GoDaddy CEO: Elephants are "a valuable source of protein"

Discuss

193 Responses to “GoDaddy CEO: Elephants are "a valuable source of protein"”

  1. TheCrawNotTheCraw says:

    The problem with 1+1 as an alternative to GoDaddy, when I last investigated 1-2 years ago, was that 1+1 didn’t offer PHP in their economy hosting, which I needed.

    But GoDaddy is maddening in their own right, for reasons other than their obnoxious CEO: they offer PHP, but don’t offer Perl. And then there’s the visual pain of having to look at “GoDaddy Girl” Jilian Michaels.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Was this hunt illegal? Are the animals truly endangered there? There’s been plenty of speculation over this. But safari hunting of exotic (to us) animals is a common business in several African countries, seemingly run responsibly with authorities so as to not over hunt.

    If the hunt was done responsibly, and there isn’t much reason to assume otherwise, I’m having a hard time hating on this asshole, since it would mean that the animal was culled for practical reasons, and the carcass was not wasted. People were fed, crops maintained, local economy was boosted, and some rich asshole got his fun. No problems to see here, even if it bothers me that some rich asshole, somewhere in the world, is enjoying himself.

    • catgrin says:

      Hi #124,

      As far as I can tell, the hunt was legal.

      African Elephants are endangered, but herds are culled in Zimbabwe. This is because their physical size means that only so many can be supported on a patch of land before they begin to destroy their own terrain. Please see my link #126.

      Ready for the problem? This was a safari branded as a serious conservation effort. When you misrepresent the nature of a problem and the existing efforts that are being made to resolve it, you can both exacerbate the problem (here: elephant population conflicting with man) and undermine the efforts being made to solve it. (here: parks organized culling with meat drying for food preservation and contraception of animals)

      Want proof? Note that it took 126 entries for me to post a link about current culling being performed by Africa’s Parks Services. Parson’s grandstanding called attention only to himself and his supposedly helpful act. He acts like nothing else is being done to stop the rampaging elephants as they traumatize villages. While the safari does not appear to have been harmful, the video, the message it contains, and the distraction it creates, is.

      That’s what’s wrong here. Of all the great white hunters that have gotten their rocks off hunting big game in Africa recently, only Parsons has tried to use it as a means to further himself in a public setting, and he’s done so with a seriously misleading message. That’s a really big problem when it’s easier to get information from Go Daddy than Zimbabwe.

  3. petertrepan says:

    When Bob Parsons took up arms against an elephant, he became a government — and this is a prime example of something that should have been handled by the free market. Government never works.

  4. elsuperjeffe says:

    i can’t imagine what it must be like to work at godaddy.
    i dumped them about 10 years ago after i’d had enough of his militaristic & conservative screeds.

  5. Harrkev says:

    It is just amazing all of the hate flying around here. Some hate him for harming an animal. Some hate him for being rich. The ONLY thing that gives me any hesitation at all is that elephants are endangered, but if they are common in the area where he was hunting, the I am cool with that.

    I do agree that the guy is probably a jerk based just on the GoDaddy advertising campaign. Other than that, no complaints. Some people enjoy concerts. Others enjoy reading. He likes hunting. BFD. As long as the hunt was legal and ethical, all is cool. The fact that the locals benefited as well is just a bonus.

    Of course poor farmers have expensive firearms lying around for just such emergencies. Before the invention of guns, it was VERY HARD (and dangerous) to take down an elephant. Are a dozen locals just going to attack an angry elephant with spears and knives? Try it and let me know how it works out.

    Finally, hunting is an important part of conservation. A certain amount of land can only carry a certain number of a particular type of animal — due to either food availability, or mating area (some male animals maintain their territory and will kill other males who get too close).

    Imagine if I were an animal, and I had to choose between the two following possibilities:

    1) A rather happy life. Enough food, enough space to roam. There is a chance that I will be killed by a hunter, but at least it will be relatively quick.

    2) Too crowded, not enough food. I am always hungry. No hunters are around, but I do not know if I will make it because of starvation. Oh, my old friend, Larry, just attacked me because he has a good thing going. He has that next hill over there with some girls on it. After our years of friendship, he just ran me off. Too bad about this big wound — it hurts. I hope it heals.

    If given this type of choice, I know which one I would take.

    • Ito Kagehisa says:

      Some hate him for harming an animal. Some hate him for being rich.

      Some of us hate him for advocating torture.

    • Anonymous says:

      Of course poor farmers have expensive firearms lying around for just such emergencies. Before the invention of guns, it was VERY HARD (and dangerous) to take down an elephant. Are a dozen locals just going to attack an angry elephant with spears and knives?

      Well, that right there tells you something: if your main concern was actually helping them deal with rogue elephants, you would be trying to get them better equipment. Surely everyone’s heard the Chinese proverb by now. Shooting elephants is not about charity.

  6. TSE says:

    fanning the flames of class warfare

  7. Anonymous says:

    I see a lot of confusion in this post over the difference of poaching and hunting. Poaching wastes the entire animal with exception of the tusks. How many people on here are meat-eaters and objecting? These are not endangered. There is no proof that they are not (to the person assuming “numbers are inflated.”)I don’t eat meat because it is a person choice, but I have no problems with anyone who hunts and utilizes the whole animal. In fact I think everyone who eats meat should instead of going to the supermarket, buying factory-farmed meat, and then scolding hunters. Hypocrisy. What immoral grounds here? I read every post here and the best people can come up with is wealthy (as if that is immoral) and self-entitled. Is that newsworthy? No. People are so quick to judge and overlook their own choices.

    • Major Variola (ret) says:

      Actually “poaching” is just the governments term for hunting it didn’t “license”. Some folks poach to feed their families, in the US.

  8. Shart Tsung says:

    QQ, Xeni, QQ.

  9. DWTowers says:

    It’s amazing how so many people make such a big deal over food. Did you all miss the part in the video where the villagers were in a total frenzy to eat? Their elephant meat = your organic lettuce & carrots = food. Get over it & enjoy your overpriced veggies. Maybe try living in a third world country for awhile & guit your bitchin. Poor elephant? No. Poor people? Yes. Can someone tell me when you all decided that an elephant was more valuable than a village of people?

  10. libraryboi says:

    Really regret transferring all of my domains to GoDaddy for convenience and cost. Thanks to Xeni for bringing this to our attention and to those who have recommended alternative registrars. NameCheap.com will probably be getting my business.

    Not surprising but still sad that some comments are indifferent to Parsons taking a life for entertainment under the guise of assisting local villagers. The money it cost him to fly over and murder an elephant could have been spent instead on finding a non-lethal alternative.

    His advertising is offensive to get attention. Not something I support or defend but the women can choose to be involved and get paid for their work. The elephant had no choice.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Incidentally, we shouldn’t even consider eating the rich. All that wealth simply is in the hands of too few people, with a distinct shortage of females, and there’s a serious risk their population wouldn’t recover.

  12. Anonymous says:

    There is nothing immoral here. The CEO is right.

