Best way to approach poaching under capitalism?

[Skyhilist]

Until the revolution comes, how should we deal with and try to eliminate poaching?

In my opinion, a good strategy would to be to make marks or stains on the prized parts of animals subject to poaching (e.g. mark up a tortoises shell) without hurting that animal but that would make the animal/its "valuable" parts worth much less (due to the aesthetic damage), causing it to no longer be economically viable for poachers to take the risk of illegally killing these animals to cash in on them/their "valuable" parts. This has already been done successfully with some tortoises, and I'd love to see it implemented with other commonly poached animals as well.

Any thoughts on other viable methods that can currently be used to combat poaching?

[TheCommunistManifestor]

I really don't think poaching can ever be stopped in a capitalist society. When somebody has a job that they have been doing their entire life, they won't stop just because it is illegal. There is no real transition from illegal activities as you have no experience nor an incentive.

[argeiphontes]

I haven't heard of the aesthetic damage, that's a great idea. Truthfully, I want poaching to be combatted with heavily-armed paramilitary police like at African national parks. Poachers have made their choice to be there and to commit unconscionable acts, so fuck them. Parks that can't afford to pay for protection could offer to let foreign militaries train there by catching poachers.

[Ember Catching]

Truthfully, I want poaching to be combatted with heavily-armed paramilitary police like at African national parks.
In other words, increasing the numerical and fighting strength of the forces at bourgeois disposal. Behold, the reactionary bottom-line of feel-good liberalism.

Parks that can't afford to pay for protection could offer to let foreign militaries train there by catching poachers.
If it's not already apparent, responses to poaching under the bourgeois order have, at best, nothing to offer the proletarian movement, and at worst, they work against it.

[argeiphontes]

In other words, increasing the numerical and fighting strength of the forces at bourgeois disposal. Behold, the reactionary bottom-line of feel-good liberalism.

If it's not already apparent, responses to poaching have, at best, nothing to do with the proletarian movement, and at worst, they work against it.

How do responses to poaching hurt the proletarian movement? Which proletarian movement do they hurt? How are anti-poaching forces going to be used against the proletarian movement? I thought communists were concrete thinkers. I prefer not to deal with pressing problem by using meaningless rhetoric, thank you.

[Ember Catching]

How do responses to poaching hurt the proletarian movement? Which proletarian movement do they hurt? How are anti-poaching forces going to be used against the proletarian movement? I thought communists were concrete thinkers. I prefer not to deal with pressing problem by using meaningless rhetoric, thank you.
You're kidding yourself if you believe a bourgeois régime will hesitate to press its entire war machine into service against a communist revolution. As soon as generalized unrest breaks out, the counterpoacher mandate will adjust accordingly: it's only a matter of time before heavily-armed paramilitaries combing the countryside for poachers are repurposed as death squads against a proletarian insurrection, or otherwise absorbed into the regular military forces.

For a communist party, demanding any action with a bourgeois, peasant, or workerist content against poaching represents a deviation of the party's activity from the proletarian historical mission, necessarily corresponding to a degree of misapplication of revolutionary energies and thus a general forestalling of the revival of the proletarian movement, the struggle for revolutionary dictatorship.

There's some "concrete thought" for you.

[argeiphontes]

No, you missed my point. The poaching going on NOW. Meanwhile, what proletarian revolution are you talking about? When is it happening? Ethical action NOW should not be abandoned because a revolution isn't about to break out, so it's just a non-sequitur to even talk about it in this context.

Maybe you want to pull all the doctors out of the hospitals now because they'll be needed in the revolution?

[Blake's Baby]

Right. Poaching rhino for their horns and whatnot. I thought you meant scrumping fish/birds from local landowners. Ah, what different worlds we live in.

There's nothing effective 'we' can do.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fuck allowing the bourgeoisie in to stop poaching.

Rather, reserves and safari parks should be given special dispensation to be able to use non-lethal or lethal force themselves, against poachers.

But that's really not addressing the cultural origins of poaching, i.e. there is a demand for things like elephant tusks and so on.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I haven't heard of the aesthetic damage, that's a great idea. Truthfully, I want poaching to be combatted with heavily-armed paramilitary police like at African national parks. Poachers have made their choice to be there and to commit unconscionable acts, so fuck them. Parks that can't afford to pay for protection could offer to let foreign militaries train there by catching poachers.

Words fail me.

