
Elephants Shot with Poison Arrows Travel to Humans for Help - ghosh
https://www.thedodo.com/elephants-travel-humans-help-1353631970.html#elephants-travel-humans-help-1353631970.html
======
Mz
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.

~~~
thesteamboat
> 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.

~~~
asciimo
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?

~~~
thesteamboat
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.

~~~
meric
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.

~~~
dsfsdfd
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.

------
dpflan
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron))

_

The Goods:

1\. The episode: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-
minds/](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/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/)

------
codyb
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.

~~~
aianus
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.

~~~
rbritton
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?)

~~~
aianus
The sustainability of an evil act is a con, not a pro.

~~~
elektromekatron
On that logic, murderers would be better if they killed everyone, as then
murder would not be sustainable.

~~~
aianus
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?

~~~
eimai134
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.

------
vertis
The original report
([https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?R...](https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?Rhino=&ID=849))
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.

~~~
seunosewa
Why do you feel there was no intention to kill the Elephants? The injuries in
the photos look really bad.

~~~
vertis
The wounds were septic, so it's really difficult to tell how much of that is
just a wound that hasn't been cared for.

------
etep
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.

~~~
rgbrenner
_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...](https://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/updates/updates.asp?Rhino=&ID=849)

------
adamnemecek
Furthermore if you live in Washington state, please support Initiative 1401
([http://saveanimalsfacingextinction.org](http://saveanimalsfacingextinction.org))
on the November ballot. This initiative would help with reducing the amount of
illegal ivory coming to the US. Washington state is a strategic state because
a lot of illegal ivory comes to the US from China and Washington has large
ports so restricting it in Washington state will go pretty far. California has
already passed a similar law.

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...](https://www.reddit.com/r/babyelephantgifs/comments/3gppt7/hey_baby_elephant_fans_today_is_world_elephant/)

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/](http://www.iapf.org/en/)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-
Poaching_Fo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Anti-
Poaching_Foundation)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Mander)

[3]
[http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org](http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheldrick_Wildlife_Trust)

[5] [https://instagram.com/p/4uSGkzgUK7/?taken-
by=dswt](https://instagram.com/p/4uSGkzgUK7/?taken-by=dswt)

~~~
eimai134
Thank you for posting!

------
disordinary
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.

------
aaron695
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 :(

------
bmsleight_
Wow big leaps in the article, big assumptions. With little backing for the
assumptions.

Excuse the pun, but I call "Bull"

~~~
tsotha
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.

~~~
vegabook
> _" 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.

~~~
tsotha
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.

~~~
vegabook
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.

~~~
pygy_
@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.

~~~
tsotha
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.

~~~
pygy_
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.