    Chances are you have not lived in the same conditions as these people so perhaps you should try to keep an open mind about their reasoning for their actions. There is nothing immoral here. These people are simply trying to stay alive. Furthermore the CEO is not out of his place in saying that they should be grateful.

    Though this might not have been a smart PR move, the CEO is right, they should be grateful for their source of protein just as I am grateful for the chicken I eat for dinner, the wool jacket that I wear, and the milk that I drink. And we should not criticize these Zimbabwe citizens for simply trying to stay alive.

    I see a lot of comments of people saying harsh things about this CEO and “the wealthy” in general. If you are reading this then you clearly have a computer and you should know what you are one of the wealthiest people in the world. Rather than criticizing the morality of the basic survival techniques of another culture in a completely different part of the world why don’t we take a look at ourselves. Take a look at the massive deforestation and pollution we ourselves are causing everyday and we might see that we are the cause of death of numerous endangered animals, not to survive but because we want our cars, cell phones, new clothes, and excessive amounts of food.

  13. sanj says:

    how’s this guy not in the same boat, maybe even the leader of the pack- kill elephants for protein, kill them for tusks…
    where/when does it stop…
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42377955/ns/us_news-environment/
    247 elephant tusks confiscated in smuggling bust…

    few hundred thousand elephants left…an African elephant feeding on grass, shrubs, etc weighs 4-5 tons at best…you kill all- how much protein is this guy Bob going to get and feed how many? Zimbabwe alone has over 13 million people…

    instead of helping them with earn a living, he thinks killing elephants and having them pose in his domain caps is cool.

    shame on you, bob…shame on you…
    you are just another elephant killer, call it what you may, justify it whichever way you may…

  14. alllie says:

    GoDaddy had a reputation for stealing domain names. People would do a domain search on GoDaddy to see if a domain was taken. If it was free and they didn’t buy it right then GoDaddy would register it, or reserve it, and you’d have to pay extra to get the domain originally searched. http://forums.nodaddy.com/index.php?topic=465.0

    I make sure I never search or register through GoDaddy. I even make sure I never search for a domain name until I’m ready to buy it.

    Actually killing a sentient and threatened creature for fun is exactly the kind of thing I would think the CEO of GoDaddy would do.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Ok, I’m a domain name reseller with GoDaddy and ready to jump ship – not specifically because of the elephant killing, but because this incident has made me aware that my business with them has been supporting people whose philosophies I disagree with.

    But… I’d rather “vote with my business” with a registrar that a) holds (and demonstrates, not just talks about) similar leftie views to mine and b) has an associate/reseller plan such that I can still make a couple bucks off the many clients’ domains I bring to them.

    What’s Dotster’s record? Register.com? Anyone know? NameCheap.com has an affiliate program, but you only get paid on the first buy, not renewals. 1&1 doesn’t appear to have an affiliate program, and Google’s appears to be a little more involved (and pushy) than I’d like.

    Thanks for any suggestions.

  16. Anonymous says:

    When I was a child, we had a cow pasture near our house. I would pick corn from the nearby field, and hand feed it to a certain bovine that was more or less a pet after a while. One day, when feeding it, the owner of the pasture came driving down the road so I hid thinking I was doing something wrong.

    I hid in the weeds along the road, and when the owner drove by, he noticed the cow pressing against the fence. He immediately stopped, pulled out a rifle and shot it right in front of me.

    The man knew my father, and he told my father that the cow was ‘rogue’ and trying to break the fence to escape. I never felt so bad in my life. And, somehow, I don’t think this story is much different, except the man that shot the cow I cared for didn’t brag about it.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I hear pompous over priviledged rich white guys are a valuable source of protein too.

    Next he’ll be promoting the last rhino’s horn as a valuable source of paper weights.

  18. Lobster says:

    I can see both sides of the story. I’m not going to say the elephant should have been left to rot just because it’s bad to eat elephants (and it is, but starvation is worse).

    I am going to ask what the people of Zimbabwe will eat once there are no more elephants.

    • Major Variola (ret) says:

      They’ll eat the white farmers they tossed off their farms (leading to present day Zimbabwe) then they’ll eat their 10,000,000,000 dollar bills.

    • travtastic says:

      Private jets full of CEOs with tiny dick complexes!

  19. penguinchris says:

    Watch the Thai film “Tom Yum Goong” (released as “The Protector” worldwide) to see what should happen to people who exploit endangered animals – in the film a Thai royal elephant is captured and brought to Sydney to be eaten in a black market endangered species restaurant, and those responsible get a ridiculously amazing beat-down by the elephant’s protector, played by Tony Jaa. (we’ll put aside the point that this guy hunted legally, though his comment is still ridiculous and douchey)

    Anyway, Google offers domain name registration. It’s $10 a year. I guess you could probably go cheaper than that, but I never saw what made godaddy so popular… with domain name registrations being so cheap, what’s the big deal about choosing one provider over another? Google also gives you google apps for your domain, so you get gmail etc. on your own domain if you want.

    I guess godaddy probably offers cheap hosting, too? I don’t know, but even so, there are loads of other cheap hosts and there are forums and other places where people discuss various hosts so you can easily find a good one (I use sharkspace.com which I heard about from a forum that came up near the top of the search results for “cheap web hosting”, the forum had coupon codes and everything).

  20. Anonymous says:

    Both this guy and his company were pretty scummy before this too.

    Everybody name your favorite goDaddy alternative.

  21. catgrin says:

    Well, the video’s been edited. You used to be able to see the elephants turn and run – now it’s too dark. Also, the glory kill shots of Parsons at 2:05 and 2:06 have been removed.

  22. grikdog says:

    The Daniel Boone in all us right-thinkin’ huntin’ folks knows damn well that if you hunt something and kill one or two, YOU EAT YOUR KILL. With a spoon. When Bob Parsons finishes eating that elephant, perhaps I may think of him as a hunter.

    As a U.S. Marine, he already knows that if you put it on your plate, you eat it, and you eat ALL of it. Even if you didn’t know what it was.

  23. Yamara says:

    CEOs are generally less intelligent than elephants.

    Another symptom of having Too Many Things.

  24. Major Variola (ret) says:

    Idea:

    The US government thinks it can convict foreigners, board ships in open waters, and control behavior when citizens are overseas.

    The US gov could require citizens to get a US license to safari.

    Of course the african hunter-businesses wouldn’t like this.

    And its completely nanny-socialist-imperialist, so I suggest it ironically, but some here will be inspired to call their congress critter.

    I’m watching him on the CNN feed and the arrogance, hubris, Americanism is just so disgustingly self-parodying.. having the
    degenerate US Gov hassle them would be karma, and amusing to some of us.

    Another option is to simply make travel to africa illegal. For disease reasons, nat’l security.

  25. Anonymous says:

    This is disgusting. I actually just found out about a company called HostPapa where using the coupon code “elephant” they’ll donate $5 dollars to http://www.savetheelephants.org/ . They’ll also give you 3 months free! So I’m switching over all my sites hosted through GoDaddy to them immediately.

  26. ultranaut says:

    of

  27. gwailo_joe says:

    Ooooh yeah. . .Bob? This video does not make your actions look very good.

