on your side, it never will be.

So then we should have given up on Snapperfest and PA, Roundups by that logic because law enforcement should've made them impossible to reform/eliminate.

I never mentioned anything about violent clashes. I don't fantasize about 'the mass clash'.

You were implying that you want a different style of tactic then ours; what did you mean then?

what growing public pressure and how did any of this stop it

More voices + more media = more pressure on people in power to reform these things to be sure of avoiding resistance. These things don't immediately threaten class rule because they're not geared towards socialism (or we'd have barely any support behind us and wouldn't have even been able to cause changes at Snapperfest or at PA Roundups). Why would the ruling class, risk any type of resistance when you risk nothing by just reforming these things?

and if they had jumped at this opportunity to incarcerate people into the PIC?

Then that wouldn't be optimal but at the very least we'd have no more roundups. A few organizers incarcerated is a lot better than a a dozen rattlesnake roundups that brutalize animals, are ecological disasters, and perpetuate people's irrational fears.

so you did it to add numbers to your organization

Yeah obviously. We need all the help we can get. You think Snapperfest would've ever went if it were just half a dozen socialists and nobody appealed to the masses? Unfortunately things don't work that way right now.

there aren't a ton of 'revolutionaries' anywhere

Yes, and there are even fewer in Texas and Oklahoma, that's exactly my point.

I never said anything about WMD's being used

This was obviously a hyperbole used to make a point. Surely you recognized that...

I'm not doubting that reforms have been made but can you provide a couple links at least proving that this stuff is now illegal directly because of 'your methods' I think this forum could do with more linking to alleged happenings.

Here's one for a start: http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/dnr-says-snapperfest-will-not-take-place-this-year

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

10th June 2013, 23:09

Skyhilist

10th June 2013, 23:16

Here is something you are missing: the Class nature of the US State.

This isn't a class war thing. Reforming these roundups doesn't threaten "the class nature of the US state", because educational roundups that don't kill or brutalize their snakes still make as much revenue as when they're cruelty them (for example the Claxton, GA roundup voluntarily reformed and hasn't lost money as a result.) lets be clear, this isn't a threat to capitalism or class rule. That's why it's in non-political. What these reforms do accomplish on the other hand is the elimination an inhumane and irrational aspect of an event.

Sam_b

11th June 2013, 14:39

But no, we're not like PETA in that we don't rely on sheer sensationalism.

I feel you keep saying this to try and make yourself feel better and to justify it rather than it having any real meaning.

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th June 2013, 21:17

I'm not into animal rights, but I certainly think that practices which necessarily involve the deliberate torture of sentient beings should be discouraged.

I never even knew before about these "rattlesnake roundups" and it's disappointing news because snakes are beautiful creatures who can be quite cunning. My family had a pet corn snake who had learnt how slide open the door of his glass cage by leaning his body against it and pushing to side, and from then on he might be found anywhere inside the house, which made looking for him difficult. He was foxed by the addition of some sticky tape, however.

Since I doubt that anyone here has any real objections to not being pointlessly cruel to snakes, what's the problem again?

conservation is ecocide in disguise

What ridiculous nonsense. Conservation is partly the reason that there are green spaces in the UK bigger than a golf course.

I guess since conservation isn't all it's cracked up to be, we can forget about managing the land sustainably and we might as well get rid of all natural parks. Don't be deceived by all the plants and trees and the wild animals one can occasionally see milling about. It's just a ruse cooked up by those devious conservationists, they're actually robots made to look like nature in order to disguise their true purpose as pollution spewing chemical factories. You thought that was a cloudy hillside? Turns out they're actually smokestacks or something.

But seriously, how do you justify such a ludicrous statement? You might think that conservationist practices often don't go far enough, and I would agree with you, but that's a far cry from "conservation is ecocide in disguise".

Ele'ill

11th June 2013, 23:55

But seriously, how do you justify such a ludicrous statement? You might think that conservationist practices often don't go far enough, and I would agree with you, but that's a far cry from "conservation is ecocide in disguise".

is not going 'far enough' even worth anything at all it doesn't sound like it, why doesn't it go far enough, is it because it has become a business which is now the main purpose of the various organizations allegedly down with 'conservation'? When you and I talk of conservation I think we should use a different word because it has lost its meaning and at this point 'conservation' is a word/talking point used in blatant green washing for money and this is not even mentioning the DOI or the hundreds of groups striving to make the planet better being used as PR pawns and granted permission- granted permission by people who are allowing the earth to get scorched elsewhere.

