Elephants Shot with Poison Arrows Travel to Humans for Help(thedodo.com)
thedodo.com
Elephants Shot with Poison Arrows Travel to Humans for Help
https://www.thedodo.com/elephants-travel-humans-help-1353631970.html#elephants-travel-humans-help-1353631970.html
74 comments
Thank you for posting!
When I saw this was on Reddit a day or so ago, I thought thank goodness for HN and people not getting sucked into BS :(
Wow big leaps in the article, big assumptions. With little backing for the assumptions.
Excuse the pun, but I call "Bull"
Excuse the pun, but I call "Bull"
I agree. The "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop, and the elephants may have shown up at that particular refuge purely out of a herd instinct. Or it could have been just dumb luck.
I'm very skeptical they knew they would be helped because they mated with elephants that grew up in that place.
I'm very skeptical they knew they would be helped because they mated with elephants that grew up in that place.
> "poachers" may have been farmers protecting a crop
Do you contend that poachers are not the major threat to elephants? You would have to in order to reinforce your case that the article's citing them increases the chance that the story is fabricated.
Otherwise I would have to conclude that fabrication is at work in your argument.
Do you contend that poachers are not the major threat to elephants? You would have to in order to reinforce your case that the article's citing them increases the chance that the story is fabricated.
Otherwise I would have to conclude that fabrication is at work in your argument.
The fact that poachers exist doesn't mean these particular elephants were attacked by poachers. If the writer assumed poachers based purely the poison arrows they yes, the story is, ipso facto, fabricated. Whether or not poachers are "the" major threat to elephants is irrelevant.
Elephants are pest animals to the people who actually have to deal with them. The fact that the attackers used poison arrows instead of AK-47s is a pretty good indication these are not professional poachers.
Elephants are pest animals to the people who actually have to deal with them. The fact that the attackers used poison arrows instead of AK-47s is a pretty good indication these are not professional poachers.
if probability x >> (1 - x) then citing 1-x does not reinforce your case.
More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true, but that there is a large body of evidence that elephants are intelligent animals. It is extremely unlikely that all of these stories are untrue. Thus the underlying thrust of your arguments (elephants are probably stupid) is disingenuous.
More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true, but that there is a large body of evidence that elephants are intelligent animals. It is extremely unlikely that all of these stories are untrue. Thus the underlying thrust of your arguments (elephants are probably stupid) is disingenuous.
@tsotha made two unrelated points initially:
- given the method used, it might have been farmers rather than poachers, and I agree with him, I though of it as well.
- elephants are stupid, which I disagree with.
This subthread was dedicated to the first one until you brought up the second.
- given the method used, it might have been farmers rather than poachers, and I agree with him, I though of it as well.
- elephants are stupid, which I disagree with.
This subthread was dedicated to the first one until you brought up the second.
Eh? I never said elephants are stupid. The elephants in question had never been to the refuge before - my problem was the writer assumes because they mated with elephants who had they knew where to go. I find that a really difficult claim to accept.
Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.
Look, I like a feel-good story as much as the next guy, but this one is a bit much.
Actually, that's not what I wanted to write, I exagerated your point.
You don't think they're smart enough to communicate that kind of information and act on it.
I know little about elephants, but from what I know of them, it sounds possible that it actually occured.
You don't think they're smart enough to communicate that kind of information and act on it.
I know little about elephants, but from what I know of them, it sounds possible that it actually occured.
>More generally, the underlying message here of course is not whether or not this particular story is true...
This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
This is a news story. There's not supposed to be a "message" at all.
But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake. If you were right, then the author of the story was expressing a bias, an opinion, an attempt to influence, a "message". Gees - you're all over the place on logic.
>But your original post went to some length trying to show that this "news story" was a fake.
Not so much fake as embellished.
>Gees - you're all over the place on logic.
I laughed when I read that.
Not so much fake as embellished.
>Gees - you're all over the place on logic.
I laughed when I read that.
That's a beautiful story if it is indeed the case. It seems absolutely conceivable to me that an intelligent species could mark places as safe havens.
Poachers are really shitty.
Poachers are really shitty.
Why are poachers shitty but ranchers are not? It seems much more ethical to me to kill an existing wild animal for money vs. breeding new animals in inhumane conditions for the sole purpose of killing them for money later on.