    The last shot? With 4×4 in reverse as natives quarrel. . .’Whiteman came to help and the day is saved.’. . . not good.

    And the sorghum field? With the sad music “Oh. . the poor sorghum. . .oh!”

    Yes, it sucks for that farmer. But bent stalks and a few et plants are not quite napalm, eh?

    And yes: those people look damn hungry (or are really in need of some form of entertainment): but killing elephants is hardly a praiseworthy act. All those people mobbing that one carcass is a sign of the new times: through human action the mega-fauna of our time has got. to. go.

    Not because they are not smart. Or lovable enough. (Lord knows, Pandas and Polar Bears, Elephants and Tigers are quite awesome to any discerning viewer.) But: no room at the inn, all you other Gods creatures. Man has dominion and there’s no room for you anymore. We need agriculture. And meat. And roads and factories and dams. And centuries from now they will marvel at the planets’ wealth that we just frittered away. . .

    Bah! Precious, precious humans. Each one a shining little light in an ignorant universe.

    See Bob? Your self-promoting video really pissed me off: smart people who do weird shit do well to Keep It To Themselves. This here is some Sheentype shit. It’s stupid and I don’t like it.

    Now I wish I could arm elephants with machine guns pulling great scythe chariots filled with orangutan archers and tigers with taser tails down Wall Street at 7AM. whew.

    Now I feel better. Goodnight!

  28. Anonymous says:

    This comment thread is 90% ignorant moralistic posturing by the world’s most privileged wealthy elite.

    Yes, the locals have a traditional way of dealing with elephants. It’s called an AK47. But someone (usually but alas not always the locals) will be getting an obscene wad of cash from this guy. Win/Win. (except for the elephant of course)

    Endangered? Zimbabwe is one of few African countries to succeed with conservation of elephants. Mainly because they are (thanks to people like this guy) a valuable asset and not just a bonanza of bush meat. Perhaps not nice, but money talks.

    This is not to say there aren’t complex social and environmental issues we need to deal with. But absolving your share by pointing to some guy you never met and changing your domain registrar isn’t going to fix any of them.

  29. catgrin says:

    A cautionary tale for those who think that killing elephants has no repercussion:

    http://www.geekosystem.com/rogue-elephant-ate-human-flesh/

    She was an Indian elephant which is apparently known by trainers to be the calmer breed. A google search will give you plenty of links to rogue elephant attacks in Africa that seemed to be in response to culls.

    One thing I find interesting is that people are more than willing to discuss controlling the numbers of elephants – even by en masse sterilization or killing existing, healthy adults – and this is in the same place where there is very little voluntary birth control used by humans to control their encroaching population. Seems a bit unbalanced.

    I’m not trying to open up a brand new can of worms, I just read gwailo_joe’s comment, and his snarky attitude toward our self importance was dead on.

    • Mister44 says:

      re: “- and this is in the same place where there is very little voluntary birth control used by humans to control their encroaching population.”

      You’re talking about Africa, yes? They also have AIDs rampant because of their culture. I don’t think this village, and other poor and remote areas, would have easy access to birth control. In the cities it is more available. There would have to be a pretty drastic paradigm shift for real change to happen. Condoms are looked down on as a culture, and having multiple partners is the norm (even if married, not all of them willing.)

      So – other than education, I don’t see a viable solution. I guess you could get all Orwell on them and use Norplant-like implants at puberty to sterilize and maybe even reduces the sex drive.

      Or you can do what some others have suggested, follow the logic and extrapolate elephant and other animal culls to humans.

      • klobouk says:

        Africans, “as a culture?” “The norm?”
        Like, all of them? Srsly?

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Yeah, like holocausts are part of German culture and ethnic cleansing is part of Balkan culture. It has nothing to do with economic and political circumstances; it’s totally in the DNA.

        • Mister44 says:

          OMG – read a book. Pointing out an unpleasant truth doesn’t make me an racist. I am sure this doesn’t apply to EVERY niche and culture of Africa, but in a nut shell, the areas in Africa where AIDs is the most prevalent are that way because of a combination of lack of education and availability of protection, and a culture that frowns on condoms but having multiple partners even when married is not. It is very male dominated, where women often lack a voice and the ability to say no.

          As for rape, I guess I should have been specific to South Africa, where it is a huge problem.

          “Violence against women, including sexual violence, is widespread in South Africa. In a large survey, more than four-in-ten South African men reported to have been physically violent to an intimate partner.
          Over a quarter of men reported ever having raped a woman with nearly one-in-twenty committing rape in the previous year. Little difference was found in the HIV prevalence of men who had raped a woman compared to those who had not. However, the generally high HIV prevalence among all men surveyed means there is a good chance that a man who commits rape has HIV.” – See Avert link below

          Lets look at the numbers (2009) – comparing Africa with the rest of the world:
          Sub-Saharan Africa
          Living with AIDS: 22.5 million
          Newly Infected: 1.8 million
          Adult prevalence: 5.0%
          AIDs related deaths: 1.3 million

          If you look at the world wide numbers, you will see the huge percentage that Africa takes up.

          World Wide:
          Living with AIDS: 33.3 million
          Newly Infected: 2.6 million
          Adult prevalence: 0.8%
          AIDs related deaths: 1.8 million

          If you like numbers, here are more:
          http://www.avert.org/africa-hiv-aids-statistics.htm
          http://www.avert.org/safricastats.htm

          If you like pretty charts, here are a few. They are older numbers, but illustrate the point:
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/july00/aidsgraphic3.htm
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/july00/aidsgraphic4.htm
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/july00/aidsgraphic5.htm

          If you like Wordy Words, here are some.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1909220.stm

          http://www.avert.org/aids-africa-questions.htm#
          (Be sure to read “Why is HIV more high spread in Africa…”)

          http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm

          I bet google has more. National Geographic had a brilliant article, but I can’t find it in their archives. Maybe I will dig around for the magazine and see if I get the month and year if anyone cares.

          The good news is some things like condoms are slowly catching on in places, especially with the younger generations.

      • catgrin says:

        My point was simply that we’d gone through 175 comments and very few had mentioned the spread of human population and lack of control there. (After all, if we’re soooo much smarter than an elephant, shouldn’t we know our limits?)

        Part of the reason for continued, unchecked human births in places like Zimbabwe is current death rates in rural areas (due to malaria, dysentery and AIDS among other problems including malnutrition). Note: Zimbabwe is one of the highest infected AIDS areas of Africa and is a high-risk zone for Malaria. Parents expect to lose at least one child, and so they have more than one. It’s similar to the way isolated American farmers behaved before the development of penicillin and good bathing practices.

        Zimbabwe’s population continues to grow in an area that is ill-equipped to support the people who already live there. The thing is, you can’t blame the Africans for the disinterest in condom use for birth control. I kinda hate to burst your bubble here, but in Africa, most of the blame for a lack of sex education using contraception can be blamed on foreigners. Well intentioned missionaries have traveled to rural Africa for years to spread the Word, and also spread the news that it’s a bad thing to use a condom or practice anything other than abstinence. To go with your collection of references, here’s a 2009 article from The Guardian explaining how the Pope (yeah, the head of the Catholic church) believes condoms could make the AIDS crisis in Africa worse. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

        While rape, AIDS and pregnancy are all related topics, they are not all the same thing. The fact is, South Africa’s rape statistics are not directly related to its birth statistics.