Skyhilist

12th June 2013, 00:07

I feel you keep saying this to try and make yourself feel better and to justify it rather than it having any real meaning.

Perhaps you should actually do some research before assuming things.

This isn't an animal rights campaign, it's about common sense and of course eliminating the cruel acts done to these snakes. I try to emphasize that we're not PETA because that's the assumption on here that's often made of any group that supports animal welfare. If you think I just tell myself this to make myself feel better, then you've clearly done no research into the group. Most don't even consider themselves supporters of animal rights, many are herpetologists themselves, and arguments based sheerly on emotion are not relied upon by the group. But hey, it's revleft, why waste the opportunity to blindly point fingers, right?!

Decolonize The Left

12th June 2013, 01:06

is not going 'far enough' even worth anything at all it doesn't sound like it, why doesn't it go far enough, is it because it has become a business which is now the main purpose of the various organizations allegedly down with 'conservation'? When you and I talk of conservation I think we should use a different word because it has lost its meaning and at this point 'conservation' is a word/talking point used in blatant green washing for money and this is not even mentioning the DOI or the hundreds of groups striving to make the planet better being used as PR pawns and granted permission- granted permission by people who are allowing the earth to get scorched elsewhere.

Conservationism is very important to the working class in many ways:
- In the United States, the first national park was established on the grounds of conservationism. Millions of working class people flood to the national parks every year to get a break from work/life/whatever.
- Countless species live and/or migrate through conserved lands allowing the overall animal ecosystem to better wear the detrimental impact of capitalism.
- The entire CA coast is a form of conservationism which maintains the quality of coastal waters and the sensitive ecosystems within, including the habitats of many endangered keystone species such as the CA sea otter (don't mess with the otters yo). Millions of working class people live on this coast and/or use it for both recreation and fishing.
- Conservation of natural areas directly improves the quality of life in nearby non-conserved areas by improving the air and water quality in the overall ecosystem. This, in turn, affects the people living in the nearby areas.
- Conservation inherently diversifies ecosystems - a tenet which is of key significance in biological survival.
- Conservation preserves areas which are important to human beings and our relationship to a wild land. We often lose our understanding of what a wild land might look like, or what it did look like, and so conservationism strengthens the relationship of the working class to its own history as a species.

It is certainly valuable to be realistic about the current system of conservationism and how it is often used to the benefit of the capitalist class, BUT, this in no way detracts from the inherent benefits of conservationism which are of vital and absolute importance to all members of the working class.

Or so it seems to me. I see no reason why we shouldn't support all forms of conservationism on the simple grounds that human industry is not managed in the interest of the health of the planet and its denizens and as such it follows that to conserve portions of the planet for the inherent benefit of all is of great importance.

Ele'ill

12th June 2013, 01:37

It is certainly valuable to be realistic about the current system of conservationism and how it is often used to the benefit of the capitalist class,

through green washing and the destruction that follows in its wake, but hey, so long as we have neat little walk in ecosystems paid for literally by the rapid death of the entire biosphere.

BUT, this in no way detracts from the inherent benefits of conservationism which are of vital and absolute importance to all members of the working class.the difference is between conservation 'as a concept' and what 'actually takes place'

Or so it seems to me. I see no reason why we shouldn't support all forms of conservationism on the simple grounds that human industry is not managed in the interest of the health of the planet and its denizens and as such it follows that to conserve portions of the planet for the inherent benefit of all is of great importance.I think the answer to this is obvious. Because capitalist investment in conservation and the organizational structure/direction of conservationism has less to do with 'protecting the planet' as an action and more to do with 'protecting the planet' as a brand with the purpose of protecting dollars.

Could you and I and some other users sit around and come up with some conservation ideas that were legit? Probably. Does current conservationism allow for or contribute to unsustainable resource harvesting, ecocide, and other atrocious shit? Yes.

Tenka

12th June 2013, 02:08

Something tells me most of RevLeft doesn't give a shit about snakes. :(
Maybe if there were dolphin round-ups of a similar nature a thread on that wouldn't have shifted so much focus to the bourgeoisness of bourgeois legality and the insufficiency of bourgeois conservation efforts.

Ele'ill

12th June 2013, 02:17

Sam_b

12th June 2013, 02:21

Perhaps you should actually do some research before assuming things.

How does one conduct research into why someone keeps saying something over and over again? I didn't comment on the organisation, I commented on its complete irrelevance to anything that anyone is talking about, and that you seem to keep saying it to make yourself feel better.