What else needs to be fought with heavily-armed paramilitary police? Drug trafficking? Gun running? Terrorism? People who want to abolish the market? People who "steal" resources from their landlords? Maybe you can convince IOPS to chip in and help train the heavily-armed paramilitaries - but them a Chieftain MK2 or two, I saw one for sale for under 120 000 dollars.

[Ember Catching]

No, you missed my point. The poaching going on NOW. Meanwhile, what proletarian revolution are you talking about? When is it happening? Ethical action NOW should not be abandoned because a revolution isn't about to break out, so it's just a non-sequitur to even talk about it in this context.

Maybe you want to pull all the doctors out of the hospitals now because they'll be needed in the revolution?
And you've missed mine, which is that communists cannot endorse suppression of poaching under the bourgeois order (or indeed any action unaligned with the proletarian historical mission) for the reasons elucidated above, and which, on a discussion board paying at least some lip-service to communism, takes precedence over your liberalism. My point is valid whether a revolution occurs somewhere now or in several decades' time — in fact, it aims more broadly to prevent the latter scenario. Additionally, a strong, healthy, living, not dead proletariat is quite obviously a precondition for proletarian emancipation, but I certainly don't see anything objectionable about pressing medical personnel into the service of the revolution when necessity calls.

I don't know what "ethical action" is, but I'm sure you could much better defend your position with an appeal to the necessity of protecting biodiversity rather than an appeal to idealism. In any case, neither environmentalistic nor idealistic prejudices can be allowed to detract from communist praxis.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Until the revolution comes, how should we deal with and try to eliminate poaching?
Like so many issues, there is no effective way to deal with it under capitalism. Capitalist ideology is the cause of poaching, i.e. the profit motive.

[argeiphontes]

And you've missed mine, which is that communists cannot endorse suppression of poaching under the bourgeois order (or indeed any action unaligned with the proletarian historical mission) for the reasons elucidated above, and which, on a discussion board paying at least some lip-service to communism, takes precedence over your liberalism.


It's not liberalism, it's pragmatism.

[Ember Catching]

It's not liberalism, it's pragmatism.
You are quite right to infer you disregard communist principles, but now you need to make up your mind whether your position is based on pragmatic considerations or, as per your previous post, "ethical" dogma.

[Slavic]

If it's not already apparent, responses to poaching under the bourgeois order have, at best, nothing to offer the proletarian movement, and at worst, they work against it.

Does the act of poaching actually deter proletarian movements or are we just being moralists when it comes to endangered species?

What else should we do, burn opium/cocoa plantations and force farmers to grow corn and starve from the devaluation of their product?

We are humans, our very existence is detrimental to the environment, especially large game animals. How about we worry about more relevant things like finding out why people resort to poaching to put food on their table.

[Skyhilist]

Like so many issues, there is no effective way to deal with it under capitalism. Capitalist ideology is the cause of poaching, i.e. the profit motive.

Yes but the method I mentioned makes poaching unprofitable, so I don't see why that wouldn't be a valid until a revolution.

Also I should probably rephrase things - I don't mean how can "we" actually stop poaching, because I'm guessing the vast majority of us aren't in positions to make important decisions about conserving animals right now. What I mean is, if you were the one making policy decisions (but couldn't just make it a policy to abolish capitalism), what would you do in the meantime?

[Ember Catching]

Does the act of poaching actually deter proletarian movements
I explicitly stated that it was anti-poaching initiatives which had the potential to subvert the proletarian movement in some respect, even if only to the slightest degree.

[Slavic]

I explicitly stated that it was anti-poaching initiatives which had the potential to subvert the proletarian movement in some respect, even if only to the slightest degree.

I am asking you if the act of poaching subverts proletarian movements because you framed your response in those terms.

[Blake's Baby]

...

If it's not already apparent, responses to poaching under the bourgeois order have, at best, nothing to offer the proletarian movement, and at worst, they work against it.


I am asking you if the act of poaching subverts proletarian movements because you framed your response in those terms.

Why is it that you can't see in Ember Catching's post what everyone else can see? They're not talking about poaching, they're talking about anti-poaching measures.

[Ember Catching]

I am asking you if the act of poaching subverts proletarian movements because you framed your response in those terms.
Only to the extent that competition between waged, legally-sanctioned hunters and waged poachers can subvert the revival of the proletarian movement.

