Talk:Bushmeat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV rewrite
This article verged on being an anti-globalization rant, and contained some factual errors. I have no opinion on the hunting of apes for meat, so I removed weasel words, softened some of the assertions, and qualified the generalizations. In addition, I removed the sentences about apes learning sign language, as they are totally inaccurate. No linguists accept that theory, and it has passed into the annals of urban legends. Thorough debunkings of this myth are available; one of the more accessible ones is Steven Pinker's book The Language Instinct (he gives detailed references as well if you want more information). Koko's case in particular has been thoroughly debunked. I don't wish to start any kind of flame war, but if someone wants to assert that apes have "learned sign language", they will need a lot of documentation or original research (which should be submitted to linguistics journals for our collective edification).
That aside, appeals to sympathy (such as for Koko the Ape) do not belong in an NPOV article. The article could use some more rewriting work for brevity and style as well.
Jeeves 21:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't the article for gorilla sign language, but disagree that NPOV on this topic would present only the sceptical viewpoint. There are perfectly good wiki articles on this stashed under 'Famous Apes'.
Agree it's due an edit. I was most puzzled by the reference to 'red gorillas' Cameroon has Cross River gorillas (Gorilla gorilla dielhi) and western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla).
--Flit 22:24, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Causes
Some should be said about the causes that trigger this hunting. I understand it is not traditional. Was it started by overpopulation, cheap guns, urbanization?
[edit] Cannabilism schmannabilism
I have removed the heavily POV point about cannabilism and the systematic attempt to get links to the border-line "Genocide" page. Wolves stalk and consume dogs; lions eat cheetahs. No one calls this cannabilism--and while a human being eating a chimp may be unwise, unhealthy and unethical it ain't cannabilism. Marskell 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Added information and corrected some
I added some information on organizations that are working to solve the bushmeat crisis via the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force as well as adding information about bushmeat orphans. I also corrected some information on a logging company in Republic of Congo (incorrectly referred to as "CIV" - it's actually CIB). A previous editor pointed to CIB as one of the bigger culprits in the trade; CIB is one of the few companies that has been playing an active role in addressing the trade within its range. Finally, I added links for PASA, BCTF and the Bushmeat IMAP. - Natalie Bailey 2006 March 07
When. why and after what campaigning CIV/CIB, undoubtedly one of the biggest in their trade, changed policys? Since they are one of the few very big companys involved , they would still be a major threat to species? Can they be put on a scale or line, with other involved consession-taking party's? Like this it means nothing to me, but that: CIB sponsors some preservation campaigns in france (or some such). Wich may very well be to cover up the definetly substantial damage they still do.(eg. compared to many small or tiny companys?) I would like some information on these matters.80.57.243.100 11:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I'm reluctant to revert recent anonymous edits to the article (probably from someone involved with the Bushmeat Task Force) because they have added good information. However, they have done so in a manner that violates the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. The tag's there until someone gets the chance to comb through everything again and make it neutral. — BrianSmithson 16:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi BrianSmithson. I made the edits you note and would like to get more feedback on which parts of the edits have made the article non neutral. Thanks. - Natalie Bailey 7 March 2006
- Hi, Natalie. Like I said, I'm not disputing any facts in the article, merely the style. Here are a few examples of prose that seems intended to push a particular agenda (not all of these are from your recent additions):
- "To the horror of conservationists, animal rights and Great ape personhood advocates, . . ."
- "This undid decades of conservation efforts."
- ". . . practically no support for the practice outside the African forests and cities where it is done." Is this true? Or is it only true in the case of great apes and other endangered species? I hardly think anyone takes issue with African hunters killing porcupines or forest rats (neither of which is endangered).
- "Numerous projects are now ongoing to address the illegal, commercial trade in wildlife as food." This may be true, but it should be phrased in a way that doesn't sound so accusatory.
- "Numerous solutions are needed; because each country has different circumstances, traditions and laws, no one solution will work in every location." This assumes that a solution is needed. Ask the average Central African villager and one isn't.
- "Many conservation organizations have come together to address the bushmeat crisis . . . ." An encyclopedia shouldn't refer to a contentious situation as a "bushmeat crisis". This needs to be rephrased to indicate who refers to it as such. Certainly not the villagers.