Decolonize The Left

12th June 2013, 02:44

through green washing and the destruction that follows in its wake, but hey, so long as we have neat little walk in ecosystems paid for literally by the rapid death of the entire biosphere.

This isn't really an argument, though. It sounds like you're generalizing and saying that if it's associated with capitalism it has no benefits in it.

the difference is between conservation 'as a concept' and what 'actually takes place'

Fair enough.

I think the answer to this is obvious. Because capitalist investment in conservation and the organizational structure/direction of conservationism has less to do with 'protecting the planet' as an action and more to do with 'protecting the planet' as a brand with the purpose of protecting dollars.

Could you and I and some other users sit around and come up with some conservation ideas that were legit? Probably. Does current conservationism allow for or contribute to unsustainable resource harvesting, ecocide, and other atrocious shit? Yes.

Well, now you have an issue. Is the real deal protecting the planet or the reasons behind why one is protecting the planet? It sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

I think the simplest question is whether or not the working class benefits as a whole from conservationism. I see very few ways in which we don't - and, perhaps most importantly, the ways in which we don't aren't due to conservationism, but due to capitalism.

Ele'ill

12th June 2013, 03:33

This isn't really an argument, though. It sounds like you're generalizing and saying that if it's associated with capitalism it has no benefits in it.

Not really at all what I said. What I said was that large scale destruction of the biosphere is occurring by groups paying for 'conservation' green washing and the conservation organizations double timing it in-tune to keep their funds flowing and their organization as big as possible. The smaller groups aspire and seek to influence political power and are used as such.

Fair enough.

yes, the main point amidst all of this.

Well, now you have an issue. Is the real deal protecting the planet or the reasons behind why one is protecting the planet? It sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

What?

I think the simplest question is whether or not the working class benefits as a whole from conservationism.

I like the 'as a whole' clause in this because it is a totally relevant one.

I see very few ways in which we don't - and, perhaps most importantly, the ways in which we don't aren't due to conservationism, but due to capitalism.

The actual thing, conservation, as I mentioned before, as with most great ideas, doesn't exist within the framework of capitalism and has become assimilated and is a part of it. Big surprise.

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th June 2013, 08:08

is not going 'far enough' even worth anything at all it doesn't sound like it, why doesn't it go far enough, is it because it has become a business which is now the main purpose of the various organizations allegedly down with 'conservation'?

No, it's because there are other profit-oriented interests which more often than not have more money and power than even the largest/most mainstream conservation societies, which said interests constantly act against. If conservation is a business, then that is because there is capital to be gained from such activities and their fruits. Raging against conservation on that basis makes you look as silly as opposing solar panels because they're built and sold for profit. That's as may be, but that doesn't change the fact that solar energy is a renewable resource.

When you and I talk of conservation I think we should use a different word because it has lost its meaning and at this point 'conservation' is a word/talking point used in blatant green washing for money

The fact that companies are using increasing amounts of eco-friendly buzzwords does not obviate the very real existence of such things as nature reserves, restrictions on urban sprawl and emissions controls - the last of which is why cities like London no longer experience smog. These and others are real improvements despite their relative paucity and I think it's unnecessarily churlish of you to dismiss them out of hand the way you seem to be doing.

and this is not even mentioning the DOI or the hundreds of groups striving to make the planet better being used as PR pawns and granted permission- granted permission by people who are allowing the earth to get scorched elsewhere.

The co-option of the environmental message isn't the fault of conservation. It's a natural and inevitable defence mechanism of capital. Who's being granted "permission" for anything? It's not Greenpeace or the Sierra Club that's felling the Amazon rainforest. It's loggers and ranchers acting at the behest of an entire series of amoral profit-seeking entities whose combined wealth and power rivals the GDP of entire countries.

I mean, it's almost as if the problem is ultimately rooted in a global economic system based on capital and its accumulation, rather than the welfare of the world and its inhabitants. But that does not mean there is no utility in trying to limit the damage.

Jimmie Higgins

12th June 2013, 08:41

This side discussion on conservation is pretty interesting. Mari3L is right in my view, but I also think it's too broad of a brush and I don't think it's necissarily the shape of how some of these issues necissarily play out. There are consiously pro-market environmentalists, there are de-facto market environmentalists (who may see capitalism as a part of the problem, but think that we have to make realistic or 'business-friendly' proposals); and these are the two domant trends, but there are also reform environmentalists, and radical environmentalists - so, the whole spectrum aside from the social-right-wing are basically represented in ideas around these issues.

