Toxn

You seem to have a weird idea of my position. More, you seem to want something specific from me here that I just can't wrap my head around. I've argued for efficiency, but you ignore the other options I raised (including the one that actually has a chance of solving the problem). I argued for doing the best you can give the need to remove the animals, but you don't seem like you'd be content until I agree to just let people do whatever they want. And when I point this out you seem to think that I'm painting you as some sort of blood-lusting savage. I've argued for ways in which the same exact thing could be accomplished in a less controversial fashion, but you seem to want me to endorse this very specific option instead. All of this makes me think we're talking about a third issue. And I bet it's got fuck-all to do with hog hunting and everything to do with allowing people to have their toys.

Cool, we seem to have reached substantial agreement on the underlying issues. From here, it seems as if we simply disagree as to whether the exact scenario is 'doing the best you can'. Per elephant hunting, .375 H&H would be considered way underpowered.

I think part of it is 'smartest man in the room' syndrome. Physicists really do have to be insanely smart and hard-working to get where they are. But it is also the very specific form of smart which predisposes you to think of other people as idiots. So these dudes bump into their fellow scientists (who often have to be stubborn and humble rather than particularly brilliant) and pretty much immediately think that they're children dicking around with toys rather than folk who spent a decade learning an enormous amount about a tiny field between bouts of having experiments puncture their hopes and dreams. From there, it is all to easy to decide that all the field needs is a clearing out of the dead wood, and the intervention of someone who can uncover and understand the underlying mathematical concepts that must underpin the whole thing. Notably, theoretical physicists are more prone to this sort of thing then their experimental counterparts.

Can I also mention that Alex looks even more Dexter-like (somehow) in that photo? I'm thinking we might have to either ban him from posting hunting shots or start a 'secret deleted scenes from the TV show' thread for fun and profit.

You are a weirdo, dude. I guess we should all be pretty glad you're not religious (I think?), as you'd be the sort to go around trying to argue that protestants are idol-worshipers by dint of not accepting the transubstantiation doctrine or something. Again, I would have a lot less problems with this scene if it involved good shot placement and a calibre considered more than suitable for the job (folk here pretty much start at .308 and work their way up). Can you honestly say that these yahoos, shooting from an unsteady platform as they are, are making the sort of good placement shots that you want for reliable killing with their 6.8s? I would honestly have a lot fewer problems if they were using an M2 or something (I don't even know how you'd organise a decent expanding tip for that), as it would make the placement a lot less problematic for the sort of shooting they're doing. Or else using something like .375 H&H and doing their best to hit behind the forequarters. But yeah, I also have a visceral problem with the idea of this type of helicopter culling, in pretty much the same way I'd have a visceral problem with a dude hosing a deer down with .22LR and leaving the carcass to rot. It just screams 'bad hunt' to me. So I'd want a lot of assurance that the folk doing it are taking the best possible course that they can in the circumstances (efficiency, discrimination etc.), rather than just indulging themselves in what would otherwise be condemned as bad practice simply because they can. The original video provides precisely no reassurance on that front.

Anyway, now that I've multiposted myself to death Sturgeon can remove this from the small arms thread and we can all high-five each other over grapefruit.

I mentioned the unaccountable weirdness.

Done:

Nearly there:

Quotepocalypse continues:

More:

We're not the whole audience (unless you thought this was a PM). Show the punters some context. Edit: Adding said context now. Freaking quote limits...

Are you going to include the rest of the conversation? Edit: Since Sturgeon is being unaccountably weird about this, here is the conversation to date: Stay tuned for more...

Okay, will do.

I'm happy to make a biocontrol thread.

I'm glad that you've retreated to using me as johnny foreigner here. Please feel free to trot out the yoeman farmer argument next, or defend the livelyhood of all the poor, struggling smallholdings that just need the obviously superior solution I'm objecting to to make it through the winter. It's inefficient for the reasons I described above: because you aren't making aimed shots, aren't apportioning shots equally and (potentially) aren't using a calibre suitable for the job. It's going to result in some dead animals, some wounded animals who will die later and some who will walk it off and come back next week. I'm not saying that pest control is clean or neat. Farmers here poison and trap here too. But I'm saying that there should be an obligation to do a good job and at least try to minimise suffering. This means using the most efficient methods (which this isn't), doing your best not to cause gratioutous harm (which this doesn't) and trying to extract as much value from the carcasses as you can (which this doesn't). I think it is time you drop this, as your need to argue has brought you to defending something that everyone with a pulse can see is silly.

I think you forget that we also have a long tradition of mass hunting to feed our love of biltong and venison. This means hundreds of animals taken in a single night, all by a small group of hunters backed up by what amounts to a mobile slaughter-house. And all with bolt guns. Try again.

I'm all for hunting a cape buffalo with a 37mm, but for the fact that you'd ruin the meat, hide and horns (which is hella wasteful). The problem with machinegunning the animals is that you're not delivering aimed shots. You're sure as fuck not doing it from a helo. So some of the hogs are going to get 5 bullets into the vitals and die instantly, and some are going to get a few in the wrong place and limp away to die of sepsis while you and your buddies fly home to jerk off and post youtube videos. For elephant culling we use helicopters, but we also use large-bore rifles or dart guns loaded for instant death (as a by-the-by, an elephant tranq dart will kill a man within seconds). So you're targeting individuals rather than a group, and taking them out one by one. Elephants also make easier targets than hogs by dint of being, you know, fucking enormous.

I regret only being able to upvote this once. I was joking about introducing hyena, but biocontrol really is one of the few ways to deal with this sort of problem permanently. Hunting et al is just a management technique.

Bolded and enlarged for emphasis. Read what I write if you're going to piss all over it.

Don't make me theaten to cut you.

Dude, flip your propaganda switch to the off position to a second and re-assess. I'm South African. Nearly every adult male I know hunts - either every once in a while or regularly. My country makes a goodly chunk of its money from farming and hunting, and I was trained by ecologists who advocate for commercial hunting as a means of preserving wildlife. So don't put words in my mouth regarding the ethics and utility of hunting (which is to say: fuck off). My problem with the specific scenario we're describing is that damn near all of the hunters I know would be aghast at it. It is unethical, because it wounds rather than kills. It is indiscriminate. It is unsporting. To these people (again, a large number of persons in my acquaintance) what you're describing would be viewed in the same light as a catholic priest detailing how he got into the business to diddle kids. Even viewed as animal control it is inefficient, crude and inexact. And, again, would be viewed as unethical for all the reasons described above. Far better here to deploy traps, poison (carefully), biocontrol or damn near anything other than blazing away from the animals on high with weapons of insufficient killing power. So, in short: get the fuck off your high horse about this, and stop pretending that I'm arguing with you because I don't understand the fundamental issues or something. This thing is retarded, and no regard for the need to control wildlife or secure farming livelyhoods is going to serve as a fig leaf for such stupidity and cruelty.

I'm not getting at you, dude. It's well known that a large number of physicists actually believe that the rest of us are just playing around. Occasionally, one will deign to roll into our field to try and sort out our problems for us. It ends about as well as you'd expect.

Every hunter on earth enjoys indiscriminate slaughter? You're painting a pretty fucking sick picture here, dude.