The legal version of poaching is called hunting. Provided the laws are sound (you haven't e.g. bribed someone to "legally" kill a tiger), hunting is fine. Killing a legally-protected animal almost always means you shot something whose species is in some sort of jeopardy. That's bad.
> That's bad.
Why? Why is it bad? Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering.
Why? Why is it bad? Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering.
I hope people stop downvoting you because this is an excellent question.
There is a number of species in that ecology today, let's call it N. It's a known good number of species: they work together, more or less, to stay alive as a group.
There are smaller collections of species which are nonviable. For example, if all species disappeared except elephants and tigers (2 species) the entire ecosystem would then disappear (the elephants would starve and then the tigers would) and eventually only inorganic material would remain.
There is a number of species, let's call it K, below which the probability of entire ecosystem collapse is nontrivial. We don't know what K is, but if we care about the existence of any ecosystem we must approach it carefully. And we won't know we've crossed it unless we go over.
We know K is somewhere between 2 and N. I think a good strategy is just to put the brakes on all extinction to try to buy us extra time to do science while we are approaching N=K.
As long as we keep N above K, we have a relatively easy problem: influencing a system at equilibrium. Once N drops below K we have a much harder problem: bootstrapping an ecology from nothing. Keeping N above K gives us more agency for less effort.
For that reason, I think the extinction of elephants would be bad.
There is a number of species in that ecology today, let's call it N. It's a known good number of species: they work together, more or less, to stay alive as a group.
There are smaller collections of species which are nonviable. For example, if all species disappeared except elephants and tigers (2 species) the entire ecosystem would then disappear (the elephants would starve and then the tigers would) and eventually only inorganic material would remain.
There is a number of species, let's call it K, below which the probability of entire ecosystem collapse is nontrivial. We don't know what K is, but if we care about the existence of any ecosystem we must approach it carefully. And we won't know we've crossed it unless we go over.
We know K is somewhere between 2 and N. I think a good strategy is just to put the brakes on all extinction to try to buy us extra time to do science while we are approaching N=K.
As long as we keep N above K, we have a relatively easy problem: influencing a system at equilibrium. Once N drops below K we have a much harder problem: bootstrapping an ecology from nothing. Keeping N above K gives us more agency for less effort.
For that reason, I think the extinction of elephants would be bad.
It's also not just that the loss of a species is bad. It's that some species are especially important, and it's not necessarily known which these species are:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species
Important also is the rate of species extinction. An ecosystem with some number of species in it can likely cope with a low rate of extinction (as species get outcompeted quicker than the my evolve), but can't cope with several species dying out in rapid succession.
The issue with humans is that we are rapidly increasing the rate of extinction, by pollution, poaching, exclusively occupying large tracts of land, clear-cutting forests, etc.
The issue with humans is that we are rapidly increasing the rate of extinction, by pollution, poaching, exclusively occupying large tracts of land, clear-cutting forests, etc.
Surely an endangered animal would be the least likely to cause problems for us if it went extinct. Otherwise we would have noticed the ecosystem starting to go wonky as it neared extinction.
According to the National Parks Service website, only 41 wolves were released into Yellowstone and it had -major- impacts on fixing the ecosystem there.(Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolves.htm )
It doesn't have to be " a lot" to keep an ecosystem in balance. A species that is there, even in low numbers(near extinction) could be the thread that ecosystem balance is hanging on by.
The issue with extinction is while it's natural for a few species to go extinct, due to human influence we are losing between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. (Source: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversi...)
We are part of the ecosystem we are damaging. You may take it for granted that animals continue to pollinate the plants you eat at dinner time. You make take it for granted that vultures cleaning up the dead prevent the spread of disease. There are many other cases of how the ecosystem is all tied together in a way that is integral to the human race's survival.
It doesn't have to be " a lot" to keep an ecosystem in balance. A species that is there, even in low numbers(near extinction) could be the thread that ecosystem balance is hanging on by.
The issue with extinction is while it's natural for a few species to go extinct, due to human influence we are losing between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate. (Source: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversi...)
We are part of the ecosystem we are damaging. You may take it for granted that animals continue to pollinate the plants you eat at dinner time. You make take it for granted that vultures cleaning up the dead prevent the spread of disease. There are many other cases of how the ecosystem is all tied together in a way that is integral to the human race's survival.
