Actually they tried the normal way, where they didn't shoot and asked the poachers to surrender / tried to arrest them. But the rangers would get shot and the animals would continue to get poached.

Seeing this as a problem, a new executive order / law was passed allowing shoot at sight orders at national parks / protected zones.

Poaching has reduced, the number of rangers getting shot has reduced. The number of poachers getting shot has reduced (they don't wanna fuck around anymore).

Overall it has increased peace.

[–] STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Murder is bad, but humans are the problem. And humans being stupid chaotic creatures, it often devolves in to dirty things like killing. You can say all you want about right and wrong but this is a messy situation and this is the solution they have been forced in to using, after trying the peaceful method for years

[–] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

It's not murder, it's legal punishment. The poachers use gun violence against rangers, so it's a reasonable escalation.

[–] ramenshaman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Endangered-animal lives are much more precious to me than humans-who-are-willing-to-murder-endangered-animals lives, so I disagree.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago

I am more alluding to the risk of collateral

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What a great way to gun down any random civilian without proof of any wrongdoing. Just say they were poaching!

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's not how it works. Random citizens don't traipse around the bush hunting for rhinos and elephants and such.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

That's a terrible and quite frankly untrue take