> I can't help but read this with a pinch of salt. Yes, it's fascinating that these gorillas have learned this new behavior and are passing it down. And I think almost everyone wants to see endangered species protected. Yet I can't help but feel there is something quite pretentious about all this. We sit here cheering on the destruction of these traps, when in all likely-hood there are people who depend on them for sustenance. And really it's rather disingenuous to call the people setting these traps "poachers". Normally when you think of poachers you think of thuggish killers only in it for a profit. But even in this article, which to me appears quite biased, they admit that the traps are set by local bush-meat hunters. What they do might technically be illegal (though those laws likely only exist because of Western pressure), but to them it's just a way of life. I know Diane Fossey had trouble with the locals when she first showed up and started dismantling traps. I seem to remember from an Adam Curtis documentary that they even killed a couple gorillas just to spite her. But I don't think they have a complete disregard for the natural world that surrounds them. They just hold their own survival/advancement in higher regard. And who are we to really judge that, given that most Western affluence came at the expense of vast ecological destruction.

Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western influences. Having grown up in Africa, let me hasten to assure you that there are enough Africans who care a lot about making sure that their beautiful flora and fauna is protected for future generations. Simultaneously it is Human nature that there will be people who either out of desperation or malice wish to kill and plunder wildlife. I don't buy the way of life argument when one gets to use sophisticated weaponry (guns may or may not be used in this case but there are enough cases where guns are used to wipe out wildlife) to plunder the wealth of the country. I hate to use a straw man here but I could very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.

> And imagine what it must be like for these people to see some foreigners come in and spend tons of money and energy on saving gorillas and basically treat you as the enemy. I'd probably be thinking, why the hell aren't they helping me instead, is my life worth less than a gorillas to them?

> But hopefully while we cheer on the survival of the gorillas, we should also spare a thought for the survival of the local humans as well. This article certainly didn't. In fact it pretty much cast them as the villains who were heroically thwarted by a couple brave young gorillas.

You are arguing a false dichotomy here. Helping people by pouring money into Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't compete with "free aid".

I think the point is that the traps are not intended to catch gorillas. Young gorillas sometimes get caught in them and die. It's not the fault of these people hunting bush-meat that gorillas are endangered. If it hadn't been for westerners coming over for generations and hunting gorillas to near the point of extinction, the few gorillas that accidentally get caught in these traps and die wouldn't be threatening the survival of the species. Unfortunately, that is the case, and in our efforts to undo the damage that was caused to the gorillas, we end up hurting people who are just trying to catch something to eat.

Thats not a very generous reading of the OP.

He is reacting to the implied (though I didn't think it was very strong) characterization of local hunters as poachers. They're hunting to eat and using (presumably) the same type of traps that they're used for generations. That fact makes gph feel some sympathy or solidarity with them and I think a lot of people agree.

I'm absolutely not a relativist. That said this is the extreme example were not looking at things relativistically at all is absurd. You're expecting people who haven't changed their lifestyle and environment in recent generations and live off the land to assign similar values to animal conservation as you do.

That is not too far from telling a remote indonesian tribeswoman to cover her breasts because she's been immorally immodest.

People who eat animals they illegally killed are not poachers?

I agree with most of what you said but I'd like to add a couple follow-up comments.

>Maybe I am reading this wrong but I am getting a sense that you think Africa is filled with "noble savages" who are getting corrupted by western influences.

I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.

>I hate to use a straw man here but I could very well use the same reasoning to argue that one shouldn't interfere in the Hutus vs Tutsi's war because tribal strife has been going on for centuries.

Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.

Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.

>Helping people by pouring money into Africa hasn't exactly been useful. The entire clothing industry in Africa is hosed because some wise people had the bright idea of donating a ton of used clothes there. Same with the agricultural industry where local farmers can't compete with "free aid"

Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.

But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.

> I wasn't trying to make that impression. I just thought that most of Rwanda is still rather undeveloped and especially after the war/genocide a lot of people there still depend on the land for subsistence. Maybe I'm wrong, I've never even been to Africa, so if I am I apologize.

It is complicated. Rwanda is still undeveloped and there are a lot of people who do depend on the land for subsistence. Having said that, the bushmeat issue has gone beyond subsistence farming, there is a systematic plundering of Gorilla families going on (most probably with the connivance of government forces) where the gorilla mothers are taken for bushmeat and the young ones are taken to become pets.

> Well this one is tricky. I'm not trying to sound like an isolationist where we shouldn't interfere with anything. But there does seem to be something morally wrong in my mind if we interfere on behalf of nature to the detriment of the local people. Especially since we've already decimated most of our wildlife en route to our current living standards. Kind of hypocritical to then turn around and use that wealth to stop others from following in our footsteps.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your ethical standards. The reason I was pointing out that this is a false dichotomy is that it is not as if people are pouring all money into conservation at the cost of helping the local population. Money, believe me, is not the issue with Africa.

> Also just as an afterthought, it was my understanding that the war/genocide was largely manufactured by policies enacted by the retreating Belgians. Before we were there the two tribes got along for the most part.

I am rather unsympathetic to this viewpoint. Yes, admittedly regional issues 60 + years ago were exacerbated by colonial forces. I frankly think it is time to move on and start treating people like adults and expect them to grow up and solve their problems the mature way. We see the same issues in South Asia where people are engaging in Nuclear brinksmanship over a silly piece of scrap land.

> Yea, I know the track record on African Aid is not good. My comment was more that we should be at least thinking about their situation and empathizing with it. We should at least be understanding in our comments and behavior. But the tone in this article and likely also in the comments being sent to their facebook page makes the locals out to be the bad guy. I just don't think that's very helpful or deserved.

I think the "locals" are not a homogenous demographic. Sure there are starving people out there who are trying to get their next meal through hunting in forests. There also are several hungry armies using the forests as their pantry. We also have the "noble savage" (Pygmies) who spend most of the time in the forests and also get discriminated against (by fellow Africans, I might add). Another demographic is a group of poachers who systematically use sophisticated technology to hunt down endangered animals and transport the resultant products to markets in Asia. I think some of these groups definitely deserve sympathy, the others I could care zero fucks about. Also the discussion we are having is due to the complicated nature of the issue: It is extremely hard to try to get a macro perspective broadcast to the lowest common denominator (the Facebook commenter) in a way that easily understandable. Unfortunately, we kind of need to break it down so that conservationists can get money to fund their programs. The problem in doing such an approximation is that abstraction is rather leaky and leads to bike shedding.

> But to your point about giving aide, there have definitely been some mistakes made, mistakes that should probably have been avoided. It was stupid to ever assume dumping material goods or money into Africa would fix the situation. "Give a man a fish and the local fishermen are out of a job", that should be the proverb we learned from this. I don't really have great solutions other than the obvious ones: Education and stable just governance.

My personal opinion is that Africa would be fine if people didn't try to fix it every five years or so. Practically speaking, I know this to be a pipe dream considering the amount of weapons flowing in there and the next generation colonialism being perpetrated by China/India there.

Normally when I think of poachers, I think of the local problem of people taking game outside the legal season. Often for trophies, often for meat. I don't get much further than thinking that they are illegally killing wild animals.

Fair enough, but I'd hazard a guess that for the majority of people, especially the more urban ones, the only time they even hear about poachers is either in movies (Ace Ventura Pet Detective anyone?) or in articles about elephants/rhinos getting shot for Chinese medicine. You gotta admit the technical definition probably does not completely line up with what Joe Q Public imagines when he hears that word. Somebody shooting a deer out of season is probably not what most people would think of when hearing that word.