Maybe we don't figure out why an ecosystem went wonky until the species is extinct. Reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone us a great example.
[deleted]
Loss of species diversity, 50 million years of evolution, and potentially profound impacts on ecosystems.
Look for the story in the past year or so about dramatic impacts of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone.
How Wolves Change Rivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
http://www.livescience.com/17263-yellowstone-wolf-environmen...
Destroy a species and it's gone forever.
Moreover, if you're looking to eliminate suffering, it's humans and their rampant overconsumption which are driving that. Not the elephant.
Look for the story in the past year or so about dramatic impacts of reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone.
How Wolves Change Rivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
http://www.livescience.com/17263-yellowstone-wolf-environmen...
Destroy a species and it's gone forever.
Moreover, if you're looking to eliminate suffering, it's humans and their rampant overconsumption which are driving that. Not the elephant.
Thanks for sharing that video, I'd heard of keystone species before but never have I had it so concretely shown to me just how vital and vast the effects can be. Really enjoyed the watch.
> Why does it matter if, say, elephants go extinct? If they're extinct they're not suffering.
That's the same logic a cartoon supervillain uses to justify a plan for destroying the world.
To answer your question directly. I believe that elephants probably have inner lives at least as rich as humans with severe developmental problems, and thus should probably be afforded the same level of legal protection.
That's the same logic a cartoon supervillain uses to justify a plan for destroying the world.
To answer your question directly. I believe that elephants probably have inner lives at least as rich as humans with severe developmental problems, and thus should probably be afforded the same level of legal protection.
That statement was made in the context of the relative morality of exterminating a species or enslaving it and forcing it to reproduce in order to feed on it.
So yes, the same logic applies to humans; I would prefer the human race including myself to be wiped out if the alternative was Matrix-style enslavement.
So yes, the same logic applies to humans; I would prefer the human race including myself to be wiped out if the alternative was Matrix-style enslavement.
If our only choices were exterminating elephants or raising them for food, I might agree with you. But that's not even close to the situation in the world today.
Elephants are not in the same position as cattle. When lab-grown meat is a viable alternative there may well be a decision to abandon ranching (and by extension cows as a species) en masse. But we don't depend on eating elephants for food; people kill elephants for status reasons (ivory, 'medicines').
Elephants are not in the same position as cattle. When lab-grown meat is a viable alternative there may well be a decision to abandon ranching (and by extension cows as a species) en masse. But we don't depend on eating elephants for food; people kill elephants for status reasons (ivory, 'medicines').
You don't depend on elephants for food, it doesn't mean no one else does.
You're right, there is a distinction. We don't imprison elephants and raise them for the sole purpose of imprisonment, impregnation and death.
Once an elephant is shot, the villagers just start to appear. Word gets out fast.
It is like a celebration when an elephant is killed, the entire village will join in.
The natives cut all of the meat off the bone and take it to their village to eat.
They don’t let anything go to waste.
You're right, there is a distinction. We don't imprison elephants and raise them for the sole purpose of imprisonment, impregnation and death.
Speak for yourself. I'd choose enslavement over extermination in a heartbeat.
Radiolab has a new episode about this called "Rhino Hunter" about this type of thing: (show and description here: http://www.radiolab.org/story/rhino-hunter/)
It talks about how hunting is used as a funding mechanism for conservation, and in general the ethics of whether (and how) killing an individual could benefit the species as a whole.
If you have 50 or so minutes to spare, I highly recommend it.
It talks about how hunting is used as a funding mechanism for conservation, and in general the ethics of whether (and how) killing an individual could benefit the species as a whole.
If you have 50 or so minutes to spare, I highly recommend it.
Of those two, poaching seems to me more likely to reduce the number that remain in the wild.
Without picking a side, one notable difference is the sustainability of ranching. To my knowledge it hasn't driven many species to the brink of extinction (though maybe it has contributed indirectly by changing the habitat?)
The sustainability of an evil act is a con, not a pro.
On that logic, murderers would be better if they killed everyone, as then murder would not be sustainable.
Certainly there are situations where killing is more ethical than prolonged suffering. We kill injured or sick animals to 'put them out of their misery' all the time.
Isn't killing someone preferable to enslaving and torturing them and forcing them to reproduce so that you may do the same to their descendants?