        Some of the rapes that occur happen to women who are involved with partners and are raped while in the relationship. (In some African countries, marital rape is legal. In Zimbabwe, it is not. Most women still will not report their partner if a rape occurs due to threat of violence/death.) Of those women, some do choose to use a spermicidal foam or jelly if they know their partner to be unpredictable. This does not prevent the transmission of disease, but they do not get pregnant.

        Also, some rapists WILL use a condom during a rape, even if they wouldn’t use one to prevent unwanted pregnancy. This is for two reasons: either they are HIV positive, and are raping a child or someone they know to be healthy, or they themselves are healthy and are raping a woman they don’t know (usually teens and early twenties).

        As far as the “virgin cure” rapes go: most of those are children so young that they are not yet ovulating. (Many are truly children under the age of ten, some as young as toddlers.) Here’s a link from Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2010/03/02/south-africas-child-rape-epidemic/ Here’s a quote from the article, “Some 42 per cent of Simelela’s cases in the second half of 2009 were children under age 10.”

        That’s why there’s no direct correlation between the rapes and the births. As many as half the victims (or possibly more) are too young to even get pregnant, and of those who are old enough to get pregnant, some will protect themselves from pregnancy while others will be raped by a man wearing a condom for health reasons.

        My original comment was only about human population. The fact is, other countries do have an impact on Zimbabwe’s attitude toward birth control. It would seem that right now we’re saying, “Give birth to (then maim, rape, infect, etc) all the babies you want, then go make more.” How can we expect the people of Zimbabwe to understand conservation of other animals, when we’re not even sending them a consistent message of human conservation?

      • travtastic says:

        I’d call you out on being incredibly racist here, but I’m sure you’d manage to argue that everyone else is racist.

        We’ve got to teach them Africans how to properly bone, guys!

  30. werve says:

    If I had to shoot a marauding elephant I would do so with humility and deep regret. This guy travels half way round the world to kill one for fun…

    Reminded me of this CBS news story about a dog and an elephant who bonded at a sanctuary:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4696315n

  31. Anonymous says:

    hi, i posted anonymously about trying to move my $1000/yr account with godaddy. like one commenter, could you make a list of godaddy alternatives on your site? thanks!

  32. olmsteader says:

    Ok folks, come on, back to the important question, do they make good eats?

    • wigg1es says:

      Doubtful. Probably low fat content. Most likely tough considering age. Diet most likely isn’t ideal for producing deliciousness, etc. etc.

      Stick with wagyu.

      I’m not really fan of killing endangered species, regardless of reason. Especially ones on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum with proven emotional bonds and social structures.

  33. songofsixpence says:

    To reply to Anon way up there, I’m a hunter and also respect the environment.

    I think you’d actually find that a lot of hunters are very respectful of the places they hunt. It’s just a very few of us who give the rest a bad name. Most of us are not out guzzling beer doing donuts on 4 wheelers firing guns into the air.

    Hunting elk, for instance, requires a lot of strength, wilderness survival skills, a tolerance for exertion at high altitude, tracking abilites, marksmanship, etc.

    As for the elephant, I don’t know enough about the situation in Africa to really make an informed comment but if people need to eat, let them eat. If you’ve never been hungry, you have no idea how fast any sense of conservation leaves your head.

    I’d venture that most of you environmentalists would kill the last of a species once you hadn’t eaten for 3 days. In fact, I can guarantee it.

    • travtastic says:

      How did you manage to “respect the environment” and deride “you environmentalists” in the very same comment? That’s pretty cool.

    • wigg1es says:

      “I’d venture that most of you environmentalists would kill the last of a species once you hadn’t eaten for 3 days. In fact, I can guarantee it.”

      If there’s only one, there won’t ever be two, so what’s the point? Not much conservation going on at that point, is there?

      • travtastic says:

        It’s an endangered bacteria.

        • wigg1es says:

          Is it on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum with proven emotional bonds and social structure?

          Regardless, how extensively has it been studied? Does it have any beneficial biochemical properties? Is it harmful to humans? Whats its purpose in the larger ecology? Why is it endangered to begin with? What will happen if it goes extinct?

          • travtastic says:

            It operates on a crude neural network, and once climbed to the heights of science and nanotech. Until the environmentalist hippies came in their VW buses, from their big cities, and destroyed their last chance at cultural rejuvenation.

            Basically like the Lorax, but if Rod Coronado came in at the end and firebombed the UNLESS tree.

            Monsters, all of us.

  34. Mister44 says:

    OH – and superstition adds to it too. For example “Having sex with a virgin will cure HIV.”

    • travtastic says:

      That has to be one of the more well-sourced racist monologues I’ve ever seen.

      • Anonymous says:

        I read it over and over again, and I see no references to race whatsoever. They are all to geography or nations with multiethnic populations, and to medical problems that apply to multiple races.

        Ergo, the racism you see is the racism you brought in with you.

        And it’s pretty nasty, too.

  35. Cowicide says:

    However you feel about his killing of the elephant, one thing is for sure is that business ethics-wise it was an incredibly shitty move.

    Now lots of web developers are going to be put in a position of having to use other web hosting companies when their clients decide to boycott Godaddy. Great.

    Now the folks that work at Godaddy are going to be associated with this issue whether they support the idiot or not and when the business takes a hit (and it will), I really doubt this asshole will take a hit in his salary; he’ll just authorize layoffs.

    This CEO should have known his actions would have far-reaching consequences beyond his own reputation. He NEVER should have put others in this position.

    Then again, so many rich people are so incredibly detached from their actions that create suffering for others, that I doubt any of this shit has even crossed this asshole’s mind.

    Bob Parsons, you fucked up. And, you fucked up bad. RESIGN NOW, asshole.

  36. zfreeman says:

    Hey Xeni, at least please acknowledge that the reason that you as a U.S citizen are able to roam around freely without a weapon to protect yourself from being killed and possibly eaten by a large wild animal is because rough men with guns killed off most of the large predators for you to feel safe here. Bears, mountain lions, wolves, etc were all reduced to smaller more manageable populations. None are in danger of going extinct. Imagine leaving the apartment one morning and being attacked by a elephant.

  37. libraryboi says:

    According to BNET under the heading You can check out, but you can never leave”

    “Out of the roughly 900 existing .com registrars, fewer than 10 have transfer denial rates comparable to GoDaddy’s…There are thousands of people each month who expect to transfer their domains to other companies who find themselves unable to. Maybe none of those who decide to bail over the elephant video will have a problem, but that seems statistically unlikely.”

