Reading and watching a doc on Nat’l Geo or Disc about a giant killer croc affectionately named Gustave and Patrice’s efforts to capture it for study makes me wonder, if they really believed it may have killed 300+ people, why not just kill it instead of spending time and money on building a cage, etc.? What if it kills a dozen more peeps before they trick it into capture? What can they possibly learn from it by studying it? That salt crocs like to eat humans?
Holy sht they didn’t even capture him, after going to the trouble of getting him on HD cameras, building a silly fcking cage, baiting it with live animals, etc. They could have just spent a couple grand toto and shot his arse, saving who knows how many human lives. WTF.
From the linked article:
I think they are more interested in what they can learn from the croc then the croc itself.
I read the linked article but I didn’t see the program. Is this a real crocodile, I mean, have they verified that it is indeed 20 feet long and roughly 60 years of age?
To answer the question posed in the title, never. Animals are never more important than humans.
Marc
Yeah, in the doc they have HD footage of it, which leads me to believe they could have just shot the damn thing and be done with it, why take a chance they wouldn’t catch it, which they didn’t?
They were making a documentary. You might as well ask why the photographer didn’t push that guy out of the way of the tank. For another:
If he is as old and rare as they think, and all the locals are aware of the danger, I don’t think waiting to see whether the legends are accurate is inappropriate. These kinds of stories get blown way out of proportion; there’s no actual evidence the croc is some kind of super-killer. If he kills around the same amount of people as any other big croc, then I don’t see any reason to kill him unless you’re going to exterminate all crocs.
Heh, so in your opinion, crocs > humans? Unbelievable.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I said. In fact, I think we should kill all humans that live within 50 miles of any croc habitat. And any humans that think they’re better than crocs in general.
So in your opinion, we should kill all the predators in the world because they sometimes eat people?
No, just the ones that have developed a taste for people.
We need to kill this croc to send a message to other crocs that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. Not killing the croc would show weakness and embolden other crocs to attack.
[sub]I’m pretty sure I saw a crocodile in Syria once. Or maybe it was a Gecko. Best invade either way, better safe than sorry and all that…[/sub]
The crocs have pretty much been low profile since that fruity fish killed Steve Irwin. Link.
Well, yeah you did. Read your post.
I don’t need to. I typed it. How about instead of making assertions, you explain exactly how you get to there from what I wrote? Or answer my question about exterminating all predators, perhaps?
That sounds great to me too. Luckily, that is exactly what the people in the article plan to do: establish whether this croc is actually eating people, then deal with it if it is. So, what’s the problem?
If someone tells me your dog ate someone, should I just come in and shoot it or should I maybe verify the story first? If I don’t just shoot it, does that mean I think dogs are more valuable than humans?
Besides all which, many crocs attack humans. Do you think we should kill all the crocs?
I already did that, here again is what you wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, so could you rephrase your post?
My reply to your earlier question applies to this one as well.
Sure, no problem.
What I mean is that in places where humans and non-human predators live closely, there are always, and will always be a certain number of injuries and deaths as a result. We are, as it happens, enormously ahead in that tally, but even so I do agree that in a choice between human and non-human life, we should usually choose human life.
To divert a bit back toward the more general question in your OP, I think there are some animals whose lives are more worth saving than some humans, but as a general rule – given a random animal and human about whom we know nothing – we should save the human. But I don’t think we should destroy all life on the planet that poses a potential threat, or even an ordinary threat we know about and can prepare for.
There are risks associated with life on this planet, and hurricanes and tigers are two of them. Minimize the damage, by all means, but even if we could remove all potential threats, it wouldn’t leave us with much of an ecosystem to live in.
If the croc is not a super-killer, but behaving as any croc might, and not causing any more damage than other local predators, it doesn’t make sense to target it for killing (or rather, confinement, as is the potential case here). Why that one and not all the others, too? If all the others too, what does that do to the local ecology, and how will that effect us humans in turn?
To Frank: So you have no problem with the actions the OP is disagreeing with, then. Okay.
Operation Ripper; To help you understand a bit about biologists: my dad is a marine biologist, specializing in sharks. Sharks, like crocodiles, are apt predators, and a sited big shark would make my dad head out on a boat to study it. Because he understood, and appreciated their being in the scope of things, even with a “horrifying” nature to most people, and was someone who would study their intricacy. I learned a good deal about equanimity between species from that growing up.
Same with the croc biologists. They see an exceptional individual, and, with their understanding of the crocs as the creature, want to understand it better. I suppose that’s what’s missing in their view of the croc vs your OP view, is that they see the croc as having it’s right to life, absolutely, in it’s own right. They understand and appreciate it, so don’t want to kill it outright. And, certainly want to document an outstanding creature.
Of course, no one wants to have a creature that is a problem for human beings. If it is a bad problem, local people will kill it sure enough, to solve that.
I’m not sure that I can convince you of the appreciation biologists have for their creatures of study, especially those who study human predatory species, can be apart, and not above, the effect on humans.
In Preview, I see that Ensign Edison has a quite fine post.
Well, there you go. So my interpretation of your post was correct, no?
Sweetheart, I’m not an idiot. What my OP is all about is here is a bunch of pseudo-scientists who make a HD doc about their attempts to capture a giant killer croc to"study" it, all the while firmly believing it has killed 300+ HUMAN BEINGS. We believe a alligator has killed 300 Floridians, we kill it. We believe a salt croc has killed 300 Africans, let’s capture it and study it! No. What happens if we spend all this time and money and don’t get it? Well, that’s what happened.
Yeah, no. Study up a bit on maneaters honey. Locals often can’t kill them for a variety of reasons. Here’s a place to start. Work your way over to India, etc.
But they don’t “firmly believe” it has killed 300 people. That’s my whole point. They’re studying it in part to find out if it’s even interested in killing people at all. I don’t, personally, believe the 300 figure for a moment. Every time a big croc goes after a person in those parts, I bet they say oh, it was Gustave. Doesn’t that sound a little more likely?