Isn't killing someone preferable to enslaving and torturing them and forcing them to reproduce so that you may do the same to their descendants?
I agree - factory farming and even most "humane" farms are horrid. It would be better if we didn't eat meat (for our health, the environment, and ending world hunger). Then a smaller number of these animals could be pets or live on nature preserves.
One case that comes to mind is that of wolves in Montana:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/science/earth/conflict-ove...
We don't necessarily have to choose: they are both unethical and evil activities.
I agree, I just can't see why people vilify poachers and not ranchers.
Because thes submitted article is about poachers, not ranchers.
When someone submits an article about ranchers you don't get comments saying "but don't forget the elephant poachers".
When someone submits an article about ranchers you don't get comments saying "but don't forget the elephant poachers".
It's because biodiversity is beneficial to all species on Earth because it makes for a more resilient and stable ecosystem. Poaching endangered species tends to drive those doecies to extinction, reducing biodiversity which as I've explained is a common good for all living species. Ranching maintains biodiversity by establishing an equilibrium artificial ecosystem. Combined with conservation, it contributes to economic prosperity and sustainable management of a rich and resilient ecology.
People do vilify ranchers. There are tons of organizations that are fighting against animal farming, and it's a movement that is gaining a lot of traction. Like others have said, people just aren't talking about here since this article is about poaching.
Because the article is about poachers you moralizer.
I'm not moralizing, parent was moralizing about poachers.
I couldn't care less about elephants or cattle. I just can't stand cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.
I couldn't care less about elephants or cattle. I just can't stand cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy.
What cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy? If some says "I don't like x" do you think they need to enumerate everything they like or dislike as well? Perhaps the op thinks ranchers are shitty too, except the article mentioned poachers. Why would the op then make a non sequitur about ranchers?
Who said anything about ranchers? Where do you come up with this presumption about ranchers based on gps simple "poachers are shitty"? This is an article about poachers, thus the comment talking about poachers.
Because elephants and lions and whatnot being poached makes international news and ranching is business as usual. Clearly there is a substantial population that believes the former is wrong while the latter is not.
Ranchers are shitty too.
Ranchers are breeding animals for food. Humans are omnivorous, and it relieves us of the burden of hours of hunting. Elephants are not poached for food, they are poached mainly for their tusks. One could reason that this is an egregiously unnecessary waste of one of the most intelligent species on Earth.
Would you rather have a normal life and be shot for your teeth as an adult or grow up your whole life in a cage being force-fed and end up shot for your meat anyways?
Neither. Society is changing, at least in the West, eventually all animals will be treated humanely and reared in conditions that are not only better for the animal physically but allow them to interact and socialise as they would do in the wild, and therefore its better for them mentally.
Yes! It's exciting to see how animal rights is becoming the next big social justice movement.
Digging in to this by searching for other related stories, in brief, my findings:
1. So far, no direct corroboration. Not even on the DSWT website. 2. Poachers do appear to use poison arrows/darts. 3. DSWT appears to be the real deal, i.e. not a phony wildlife sanctuary.
I buy it that the elephants would go there. I'd like to see a better write up. Agreed that the article, as such, is a bit weak.
1. So far, no direct corroboration. Not even on the DSWT website. 2. Poachers do appear to use poison arrows/darts. 3. DSWT appears to be the real deal, i.e. not a phony wildlife sanctuary.
I buy it that the elephants would go there. I'd like to see a better write up. Agreed that the article, as such, is a bit weak.
1. So far, no direct corroboration. Not even on the DSWT website.
the story on DSWT is linked from the article: https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?R...
the story on DSWT is linked from the article: https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?R...
[deleted]
Science is about skepticism. Being an anti-believer who knee jerk pisses on the idea that this could possibly be true is no more scientific than the people who accept assertions uncritically.
It matters relatively little whether it was actually poachers or some other human. We can be fairly certain it was actually humans that injured the animals. I also think it is not hugely important whether the animals went there intentionally seeking medical care or happened to end up in the right place. I think the most important detail of this story is that the elephants apparently cooperated with the humans that treated them, after being injured by other humans. I think that is huge and really hopeful.
It matters relatively little whether it was actually poachers or some other human. We can be fairly certain it was actually humans that injured the animals. I also think it is not hugely important whether the animals went there intentionally seeking medical care or happened to end up in the right place. I think the most important detail of this story is that the elephants apparently cooperated with the humans that treated them, after being injured by other humans. I think that is huge and really hopeful.