Because of this the idea of what conservation means is totally different to different people. For the liberals and pro-market people, conservation is an issue of policy and maybe "short-sighted" government or business development are issues. But conservation in the abstract doesn't really mean much, I think ultimately it's a social question. Conservation can be driven for nationalistic reasons, for wanting to raise property values, for wanting to live without an exhaust pipe or sewage treatment plant up your nose all day. If we fight to "preserve nature" it doesn't mean much, but I think we should fight for more control over development and how resources are used and things produced and which hill the shit flows down to (metaphorically). This makes environmentalism something that involves class power because the rich will always live above the floodlines and smog banks.

Ele'ill

12th June 2013, 18:06

I'm not an idiot I'm sure we can spot-pick events, periods of time, etc.. where conservation efforts were engaged in more radical struggles and flat out brawls, victories or not. My contention is with the latent citizen-laziness of radicals that causes a failure in adequate in-depth critique of capital, institutions, and organizations and their relationship with one another.

No, it's because there are other profit-oriented interests which more often than not have more money and power than even the largest/most mainstream conservation societies, which said interests constantly act against. If conservation is a business, then that is because there is capital to be gained from such activities and their fruits. Raging against conservation on that basis makes you look as silly as opposing solar panels because they're built and sold for profit. That's as may be, but that doesn't change the fact that solar energy is a renewable resource.

I am not raging against 'conservation' as I hope you, and I, desire it to be. I think you are underestimating or flat out missing the point that when conservation operates the way it currently does, in its specific organizational structure, essentially controlled by business model sop both internally and from entities outside of it (ones with incentive to destroy the earth, and incentive to continue doing so) that the purpose of these organizations are an integral part of empire and thus at the end of the day serve empire and not progress. This is not something that we should embrace as radicals.

The fact that companies are using increasing amounts of eco-friendly buzzwords does not obviate the very real existence of such things as nature reserves, restrictions on urban sprawl and emissions controls - the last of which is why cities like London no longer experience smog. These and others are real improvements despite their relative paucity and I think it's unnecessarily churlish of you to dismiss them out of hand the way you seem to be doing.

I'm not dismissing singular issues I'm pursuing a more adequate critique of the long term systemic harm associated with having 'progress groups' acting as integrated public relations and clean up crews for empire.

The co-option of the environmental message isn't the fault of conservation. It's a natural and inevitable defence mechanism of capital. Who's being granted "permission" for anything? It's not Greenpeace or the Sierra Club that's felling the Amazon rainforest. It's loggers and ranchers acting at the behest of an entire series of amoral profit-seeking entities whose combined wealth and power rivals the GDP of entire countries.

I mean, it's almost as if the problem is ultimately rooted in a global economic system based on capital and its accumulation, rather than the welfare of the world and its inhabitants. But that does not mean there is no utility in trying to limit the damage.

I think the utility in trying to limit the damage has already been calculated.

Decolonize The Left

13th June 2013, 05:15

I am not raging against 'conservation' as I hope you, and I, desire it to be. I think you are underestimating or flat out missing the point that when conservation operates the way it currently does, in its specific organizational structure, essentially controlled by business model sop both internally and from entities outside of it (ones with incentive to destroy the earth, and incentive to continue doing so) that the purpose of these organizations are an integral part of empire and thus at the end of the day serve empire and not progress. This is not something that we should embrace as radicals.

I am confused. Empire encompasses a great many things within our current society. What are we, in your mind, encouraged to embrace if we cannot embrace anything with traces of it? Also, is it not possible to tactically embrace multiple fronts of action? I.e. conservationism as applicable in one sense and community-repossession of public lands as another? The latter would be applicable with an abandoned lot in a city whereas the former would be applicable with something like Glacier National Park.

I'm not dismissing singular issues I'm pursuing a more adequate critique of the long term systemic harm associated with having 'progress groups' acting as integrated public relations and clean up crews for empire.

I am beginning to see your point and appreciate your perspective. Yet I am confused at to the conclusions you're drawing therefrom. Whether or not the 'progress groups' are acting as you say (and I agree with you) doesn't negate the tangible impact of their actions on the physical locales in this discussion.

I think the utility in trying to limit the damage has already been calculated.

I don't understand what you mean by this. It may be calculated but it isn't acted upon and hence it's worthless?

I wrote out a whole scenario involving sea otters to explain my point, but:
In short, I'm claiming that conservation is materially beneficial to the working class and the planet in almost all scenarios and hence should be conditionally supported on these grounds.