    Just went through the effort of switching all of my domains over to NameCheap.com, then I read this. Hope there isn’t going to be any problem. Can’t imagine getting stuck having to stick with this company. So wish I hadn’t signed up with them in the first place.

    http://www.bnet.com/blog/technology-business/shooting-an-elephant-bad-for-godaddy-sure-8212-but-not-that-bad/9682

  38. Elliott says:

    I support vegetarianism and I support Bob Parsons on this, the elephant was damaging the one thing those villagers relied on the most when it was alive, and was able to feed most of the village when it was dead. It was not bred in captivity nor went through prolonged suffering as it would in an abattoir.
    Smartass quips aside, CEO’s do not trample extremely impoverished people’s crops, nor have much eating on them, and yes red meat IS a valuable source of protein, the villagers probably got more protein from that elephant than they would get from an entire year of eating whatever they were growing.
    Also, do I detect sarcasm on the words “poor” and “starving? What the hell?

    • emmdeeaych says:

      No Elliot, you’re projecting that.

      I think you’re missing the entire point.

      He’s an asshole. Then he shot an elephant. THEN he bragged about it.

      Who cares.

      Then he layered bullshit about feeding the poor and the nobility of it all on top.

      That last part, that”s why he’s fair game. There is nothing noble about paying to hunt a rare peaceful animal. Nothing. There is nothing inevitable about people starving that makes eating an elephant a noble choice.

      Had he just left it at, “I shot an elephant, get over yourselves” – I think there would be much less…. friction about all this.

      He just had to be all noble about it.

      And why you’re scurrying out of the woodwork to defend the man, as though he were your brother, or as though you could see yourself in his position, is beyond me entirely. I guess selfish douchebags just gotta have each others backs?

      • Elliott says:

        lol, you just couldn’t make it to the end of the rebuttal without name-calling.
        Very mature…

        “There is nothing noble about paying to hunt a rare peaceful animal. Nothing.”
        I agree, but since Bob didn’t pay for it It’s a non sequitur, next point:

        You seem to think that, even though there is video footage of poor people celebrating and cutting meat from the animal he killed, he didn’t feed any poor people.

        :/

      • noen says:

        “He’s an asshole. Then he shot an elephant. THEN he bragged about it.”

        I find it hard to care about this as there are far more candidates deserving my scorn than some idiot CEO out elephant hunting. George Bush committed war crimes and still walks free and locally the fascists are trying to deny us our rights. So some douche bag CEO being a douche bag just doesn’t get me all worked up.

        “There is nothing noble about paying to hunt a rare peaceful animal.”

        Sure there is. It is honorable when Hunters pay for maintaining habitat through their fees. Hunters understand the need for habitat preservation and are willing to give hard earned cash to preserve wildlife. It is this same mechanism that will save elephants and other wildlife from extinction. Commenting in blogs will not.

        • travtastic says:

          I find it hard to care about this as there are far more candidates deserving my scorn than some idiot CEO out elephant hunting.

          I never volunteer at my local charities, because of the crisis in Darfur.

          • noen says:

            “I never volunteer at my local charities, because of the crisis in Darfur.”

            I do. I have helped assemble high protein food packets meant to be sent to places just like Darfur. Not 100% that where they went there but they might have. I have also gone door to door for the Obama campaign, personally lobbied the state legislature for mental health issues and housing for the homeless among other things. I see no inconsistency here.

            I was raised on a farm. We also hunted. I just don’t see the problem. If elephants and other big game are going to be preserved it will be through fees paid by hunters. Just like they do for ducks and deer and pheasants and fish. The best way to make sure that habitat is preserved is by it being in someone’s self interest to do so. I’m a very pragmatic middle of the road person. What works is what we should do, hunting fees will work so I think we should do that.

          • travtastic says:

            Well, that’s fine. But don’t try to cloak your opinion with the “We’ve got bigger fish to fry!” card. You just don’t see a problem with it. George W. Bush is playing no part in your thought processes, when it comes to elephant hunting.

          • catgrin says:

            The issue many of us are taking with Parsons isn’t that he killed an elephant. It’s the vid he posted bragging about his supposedly great contribution to the well-being of the people in the village. “Great white hunter will save you all!”

            Keep in mind that Africa’s Parks Services already culls herds by the 100s every year. In 2008, they were granted permission to cull 600 animals and then cure the meat so it wouldn’t spoil. That year they estimated 6000 elephants culled were needed to have an effect on herd size. (source link in comment #129)

            Bob Parsons’ action (read as: “vacation safari disguised in video as a goodwill gesture” as evidenced by the removal of the two kill shots shortly after I pointed out how inappropriate they were) could alter international perception of an already misunderstood problem (just look at these comments) and that’s a very bad thing to do.

            Parson’s got money and an advertising company at his beck and call, Africa’s Parks Services is broke. With Parson’s voice being much, much louder, his version of the events is the one the will be accepted – that is UNLESS dialogs such as ours exist.

            There are two main reasons this dialog is important. First: Parsons has already shown an interest in editing as needed to alter people’s perception of his actions on this trip. A record separate from his videos should exist. Second: this dialog discusses the elephant problem in Zimbabwe. So, if you are at a water cooler, school or friend’s house and Parson’s display comes up in conversation, you can now give people a better, more complete explanation of a problem you may not have even known existed before you started reading here. (After all, how can something be endangered and still be too plentiful?)

    • travtastic says:

      Also, do I detect sarcasm on the words “poor” and “starving? What the hell?

      Oh yeah, I’m sure Africa has poor and starving people in it. I bet.

  39. petertrepan says:

    Wait, I’ve got this all wrong. Bob Parsons isn’t a government because he uses force against an elephant. The elephant is a government because by eating the villagers crops, it confiscates goods through coercion, as a government does through taxation. Which makes the villagers a free market, and Bob Parsons a patriot!

    Once you learn how to apply it, the Austrian School of Economics makes every dilemma easy.

    • travtastic says:

      Is not hunting thus simply the zealous regulation of the elephantine economy?

      • petertrepan says:

        Precisely. I should have known the answer anyway, because since Bob Parsons worked to build his company and the villagers worked to plant their crops, the only one of them that could be a government is the elephant – because government never works.

        • travtastic says:

          It’s so clear now.

          But in opposition to this idea lies the fact that the elephant never forgets, showing us that it can learn from past missteps. This can only be the basis of the market’s ability to self-correct. The elephant must simultaneously be The Market and The Government. The Creator and The Destroyer. Shiva, Shatterer of Worlds.

          I fear that if this continues any further, we’ll find ourselves in Limbo.

          • petertrepan says:

            Indeed, the free market that can be known is not the true free market.

          • travtastic says:

            If you meet Adam Smith on the side of the road, you must kill him, for he is an impostor.

            The True Market lives inside you.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            The True Market lives inside you.

            Is that what’s causing the painful rectal itch?

          • travtastic says:

            No, that must be from whatever the Federal Reserve is ramming down your throat. NWO Syndrome is highly contagious, so it’s strongly suggested that you consult a doctor. Remember to bring a goat along for payment.

          • Mister44 says:

            Mmm that’s probably worms.

          • emmdeeaych says:

            or agoraphobic.

          • travtastic says:

            But I have everything I need in my basement!

          • petertrepan says:

            You don’t have to live in your basement. Me and some captains of industry are moving to a city high in the Rocky Mountains where there are trains that run on magic and we pay fifty cents to hear each other’s speeches. Wanna come with?