[PhoenixAsh]

We can only stop poaching for exotic products when we abolish the need for these.products...ie...end capitalist society.

In the meantime...militarization of park rangers is shifting the culpability on those who seek to acquire a living. The demand is entirely bourgeois...and I have yet to hear some rich asshole who owns some newly shot tusks to be brought to serious jail time.

The problem is right there. Rich people demanding exotic stuff. When the bourgeoise countries were really serious about doing something about poaching they would cull demands by making owneeship of them highly illegal and punishable. Instead...they blame the poachers. Who are often extremely poor.

Figures.

[helot]

I think this is a bit of a disingenuous discussion tbh considering what differentiates poaching from hunting or fishing is legality and nothing more.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Poach the poachers. Organs are pretty valuable on the black market.


I think this is a bit of a disingenuous discussion tbh considering what differentiates poaching from hunting or fishing is legality and nothing more.

No, hunting implies or should imply hunting for food, clothing, materials, etc. using all of the animal. Not being fucking pricks like the assholes who hunt extinct or soon to be extinct rhino species because apparently a horn will make you horny and that's a reasonable exchange I guess. :(

[Blake's Baby]

Helps if what you say isn't bullshit Vox.

'Assholes' don't hunt rhino 'because rhino horn gets you horny'. Don't be such an orientalist arse about it.

People hunt rhino because other people pay lots of money for rhino horn. They pay a lot of money for rhino horn for two main reasons - traditional Yemeni daggers have rhino-horn handles, and rhino horn is used in traditional chinese medicine as an anti-pyretic.

Claiming it's about aphrodisiacs is pretty much equivalent to saying 'assholes' (I think you mean 'poor Africans' here) hunt rhinos because Chinese men have tiny cocks.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Helps if what you say isn't bullshit Vox.

Whatevs.


'Assholes' don't hunt rhino 'because rhino horn gets you horny'. Don't be such an orientalist arse about it.

The fuck? I centred on the use of it being used as a sexual stimulant as I feel it highlights the absurdity of what's being discussed even though I know it has numerous purported other uses as well, why? Because we are talking about a trade which has and continues to lead to the destruction of whole species which is arguably worse than genocide. This is essentially controlled extermination via the markets, why should I be charitable? I feel I should absolutely be extremely critical. It's this spread of this pseudomedicine that is one of the biggest if not only reason why there is a demand.


People hunt rhino because other people pay lots of money for rhino horn.

...and why is there such a demand driving this industry? The myth that rhino horn has medicinal properties which it has a resounding 0.


They pay a lot of money for rhino horn for two main reasons - traditional Yemeni daggers have rhino-horn handles, and rhino horn is used in traditional chinese medicine as an anti-pyretic.

Again it's this belief in this myth that it has any medical properties or value whatsoever that drives the market. People need to be made aware that all of this bullshit, in the politest terms. This a major way to approach the issue I feel as it address one of the root causes for people to go poach.


Claiming it's about aphrodisiacs is pretty much equivalent to saying 'assholes' (I think you mean 'poor Africans' here) hunt rhinos because Chinese men have tiny cocks.

Dude, it's been used under Chinese medicine as a sexual stimulant, get over it, again I used it as an example because where you would get the idea that a rhino horn would cure anything idk. It's 2014 and China has no excuse. It's not just rhino horn either. Tigers are also being poached as it is believed tiger dicks have aphrodisiac and therapeutic qualities as well (in addition to other parts of the tiger being used for equally silly treatments as well). This is a huge problem and while I can appreciate the plight of the Asiatic and African poachers, I do, again we're still talking about whole about the controlled extermination of multiple species, fueled by pseudomedical theories and the fur/pelt trade. Being critical of the causes of this trade and pointing out the absurdity is not being orientalist, it's called being a conservationist and spreading awareness.

[vijaya]

I live in rural England and people in the woodlands around me often poach the much endangered (in England) red deer. The wildlife crime units of the police patrol the common forestry paths and trails used by poachers, but not often enough. What's worse is the poachers use dogs usually, wound the animal with a gun then set mastiffs on them. It's barbaric and sickening. These are rare, beautiful creatures that must be protected from even legal cullings that have been proposed by the ecocidal agricultural and forestry organisations.

I'm apart of a group that sets up cameras to try and attempt to capture the identity of local poachers. We've had successful arrests, but the punishments for sadistic endangered deer murder is a mere slap on the wrist.