Ele'ill

13th June 2013, 20:59

I am confused. Empire encompasses a great many things within our current society. What are we, in your mind, encouraged to embrace if we cannot embrace anything with traces of it?

It's more than traces of it, like the example earlier by Noxion with the solar panels I think that's a completely different thing. It's not about something just having to do with capital that's way too vague and 'duh'-like what I mean is that the organizations themselves and conservation as an idea has changed from what it was or maybe in many cases it always has been an actual facet of control, acting as more than a safety valve in that it allows for the destroyers to control the struggle against them.

Even scrolling through radical enviro-news like Earth First Journal you can pick up on just how scripted the entire conservation strata actually is and that isn't a plug for Earth First by any stretch. The levels of corruption are to be expected, the radical dismissal or acceptance of it is a bit shocking.

Also, is it not possible to tactically embrace multiple fronts of action? I.e. conservationism as applicable in one sense and community-repossession of public lands as another? The latter would be applicable with an abandoned lot in a city whereas the former would be applicable with something like Glacier National Park.When I was quite a bit younger (but still holding the views I have now to some degree which I think is the important point) I was involved in conservation and unionizing efforts and other such stuff that now leaves me with too bitter a taste to participate in (although this depends greatly on the specifics that I don't really care to get into on here). Basically the position I'd expect from radicals is something without the, at least what I perceived as, a smug and lazy defense of something that is intentionally being used for good by 'empire', 'status quo', I dunno if 'the existent' is appropriate here etc..

So yes, I'm okay with multiple fronts, of course, but I just don't think that the current conservation movements are worth anything at all, and most of it probably never was.

I am beginning to see your point and appreciate your perspective. Yet I am confused at to the conclusions you're drawing therefrom. Whether or not the 'progress groups' are acting as you say (and I agree with you) doesn't negate the tangible impact of their actions on the physical locales in this discussion.Definitely but can we call short term victories victories or progress in light of what has been a never ending paper battle on the enemy's terms while systemic destruction of the planet continues to exponentially increase? I'm not saying 'here's the solution', btw, because I don't have one

I wrote out a whole scenario involving sea otters to explain my point, but:
In short, I'm claiming that conservation is materially beneficial to the working class and the planet in almost all scenarios and hence should be conditionally supported on these grounds.Conservation as it currently exists should be sunk because the same organizations funding the protection of sea otters are killing thousands and millions of other things elsewhere and that's not a relationship that I can take seriously at all. "Pave paradise and put up a shopping mall' but the shopping malls are these walk in natural department store tourist centers, the rugged wild is still up for negotiation and still under attack

Skyhilist

13th June 2013, 21:03

How does one conduct research into why someone keeps saying something over and over again? I didn't comment on the organisation, I commented on its complete irrelevance to anything that anyone is talking about, and that you seem to keep saying it to make yourself feel better.

No I mean do some research if you actually think that it's a logical assumption that we're "like PETA" (which would have to be true in the first place for me to have to have to lie to myself about it to make myself feel better).

Fawkes

17th June 2013, 21:46

Dude, you're basically asking to just be pissed off. You live in Connecticut, what could you possibly do to stop a shitty, yes, but not absolutely outrageous practice all the way in Texas? Start closer to home, your stress levels will thank you. Connecticut is a ridiculously fucked up state, try doing some stuff there where you can have a real involvement in what's going on. I mean, come on, you're trying to stop people halfway across the country from killing snakes by calling the fucking pigs on them?

Decolonize The Left

18th June 2013, 03:39

Definitely but can we call short term victories victories or progress in light of what has been a never ending paper battle on the enemy's terms while systemic destruction of the planet continues to exponentially increase?

This seems to be the real question then, doesn't it? It appears as though NoX and myself are willing to attribute conserving wild areas as a general victory in a rather absolutist sense. I.e. capitalism destroys the planet, hence any areas somewhat isolated from this engine are good. Obviously neither of us advocate conservationism alone (I feel it's fair to put these words in NoX's mouth), but advocate it as an alternative to not having it at all.

Conservation as it currently exists should be sunk because the same organizations funding the protection of sea otters are killing thousands and millions of other things elsewhere and that's not a relationship that I can take seriously at all. "Pave paradise and put up a shopping mall' but the shopping malls are these walk in natural department store tourist centers, the rugged wild is still up for negotiation and still under attack

Hmm... but by that logic shouldn't welfare be sunk? And social security? And medicaid?

Skyhilist

18th June 2013, 04:13

Dude, you're basically asking to just be pissed off. You live in Connecticut, what could you possibly do to stop a shitty, yes, but not absolutely outrageous practice all the way in Texas?