> I also think it is not hugely important whether the animals went there intentionally seeking medical care or happened to end up in the right place.
I respectfully disagree with this particular sentiment. Elephants intentionally seeking out treatment from a place they've never been indicates high levels of planning and general cognition. If true that would afford them a moral weight very near to that of humans (to my mind at least).
Whether they were attacked by poachers or some other humans is relevant only for the particulars of this story. How intelligent elephants are is a question whose answer has widespread consequences.
I respectfully disagree with this particular sentiment. Elephants intentionally seeking out treatment from a place they've never been indicates high levels of planning and general cognition. If true that would afford them a moral weight very near to that of humans (to my mind at least).
Whether they were attacked by poachers or some other humans is relevant only for the particulars of this story. How intelligent elephants are is a question whose answer has widespread consequences.
Are "high levels of planning and general cognition" really the benchmark for deserving "moral weight?" If so, where does this leave humans with impaired cognitive abilities? Or human children?
Morality is not a settled science, but yes. Or rather, that is what grounds my personal intuition and feelings when I try to reason about such things. As I mentioned elsewhere in these comments, I think elephants probably have levels of cognitive function at least as high as people with severe developmental deficiencies/cognitive impairment.
My conclusion, then, is that elephant poaching is akin to murder. I'd rather elevate elephants past the threshold of universal rights than push some humans out of it.
My conclusion, then, is that elephant poaching is akin to murder. I'd rather elevate elephants past the threshold of universal rights than push some humans out of it.
If a person, derives his world from his senses, and acts as he instinctively would, no science need be involved - he is acting as he is programmed to. I think morality is much the same, it is a society, deriving its collective world from the senses of all its individuals, and acts as it instinctively would. As a society, deriving the world from our tongues, our stomachs, and our hearts, we have decided confining pigs and cows to dirty prisons, kidnapping their children and forcefully impregnating the adult females, and killing the healthy adult animals, is fine, because it will fill our stomachs and delight our noses and tongues. On the other hand, some of us deriving the world from the empathy in our hearts, because some of us see the similarity between the cognition of elephants and our own, conclude elephant poaching is murder. Some others, who live closely with elephants and rely on their farms to not be invaded by elephants, who rely on their crops to fill their stomachs, see killing elephants as a justifiable act comparable to killing cows and pigs.
Morality is relative, and it is a derived from our experiences with the world. Even if our senses are fooling us, morality is right according to our point of view, and that's all that need to ever matter. No science need be involved, and there is no need to couch it in reason.
You like elephants, I like elephants. We both eat beef. Poachers and farmers who live next to elephants rely on crops for food and see elephants as a source of income. They're closer and can attack the elephants before we can stop them. We have money to fund non-profit organisations to hire veterinarians to treat the elephants before they die and to hire rangers to shoot at the poachers and farmers who attack elephants for their own family's benefit. That's just how it is.
Morality is relative, and it is a derived from our experiences with the world. Even if our senses are fooling us, morality is right according to our point of view, and that's all that need to ever matter. No science need be involved, and there is no need to couch it in reason.
You like elephants, I like elephants. We both eat beef. Poachers and farmers who live next to elephants rely on crops for food and see elephants as a source of income. They're closer and can attack the elephants before we can stop them. We have money to fund non-profit organisations to hire veterinarians to treat the elephants before they die and to hire rangers to shoot at the poachers and farmers who attack elephants for their own family's benefit. That's just how it is.
For what it's worth I agree. Just because we understand that morality is relative and that we cannot expect to hold other species to our standards, this by no means invalidates our own stance. We have a right and a duty to pursue that which we consider to be good or right. Within the context of the organism's experience good/bad make perfect sense, outside in the vacuum of the outer world, all bets are off, there can be no one true north.
It sounds like your rhetorical question answers itself, and our benchmark has been improperly calibrated. Or should we stick with, "Intelligence matters, but only if you fit the human form"? Because we're going to be judged hard in that case when machine intelligence gets here (when, not if).
"Intelligent? Please! It uses oxygen for respiration for Moore's sake!"
"Intelligent? Please! It uses oxygen for respiration for Moore's sake!"