          • travtastic says:

            Can we build the tracks in such a way that we run over poor people? Sign me up.

          • genre slur says:

            bwahahahaaa! Your comment made me think of the Red Carpet laid out for DuMonet in Brook’s HOTW part 1 (French Revolution) — rolled out over TOP of the Rabble begging at the palace gate, hahahahaha!

  40. ecobore says:

    It’s OK, it seems that the company has already lost going on 650 web addresses from their books due to his ridiculous behaviour!

  41. Anonymous says:

    “Human encroachment into or adjacent to natural areas where bush elephants occur has led to recent research into methods of safely driving groups of elephants away from humans, including the discovery that playback of the recorded sounds of angry honey bees is remarkably effective at prompting elephants to flee an area.[18]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant

    just saying

    Zimbabwe, home of good government, where the President is the most loved, least corrupt person in Africa…

  42. millrick says:

    “When I pulled the trigger I did not hear the bang or feel the kick–one never does when a shot goes home–but I heard the devilish roar of glee that went up from the crowd. In that instant, in too short a time, one would have thought, even for the bullet to get there, a mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant. He neither stirred nor fell, but every line of his body had altered. He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frighfful impact of the bullet had paralysed him without knocking him down. At last, after what seemed a long time–it might have been five seconds, I dare say–he sagged flabbily to his knees. His mouth slobbered. An enormous senility seemed to have settled upon him. One could have imagined him thousands of years old. I fired again into the same spot. At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping. I fired a third time. That was the shot that did for him. You could see the agony of it jolt his whole body and knock the last remnant of strength from his legs. But in falling he seemed for a moment to rise, for as his hind legs collapsed beneath him he seemed to tower upward like a huge rock toppling, his trunk reaching skyward like a tree. He trumpeted, for the first and only time. And then down he came, his belly towards me, with a crash that seemed to shake the ground even where I lay.”

    http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/elephant.html

  43. Anonymous says:

    Zimbabwe as once the breadbasket of Africa. Elephants are causing starvation…politics are.

    • Major Variola (ret) says:

      Not only did the new govt of Zimbabwe destroy the farms,
      the populace (which is too lame to rise up politically) does nothing
      to control its own destructive overbreeding.

      In some places they give elephants vasectomies, rather than
      culling. They (or rich white benefactors like Gates, or this
      net.boor images himself to be) might consider helping the humans in africa with that too. Root causes, not symptoms.

      Famine, plague, war, or birth control. Pick any, they all work.
      Read Malthus.

  44. Anonymous says:

    It’s amazing that well-fed Westerners can keep a straight face while demanding that subsistence farmers in Africa allow elephants to destroy their crops, raid their stores and terrorize the populace. If there were an elephant in your neighborhood, you’d be the first to demand it be removed. I’ve worked in rural Africa (setting up basic electrical); elephants are a dangerous menace, and the absurdity of privileged outsiders demanding they be ‘saved’ obviously knows no bounds.

    [ Note: there are any number of elephant preserves, wildlife refuges and national parks across Africa. I believe strongly in conserving those areas from development and over-touristification. But this is a village, not a wildlife refuge -- an elephant doesn't belong there any more than people inside a wildlife preserve. ]

  45. Zoman says:

    FatRichDoucheBagCEO-ShootsElephantForKicks.com – status: available.

  46. BB says:

    Team Pachy.

  47. RobertBigelow says:

    Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd and one angry elephant. http://tx0.org/1ws “You do and I’ll give you SUCH a pinch!” at 5:30

  48. Orky says:

    Well, by that logic, so are CEOs.

    It’s called "executive powder".

  49. von Bobo says:

    meet your meat!

    starving folks have different needs, and so do heavily stroked egos.

    • travtastic says:

      starving folks have different needs

      I’ve never in my life read such a clear-headed, defensible rationale for ending starvation with elephant meat.

  50. Bookworm_City says:

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m a borderline vegetarian – more for environmental reasons than moral ones – who has also worked as both a field biologist, and as a friggin’ park ranger. And I’m enough of a nature nerd that this first reminded me of the Canadian policy to issue permits for Nunavut’s traditional polar bear hunts, which the tribes then sell for $30-35,000 a pop.

    But I won’t expound here on GoDaddy itself, or Africa’s history as a playground for white hunters. Instead, if any of y’all are interested in learning more about the nitty-gritty of hunting policy and land management, I humbly recommend the following:

    _Monster of God: The Man-Eating Predator in the Jungles of History and the Mind_, by David Quammen; _Elephantoms: Tracking the Elephant_, by Lyall Watson; _Heart and Blood: Living with Deer in America_, by Richard Nelson; and _Animal Investigators: How the World’s First Wildlife Forensics Lab Is Solving Crimes and Saving Endangered Species_, by Laurel A Neme.

    I just found that last one, but it looks awesome. And there are anti-poaching orgs and food banks alike who’d love a donation.

    Thanks, BoingBoing! You’re all lovely people.

  51. emmdeeaych says:

    Which is more responsible for the apparently reprehensible conditions in Post-colonial Africa: wild Elephants, or entitled white men?

    • jonw says:

      Lol. Because entitled African men (and women) are not to blame?

      Elephant is an asshole for making too many babies and eating forbidden corn.
      Village is an asshole for wanting the corn for themselves.
      Hunting tourist is an asshole for having lots of money and killing a lovable animal.
      Leaders of country are assholes for taking hunters money and allowing animal to die, and also for not giving the village enough corn.

      BngBng are not assholes because we didnt do any of that stuff.

      • emmdeeaych says:

        You go ahead and put whatever strawman up in front of my point that you wish, I am refering to the rich white guys who set monetary policy FOR Zimbabwe. They’re the root of the reason that the people are starving – centuries of foreign rule, recently disguised as local rule.

        Banana Republic is not just a store in the mall.

        • jonw says:

          oh, I didn’t mean to take any thunder from the rich white guys who looted Africa’s resources and manpower so we could build our modern industrial economies. I just wanted to point out that rich guys of all colors have done their best to loot africa, and although there are fewer rich black guys than rich white guys, the rich black guys have been there longer and worked very hard at looting as well. so they should get some of the credit for creating the current situation, and the more post-colonial they get, the more adept they get. I should also point out that rich guys of mostly white color are looting america as we speak, so it may be inaccurate to tie this to post-colonialism.

    • Ito Kagehisa says:

      Which is more responsible for the apparently reprehensible conditions in Post-colonial Africa: wild Elephants, or entitled white men?

      Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! I’m going with door #2, MDH!

      Listen to the yell of Leopold’s ghost
      Burning in hell for his hand-maimed host.
      Hear how the demons chuckle and yell.
      Cutting his hands off, down in Hell.

    • bklynchris says:

      Amen brother/sister! I heart you 2x’s in less than 24 hours. Took the words right out of my mouth.

  52. Xof says:

    What I never knew is that elephants and technology CEOs co-evolved, so the latter are required in order to control the population of the former.