Why do you find it to NOT be absolutely outrageous? But actually, yes there are things I can do. For example, I've developed opinion-based and fact based surveys that show that rattlesnake roundups engaging in animal cruelty perpetuate ophidiophobia and decrease education about snakes, where the no-kill ones (e.g. in PA) tend to do the opposite. In fact, I live only a few hours from PA so I can even give out surveys there and have also presented at conferences filled with people around the country on this (including OK and TX). And since I've also developed such polls and sending things digitally isn't a problem if you live in different regions, the polls that I make to demonstrate the things can be used by people fighting in OK and TX as well. Just because I problem doesn't occur in your own backyard doesn't mean it's not worth addressing. I'm very passionate about snakes. Screw you if you don't think I should be pursuing blatant animal cruelty that's decimating these animals regardless of how far away they are.

Start closer to home, your stress levels will thank you. Connecticut is a ridiculously fucked up state, try doing some stuff there where you can have a real involvement in what's going on. I mean, come on, you're trying to stop people halfway across the country from killing snakes by calling the fucking pigs on them?

This isn't the only thing I'm involved with. Of course I also do things closer to home. And no, we weren't calling the cops asking for people's arrest. We were asking them to enforce bans on the events before they could even occur, and we FULLY expected that they wouldn't listen. But, by proving that we've already tried that route we eliminate excuses that can be used against our movement and get more people on board. So legal routes are often illogical, and conservatives are incapable of seeing that. That doesn't mean we can't use help; REGARDLESS of political affiliation, as it's not a political movement. But believe me, I'm not just ignoring issues in my home state.

Ele'ill

20th June 2013, 22:34

This seems to be the real question then, doesn't it? It appears as though NoX and myself are willing to attribute conserving wild areas as a general victory in a rather absolutist sense. I.e. capitalism destroys the planet, hence any areas somewhat isolated from this engine are good. Obviously neither of us advocate conservationism alone (I feel it's fair to put these words in NoX's mouth), but advocate it as an alternative to not having it at all.

Hmm... but by that logic shouldn't welfare be sunk? And social security? And medicaid?

I would say none of this is good, none of it is enough, a lot of the focus and energy into it is probably counter productive and naive or laden with other intentions. When we say 'conservation' in either of the examples you use are we conserving or are we losing ground. It is because of how we have come to understand and participate in conservation and struggle.

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/articles/big-greenwashing-101/

Skyhilist

20th June 2013, 22:55

I would say none of this is good, none of it is enough, a lot of the focus and energy into it is probably counter productive and naive or laden with other intentions. When we say 'conservation' in either of the examples you use are we conserving or are we losing ground. It is because of how we have come to understand and participate in conservation and struggle.

http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/articles/big-greenwashing-101/

The options right now are not a) capitalism without conservation b) capitalism with conservation or c) Eco-socialism.

The only of those three that are going to happen (sadly) in the immediate future are options a or b. Would you really rather have option a than b? Because ecosocialism is a long term goal and not something that's going to happen immediately, and the wildlife obviously fares better if something, palliative or not, is being done to conserve them rather than nothing.

Ele'ill

21st June 2013, 00:20

The options right now are not a) capitalism without conservation b) capitalism with conservation

when conservation has become a part of capitalism (to the extent that it has) is it a method of struggle or a mechanism serving capital, it's own market with its own purpose, without any subversive traits at all, and at what point as radicals do we rethink the concept even if it means attacking and killing it's harmful tendencies, or abandoning it outright and carrying on by other assorted means

The only of those three that are going to happen (sadly) in the immediate future are options a or b.

probably, probably something worse, but why are we letting that decide our own methods of struggle?

Would you really rather have option a than b?

option b is option a

and the wildlife obviously fares better

the spared wildlife of the quarter

Skyhilist

21st June 2013, 02:24

Do you really think endangered species care about our "methods of struggle"? Things like the Endangered Species Act has saved numerous species. When it was being made, should we have said "lets be against this, it's a part of capitalism"? Because if everyone had that attitude at a time where socialism doesn't loom on the horizon, many more species would likely be extinct.

Skyhilist

21st June 2013, 02:26

What I'm trying to say is, even though conservation under capitalism is obviously not optimal, you're going against the only chance that some of these animals have right now by opposing conservation efforts just because you think they're reformist/insufficient/whatever. It's not an optimal situation, but that's the way it currently is.

Ele'ill

21st June 2013, 23:59

Do you really think endangered species care about our "methods of struggle"?