Living sentient creatures should be the benchmark for deserving humane and moral treatment - that way it includes both animals and humans. This was the view of The Hindus, Buddhist, and ancient pagans in Greece - they were onto something that we are just now figuring out.
I agree with you and I am inclined to believe the elephants sought out care. My point was more "It kind of does not matter that this one story does not prove that. It still makes an important point that we should pay attention to, aside from that highly controversial detail, which is just flag-fuel on HN, basically."
There is this book called "Elephant Whisperer" - amazing story about a guy who is given a family of wild elephants and it takes him more than 2 years to gain their trust, one small step at a time. He used to travel and every time he came back home from a long travel, somehow the elephants knew he was back. When he died, they walked a few miles to pay their respects - of course, nobody told them that he was dead, they just knew. They also knew they could trust him.
Yes, one can be skeptic and not believe the book. But it has been observed many times that elephants are highly intelligent and intuitive, so it is possible this story of elephants seeking humans is entirely true.
Also check out this video - http://video.pbs.org/video/2365284372/ I promise it is worth the 50 mins or so you spend on it.
Yes, one can be skeptic and not believe the book. But it has been observed many times that elephants are highly intelligent and intuitive, so it is possible this story of elephants seeking humans is entirely true.
Also check out this video - http://video.pbs.org/video/2365284372/ I promise it is worth the 50 mins or so you spend on it.
I get a video has expired message.
Great story. In the "Animal Minds" episode, Radiolab recounts a story of divers saving a net-entangled whale, and the whale in turn "thanks" each diver. It's a good show, and the examples included are thought-provoking. If you found this story intriguing, I recommend giving this Radiolab episode a listen. If not, the stories leads to what is intelligence and connection possibilities across species, and the topic of Spindle Neurons is presented which are explored as a connection between high and low order parts of the brain. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron)
_
The Goods:
1. The episode: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-minds/
2. A related follow-up about whales: http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/
_
The Goods:
1. The episode: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-minds/
2. A related follow-up about whales: http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/
The original report (https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?R...) which someone else linked is much more interesting.
While it definitely claims that the Elephants come to DSWT for help, it stops short of claiming that the arrows came from poachers.
Indeed, I have to wonder what the survival rate is for Elephants that come into contact with poachers? The report suggests that ~10 Elephants were treated with Arrow wounds. This seems quite disconnected from the intent of poachers (kill them), and more in line with the intent of farmers (drive them away).
I'm not saying it wasn't poachers (I don't know the subject well enough to claim anything like that). It just seems odd to me for a poacher to do that.
While it definitely claims that the Elephants come to DSWT for help, it stops short of claiming that the arrows came from poachers.
Indeed, I have to wonder what the survival rate is for Elephants that come into contact with poachers? The report suggests that ~10 Elephants were treated with Arrow wounds. This seems quite disconnected from the intent of poachers (kill them), and more in line with the intent of farmers (drive them away).
I'm not saying it wasn't poachers (I don't know the subject well enough to claim anything like that). It just seems odd to me for a poacher to do that.
The more we learn about other animals the less superior we should feel, it's now perfectly clear that there is nothing divine about human beings, and there is no magical spark that makes us better than other animals.
We are also looking for volunteers who would help out with the campaign outreach efforts. If you are in Washington state and have 2 hours of free time every now and then and want to help out, email me at adamnemecek at gmail.com.
Furthermore, over at /r/babyelephantgifs, we've been running a fundraiser to help some conservation organizations, you can read more about it here https://www.reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs/comments/3gppt7/he...
You should for example consider donating to the International Anti-Poaching Foundation[0][1] which fights the poachers. The founder, Damien Mander[2], is an Australian ex spec-ops sniper who is using his military experience to train the park rangers since they, unlike the poachers, tend to be poorly equipped and trained as well as understaffed.
There is also the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust[3][4] which takes care of elephant and rhino orphans (most of whom are orphans due to poaching). For $50 a year, you can become a sponsor of a particular animal and they'll send you photos and updates about how your sponsored animal is doing. You can for example sponsor this little fella [5]who was rescued a while back. This sponsorship is a pretty great gift.
[0] http://www.iapf.org/en/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-Poaching_Fo...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander
[3] http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust
[5] https://instagram.com/p/4uSGkzgUK7/?taken-by=dswt