    • bmcraec says:

      Please don’t call that doofus a Technology CEO. Domain registry poaching is no more a technology industry than Purina is a Biotechnology company. It’d don’t take R&D to sign up some N00Bs for their firs domains, upsell and cross-sell them on crap they’ll never need, persuade them that a crappy templated 3-page website is great for business (theirs, not yours), and charge you monthly for something that costs them absolutely nothing.Go-Daddy is the used car lot 2 streets further across the tracks than you ever want to go after dark.

  53. lolbrandon says:

    Suggestions for domain registrars that don’t kill elephants? I’ve heard NameCheap.com mentioned.

  54. David says:

    Seems like this empty head sponsors a race car driver who might want to know what her dick head sponsor is doing. His nuts would make good protein if removed and toasted over an open fire.

  55. Bookworm_City says:

    Nicely said, Intersection.

    And if anyone is looking for a win-win in all this, might I suggest: the Elephant Pepper Project! Their entire purpose is to promote chili peppers as a barrier crop against elephants in rural Africa, while providing a cash crop for the farmers themselves.

    Or, to quote them: “Elephants Hate Chili. We Love Elephants.”

    http://www.elephantpepper.org/
    http://www.elephantpepper.com/

    Sustainable, innovative development! With the power of hot sauce!

  56. Napkins says:

    Maybe the [Elephantmen](http://www.amazon.com/Elephantmen-Wounded-Animals-Richard-Starkings/dp/158240934X) folks could weave this into a story.

  57. Intersection says:

    First of all, if you are just now waking up to the fact that godddy sucks and acting Shocked, so Shocked, what rock have you been living under for the last 10 years? you don’t need an elephant hunt to know they suck.

    Second, while I do think Parson’s is a douchebag, elephant culls are often necessary, and charging rich white people to do it, while distasteful, is a good way to bring a lot of money to local economies as part of effective wildlife management practices.

    I’m a liberal tree-hugging organic food earing prius driver but at the end of the day tough decisions often have to be made that require nuanced thinking to understand and folks should read up a bit on the challenges of African wildlife management before they start spouting off on things they don’t know much about.

    I was in Kenya while back ago and spoke to folks who both managed parks and worked with elephants and all of them discussed the problem that parks are too small to sustain the elephant populations and the parks are typically surrounded by villages of hungry people. The people get in trouble if they enter the park looking for food. The elephants leave the park to forage outside, because there’s not enough food for them in the parks. Outside the parks, elephants destroy people’s subsistence gardens and then if the people kill the elephants to protect their lives/families, the government (spurred by uninformed white liberals from rich countries like the US) comes in and arrests them because foreign aid, etc is dependent on the government acting like it cares about elephants more than the people living there. There’s a lot of complexity in the world and there aren’t always easy answers. It’s easy for people in America demand that wildlife be protected when it is somewhere far away, but it means a lot less if you are a poor starving person who just had an elephant trample your crops so you children will starve. That’s what the reality of centuries of colonialism, despotism and over-population have brought us. It ain’t pretty, but knee-jerk judgments on good and bad don’t usually help move the discussion forward much.

  58. armahillo says:

    “…because elephants are “a valuable source of protein.” Well, by that logic, so are CEOs.”

    I quibble with you on the “valuable” part.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Is that an elephant on your vacation or are you just happy to shoot me?

  60. netdiva says:

    I was ahead of the curve apparently and got mad at godaddy 2-3 years ago. I use hover.com (am not affiliated, not a spokesperson, just a pleased customer) and they are pretty awesome.

    Pretty inexpensive as things go and they held my hand through the whole process. Easy as pie and they promise no telephone hold time if you call during normal business hours.

  61. Anonymous says:

    I completely understand vegans and vegetarians that object to hunting on moral grounds. In my opinion however, people who eat meat have less justification for criticism. Cows and chickens in the U.S. spend their lives in deplorable conditions and are harvested for their meat in much less humane ways then most game animals. There are, of course, bad hunters who don’t hunt ethically, just as there are cattle and chicken producers who treat their livestock with respect. Nothing in the above video suggests to me that Bob Parsons was hunting unethically, or in a manner detrimental to the health of the overall elephant population in Zimbabwe. I did not see his appearance on CNN and can’t comment on his remarks there. However, killing animals that damage crops is common practice through the world, including here in the United States where the various Fish and Game entities frequently shoot Deer and Elk that are eating crops.

    • Anonymous says:

      You said everything I was thinking. I don’t eat meat for personal reasons, but many animals are omnivores. I was pleased to know that this elephant was consumed and I assume every part of that elephant is being utilized. The usual objection is when poachers kills elephants for their tusks and leave the rest to rot. I don’t see ONE valid response on any moral grounds. I find it hypocritical of any meat-eaters to object~!

    • Major Variola (ret) says:

      Where I grew up, in NY, if you saw dogs chasing deer you could shoot the dogs, any time of year.

    • Anonymous says:

      “I completely understand vegans and vegetarians that object to hunting on moral grounds.”

      Only if you assume that, in the absence of humans, all the animals in the forest get together and have tea parties and live to ripe old ages after long and satisfying lives.

      The reality is that the animal you didn’t go out and hunt today is going to die anyway. Probably at the hands of a predator that won’t give a second thought as to whether it is delivering a humane kill. Or maybe it will simply die of an injury or exposure, leaving the carcass to be picked over by carrion eaters. Point being: just because you didn’t pull the trigger, that animal is by no means “saved.” It will live a while longer, most likely on the razor’s edge because that’s how nature works: populations grow until there’s just barely enough food to feed them all, and if the food supply dwindles, the excess animals starve and die. Among hunters, humans are probably the only creatures capable of showing concern for the welfare of their prey. Most human hunters (at least the ethical ones) will pass up a shot if they aren’t confident of a clean, quick kill. Other predators scarcely care about how long it takes their prey to die or how much it suffers in the process: a meal is a meal, and no meal is one step closer to the predator’s own death.

      Nature isn’t deliberately cruel, but it’s uncaring. We are animals just like the others, except we have the capacity to act with both deliberate kindness and deliberate cruelty. What we cannot do, however, is make the death and suffering endemic in nature go away by walling ourselves in cities and pretending it doesn’t exist because we don’t directly participate.

  62. ultranaut says:

    I can’t believe some of the people who make money from me. Should I feel guilty using godaddy because of this?

    • travtastic says:

      I would take it as an impetus to research all your financial interactions, to a reasonable extent. You’ll find no saints, but you can at least limit the asshole rating of your sellers.

    • travtastic says:

      AssholeRating.com is actually available. I’m getting ideas.

      • ultranaut says:

        Excellent. I am always happy to inspire ideas. I am certain you could turn assholerating into a powerful and profitable venture. If I can help let me know. I have spent the past few years trying to be more conscious of who gets my money. I finally gave up on Wells Fargo, strategically defaulting and all that. I am so done with letting criminals have my money. I want to rate the shit out every asshole!

    • werve says:

      Ease your conscience, Namecheap.com is offering a $4.99 transfer special w/ a portion of the fee donated to Save the Elephants…(coupon code “BYEBYEGD”)

      http://www.savetheelephants.org/

      http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/03/30/elephants/

  63. travtastic says:

    So are the rich, dude. Now might be a good time to shut up.