Regarding their survival, yes, although that is an oddly worded question. If current efforts are marred with faux-action to appease what are essentially capitalist investors - yes that is something worth criticizing and abandoning.

Things like the Endangered Species Act has saved numerous species. When it was being made, should we have said "lets be against this, it's a part of capitalism"? Because if everyone had that attitude at a time where socialism doesn't loom on the horizon, many more species would likely be extinct.

this is not the point that I am making and I think you should reread my posts and read the article I linked to

also the ESA is barely holding/hasn't held and is under attack like everything else and why do you think it was implemented

Ele'ill

22nd June 2013, 00:11

but that's the way it currently is

capitalism is the way things currently are, this is an anti-capitalist forum

Skyhilist

23rd June 2013, 03:33

Regarding their survival, yes, although that is an oddly worded question. If current efforts are marred with faux-action to appease what are essentially capitalist investors - yes that is something worth criticizing and abandoning.

Worth it if abandoning meant replacing it with something else, sure. But if it were abandoned now it would just mean that animals would get no protections at all. Would Bald eagles have been better off had the Endangered Species Act been abandoned when their populations were dwindling and they'd been given no protections?

this is not the point that I am making and I think you should reread my posts and read the article I linked to

also the ESA is barely holding/hasn't held and is under attack like everything else and why do you think it was implemented

What the ESA does is gives threatened animals at least some level of protection, legally, even under capitalism. That's what we're trying to do at RARR. What else are we going to do? Overthrow the roundups by force or some shit like that? The few of us who were willing to do that would be arrested and the roundups would continue. Imagine if people had taken an approach like that towards Snapperfest. It'd still exist. If you've got an alternative that actually works to the approach that we've been taking (mind you, an approach that's eliminated events like Snapperfest in the past), then please, we'd love to hear your suggestions. But don't complain when you've got no better solutions.

Skyhilist

23rd June 2013, 03:35

capitalism is the way things currently are, this is an anti-capitalist forum

Yes of course. Not my point. My point is that anti-capitalist ways of dealing this wont be successful in the immediate future because we're living under capitalism and the people living in the affected areas could typically care less about that. It'd be like trying to stage a revolution with half a dozen class conscious people.

Ele'ill

23rd June 2013, 17:56

Worth it if abandoning meant replacing it with something else, sure.

Given the critiques I presented and the ones present in the articles I linked to what should replace it?

What the ESA does is gives threatened animals at least some level of protection, legally, even under capitalism. That's what we're trying to do at RARR. What else are we going to do? Overthrow the roundups by force or some shit like that?

I never said anything about 'FORCE' but I find it alarming that a radical can sneer about direct action 'alienating the masses' but then turn and use the cops, courts, and law, the most violent trio in existence to resolve their single issue crusades.

The few of us who were willing to do that would be arrested and the roundups would continue. Imagine if people had taken an approach like that towards Snapperfest. It'd still exist.

So when that ecosystem is disrupted and those snapping turtles die from some other cause what will you do? What will you do as integral neighboring ecosystems or even select communities or species die? Loopholes in various Acts/Laws? Lack of funding? Funding to conservation organizations from earth destroyers with the intent to control 'actual conservation' and resistance?

If you've got an alternative that actually works to the approach that we've been taking (mind you, an approach that's eliminated events like Snapperfest in the past), then please, we'd love to hear your suggestions. But don't complain when you've got no better solutions.

this is as empty as 'but that's just the way it currently is'. By 'complain' you surely mean 'critique' and that doesn't require a prerequisite sweeping solution to a problem you know probably likely has none. Especially not since I've illustrated how conservation works more for capital than for the planet.

I assume since you still haven't quite grasped what I am saying as is evident in your replies (I am probably not being clear, it might be my fault or it might just be the need for time and experience with you doing what you want to do to see it for yourself and maybe come up with critiques and solutions even beyond my own which is entirely possible and probably more desirable than this exchange here) I want to encourage you (in a non-condescending way) to continue what you are doing but be more critical of what you are doing and what other organizations are doing. To never talk to cops or set cops on people even if it's not your intention and only a possibility of something that might happen, and get another tool bag because the methods you have described in this thread, those two main examples, have been the status quo of struggle both environmental and other and can't liberate the planet or its inhabitants. At least not by themselves.

Decolonize The Left

27th June 2013, 05:08

When we say 'conservation' in either of the examples you use are we conserving or are we losing ground. It is because of how we have come to understand and participate in conservation and struggle.