- Basically, the whole article is slanted toward the Western NGO viewpoint and neglects the point of view of the poor village hunter who is just trying to get by. It is also overly concerned with great apes, which, according to the article, make up a mere 1% of the bushmeat trade (and probably even less of actual bushmeat consumption). There's also little discussion of bushmeat as a survival mechanism. The Baka of Cameroon rely on wild game for a very large part of their diet, as do citizens of forest villages. Hope this helps. — BrianSmithson 13:47, 8 March 2006
The actual percentage of apemeat counted amongst the bushmeat may actually be higher, since there is no reliable method to count how much of the meat is actually ape.(UTC)
- And it could just as easily be lower. What's your point? — BrianSmithson 12:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Useless
I'm sorry, but this article is total bullshit. Transwiki to Wiktionary for people who come across the term, and delete this nonsense. People cannot be blamed for eating available food when hungry, be it turkeys, snails, cats, dogs, elephants, whatever. Will list on VfD later.
- Um, go ahead, but it will most assuredly be speedily kept over there. The problem with bushmeat isn't that people eat it; it's that people trade it. This creates all sorts of problems with conservationists, from whom the bulk of the criticism comes. — BrianSmithson 15:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Have to agree, the article as it is, is more like a wiktionairy references page at best. however , i see considerations for the status of article. "bushmeat" is some discriminating (therefore comprehended) anglo-saxon term for game, or actually hunting-rewards. As such it is a derogatory from the POV of an urbanised (western) person and usefull in a campaign , apparently. I think the consumption of great apes is completely and utterly unethical. A fact is some tribesman used the term bushmeat (more probably 'viande de bois' or a native version of that) to describe what they did to gorillas in kongo. This doesn't seem to justify a worldwide campaign against this obviously rather accurate description of the situation for great apes. Let alone hunting by underfed people in general.
Otoh the article notices really ok things: Solutions to be found in (great)ape preservation, will need to be extremely diverse and well worked out. The general fact forest consessions are obviously used to maintain a base-tradesystem for wild animal meat needs study. It's quitte possible these company's secret agendas use the word 'bushmeat' amongst others, and such would be a reason for an article. The HIV theory is trying to expose africa, the victim to blame. Ebolah itself is indicated and has possibly been confused with AIDS outbreaks.80.57.243.100 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NOT USELESS AT ALL
Hi Guys,
I do not think that this page is useless. Unsustainable bushmeat hunting is the main driver of local species extinction throughout the humid tropics and certainly deserves to be mentioned here. But I agree that the page needs some improvements. I will try to get some work done soon and would appreciate comments and edits.
Bjorn
[edit] which 'lumber' ?
hi all, i spent about 20 minutes figuring out what the 'which lumber was produced by reliance on ape meat' was about. admittedly, i skimmed the prior article, so i missed the first time the discussion of the lumber industry's role. hopefully my backreference well help. a better discussion of the lumber industry's role would be nice, though. also, 'actors' may not be a very useful section title. i'll keep thinking about how to better convey this, but it's late right now. --hamstar 07:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Resolution
The wikilink to resolution points to a disambiguous page. I have no idea which page is should point to instead. STHayden 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HIV
Someone went way overboard in discussing the difference between the human and ape response to the HIV response. Lots of possibly good info, certainly interesting, but irrelevant to this article. Relevant is discussion of the role bushmeat plays/has played in bringing HIV to the human population (pivotal, AFIAK), and possibly a _very_ brief mention of how it is possible for humans to be affected so much worse than simians.
The deleted section also seems to blur the distinction between chimps and monkeys. Chimps are not monkeys; they are apes. It is possible that the author understands this distinction, but the writing jumps too abruptly from discussion of HIV to SIV, making a lot of assumptions both of the readers knowledge and about analogies between HIV in humans and SIV in simians. --Rschmertz 01:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The section on HIV/AIDS is not as far-fetched as recent edits are trying to make it sound. But it needs citation, and we should probably do it in the form of "According to so-and-so, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, bushmeat was the likely vector by which human beings first came into contact with HIV . . . ." etc. — BrianSmithson 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
One researcher does not a valid theory make. In order for the HIV theory to belong in an entry on wild protein harvesting in Africa I think a bit more depth in the research is necessary. I think we're also missing and maybe purposefully dismissing the pernicious value of such theories to the animal protest lobby which routinely uses such overblown connections to paint wild harvesting in a bad light. Whale meat is often referred to in their propoganda as toxic from mercury contamination (our own government "experts" here counsel that the meat is safe and very nutritious despite the presence of mercury and other contaminants. Seal meat is also referred to as unfit for human consumption despite the fact that thousands of people all over the North Atlantic make it a large and healthy part of their diet.
- I did a research paper on primate bushmeat last year for my English final, maybe I can dig it out. I know I read it in a book so it's not just internet jabber. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