I read the article and it was interesting but the above quote is more interesting to me. Can you elaborate on this? I get what you mean by the dichotomy of conservation vs. losing ground; this makes sense and unfortunately it is indeed how I think many of us perceive the situation. Are you saying that this framing of the situation is itself the problem?

Skyhilist

27th June 2013, 05:56

Given the critiques I presented and the ones present in the articles I linked to what should replace it?

Obviously Eco-socialism in the long term. My point is though fighting against certain strategies that have any chance of providing any protection to wildlife (e.g. ESA) because they're reformist is counterproductive because there ISN'T going to be anything to replace them if they don't exist.

I never said anything about 'FORCE' but I find it alarming that a radical can sneer about direct action 'alienating the masses' but then turn and use the cops, courts, and law, the most violent trio in existence to resolve their single issue crusades.

You're still being incredibly vague and haven't even said yet what kinds of things you mean by 'direct action' in this situation. Here is the bottom line. Whether you like the methods we've used our not, the fact is that they've actually WORKED in the past to eliminate things like Snapperfest. What would 'direct action' in this case do? Get a few revolutionaries arrested? Sure maybe if enough people engaged in it it would help but we don't have that type of radical support in states like Oklahoma and Texas, so why not use the methods that we already know work for shelving reforms? The goal is to stop killing snakes at roundups in this particular situation, not to wage Eco-socialist revolution, because we don't have enough people for the latter to be possible.

So when that ecosystem is disrupted and those snapping turtles die from some other cause what will you do? What will you do as integral neighboring ecosystems or even select communities or species die? Loopholes in various Acts/Laws? Lack of funding? Funding to conservation organizations from earth destroyers with the intent to control 'actual conservation' and resistance?

I'm not saying reforms are the be all end all savior for wildlife. I'm saying that they're better than having absolutely nothing in place (no ESA, no nothing) in place under capitalism to protect wildlife. Would you rather have turtles being brutalized AND facing habitat loss? Because that's what sitting around complaining about (critiquing as you call it) "oh, the new protections for turtles are reformist and not good enough" would get us if we all went in looking at it that way. It's pretty simple in this case. The animals are better off without events like Snapperfest. We eliminated events like Snapperfest. That's an improvement. I can imagine you sitting around when people were fighting for an 8 hours work week sitting around saying "oh minor concessions don't matter, they're still exploited." Imagine that, if every revolutionary just sat on their ass and did that. The working class would still be working every day in first world countries even from dawn till dusk.

this is as empty as 'but that's just the way it currently is'. By 'complain' you surely mean 'critique' and that doesn't require a prerequisite sweeping solution to a problem you know probably likely has none. Especially not since I've illustrated how conservation works more for capital than for the planet.

Answer me a simple question. Lets assume that their are no immediate future hopes for Eco-socialism and that regardless of your answer to the following capitalism (for the time being) still exists. Are rattlesnakes better off with or without rattlesnake roundups? If your answer is the latter then why oppose any effort to achieve it when you've got no viable alternative, especially when it's been a method that's worked for things like eliminating Snapperfest. We're not just calling up the cops and saying "oh hi please arrest these people." We're building up our case by proving that nobody working within the law at local levels gives a shit about these events. There aren't short term solutions that are going to stop the brutalization of snakes at roundups.

I assume since you still haven't quite grasped what I am saying as is evident in your replies (I am probably not being clear, it might be my fault or it might just be the need for time and experience with you doing what you want to do to see it for yourself and maybe come up with critiques and solutions even beyond my own which is entirely possible and probably more desirable than this exchange here) I want to encourage you (in a non-condescending way) to continue what you are doing but be more critical of what you are doing and what other organizations are doing. To never talk to cops or set cops on people even if it's not your intention and only a possibility of something that might happen, and get another tool bag because the methods you have described in this thread, those two main examples, have been the status quo of struggle both environmental and other and can't liberate the planet or its inhabitants. At least not by themselves.

For the long term struggle, you're absolutely right, legal methods don't work. But we're simply trying to stop the brutalization of snakes at an event here. The only reason this approach wouldn't work is if it represented a threat to anyone's class rule, which incidentally is the reason these methods don't work for achieving revolution. Roundups that don't kill snakes don't make any less money though. So it's not threatening anyone's class rule. Neither did the elimination Snapperfest really. That's why these methods work for winning reforms. Of course the long term goal of socialism won't be achieved via these methods or for creating an overall sustainable planet. I recognize that and wouldn't be a revolutionary if I didn't.