    • xzzy says:

      I suggest that the wealthy are a superior source of not just protein, but many other nutrients.

      Logic being, if you shoot a rich man and take his money, you can buy all the food you need now and in the future. If you shoot an elephant, you only have food until the meat spoils. Likewise, shoot a rich man, you can buy some vegetables to round out your diet. No matter how many elephants you shoot, you aren’t going to get a head of lettuce.

      Reasonable course of action is creating a hunting season against rich assholes.

  64. Anonymous says:

    One of the world’s healthiest and best-managed elephant populations is in South Africa, largely as a result of their policy of allowing (carefully managed) sport hunting of the animals, charging a huge amount of money for the privilege, and using the proceeds (and the resultant understanding that elephants are a valuable resource) for conservation.

    Of course, this is not to suggest that the hunters give a crap about the environment (it would indeed be more efficient just to donate the money they pay for hunting rights). It does, however, indicate that the hunters care more about hunting than the environmentalists (who could ostensibly outbid the hunters) care about the environment.

    And, quite frankly, I would rather there that there would be a healthy population of elephants thanks to the support of cruel, small-penised idiots who like to hunt them, than to take the moral high ground but have elephants poached to extinction.

  65. Anonymous says:

    Hmmm, I can feel him though… well. Dunno, would need more factchecking than I´m game for.

    I wonder if somebody should tell him that there is a plural of the word elephant, his grammar makes my eyes water.

  66. rsplatpc says:

    I’ll bet a 173 lb man has less protein then a 4.6 ton elephant

  67. durfsmurf says:

    Not really sure what’s so horrible about this.
    I don’t think it’s immoral, I’ve already eaten three cute animals already today – pig, cow, and chicken. They weren’t threatening anybody.
    Maybe he’s exploiting the locals, but I don’t see how shooting an animal that’s stomping on their crops and giving it to them to eat is exploitation. I’ve already bought shit from Wal-Mart today, that’s just as exploitative of poor people, if you look at it that way.
    Sure, he’s douchey, but that’s sorta the point of GoDaddy, is that it’s douchey. Doesn’t make him a horrible person.

  68. DieFem says:

    And I am feeding this guy month after month, US$ 9 at a time. :(

    I would really like to move from Godaddy, but I guess it will be a painful process. :(:(:(

  69. EH says:

    I use Joker.com. Germany has some of the best privacy laws.

  70. Anonymous says:

    elaborate April fools?

    please?

  71. sanj says:

    the poor elephant stepped out of its comfort zone and you turned it into a cadaver..g­o bob. way to feel like a winner. your own rule# 1. shame on you… the elephants need their zone, guess you are so lost in your own blog and blowing your own horn with your 16 rules that you chose to ignore the facts.. you could contribute some of your easy domain money to help them stay where they are safe and via helping the local poor to help maintain safe corridors.­..
    read this elephant killer’s 16 winning points on his ego boosting, chest thumping blog…

    oh i forgot- you are Bob. you prefer to kill them and then make some assinine comment about drive-in fast food. did you know some of these countries often inflate the number of elephants they have, that many individual­s stockpile tusks….s­pend a little time gathering actual facts instead of creating your own justificat­ions. you walk in there serving them elephant protein for a day or two. you return to America and boast with your videos and get more than your daily share of protein. what happens to all those poor farmers you left behind..ki­ll more elephants.­..

    guess that elephant hadn’t read your rule #16, didn’t know unlike you. “we’re not here for a long time, at least s/he wasn’t while you WERE there for a good time shame on you……i hope the government does put rules in place so that their elephants are safe from likes of you.

  72. chortick says:

    Many years ago, I received media training, the gist of which was “there is nothing that you can say to your detractors that will not be twisted against you, so shut up and don’t say anything”. The gentleman in question would do well to follow that advice.

  73. Alvis says:

    It’s just an animal. It’s OK to kill animals. It wasn’t tortured. Case closed.

    • bklynchris says:

      What’s the weather like under that bridge?

      • Alvis says:

        Call me a troll all you want. I’m comfortable with my beliefs.

        Humans are -better- than animals. There’s nothing wrong with killing them. We don’t need a “good reason” for doing it.

        Torturing them makes us jerks, but unlike humans, their lives aren’t meaningful in and of themselves; don’t be so naive to ignore that murder is a very different crime from poaching.

        • emmdeeaych says:

          Call me a troll all you want. I’m comfortable with my beliefs.

          I am Jack’s utter lack of surprise.

        • libraryboi says:

          “Humans are -better- than animals. There’s nothing wrong with killing them.”

          By making that ignorant comment you’ve proven that you’re not.

        • travtastic says:

          In a just world, someone with your very same viewpoint, but shifted from animals towards commenters, would decide that they didn’t like you very much, and that they hadn’t eaten since breakfast.

    • GuyInMilwaukee says:

      Alvis is just an animal. Case closed.

  74. Thirsty says:

    Obviously NONE of the commentators I’ve read so far have spent any time in East Africa….

    Point number 1: If a crop gets ruined a family will starve

    Point number 2: The only protein they usually get are mice and grasshoppers and nuts. Most people in this section of the world suffer from chronic protein deprivation.

    Point number 3: Africa needs better infrastructure to develop it’s economy. If you want to help…get a congressman to sponsor a project or hey start drumming up money to build roads and an electrical.

    So if that misogynist CEO jerk is killing rouge elephants…then he’s helping out more people than the armchair experts who populate this thread…

    I’ve lived in Africa…life is not easy.

  75. catgrin says:

    I’m right in there with those who are calling him out onto the the asshole mat for this. My reasons: hunting before trying alternate means to control the animals, the public display of the footage, and his overblown claim of the importance of his action.

    The animals clearly had open access to the fields, and no specific claim of injury from a known problem animal was mentioned before the hunt was begun. Instead what we see is the hunt of a cluster of large herbivores that, while they are capable of being dangerous, appear quietly and immediately turn and run from the guns.

    The editing of the footage is supposed to make the hunt look “dark&scary” and make the villagers look desperate for the elephant flesh as a food source to replace their scanty crops. We’re supposed to ask ourselves, “Why didn’t you shoot the other ones? There are still hungry villagers left!” He even drops in the text, “Even though the elephant was huge, there is not enough meat for everyone.” Basically, he’s not just showing off his great white hunter skills, he’s trying to make a 3 minute argument in favor of hunting more elephants. Right now.

    He talks about the hunt being the most rewarding and important thing he does all year.

    What utter crap.

    You know why I can say that?

    Because if he really, honestly cared about those villagers and not about the hunt itself, we’d only get one shot – not two poses at 2:05 and 2:06 with long pans across them – of him with his trophy, and he certainly wouldn’t be smiling like he’s on vacation.

    (Disclaimer: Just so you know. I eat meat. I come from a family that has owned ranch property, so I’ve dealt with food animals. My issue with Parsons is not that he is a hunter. I happen to think he’s a overinflated, lying, misogynistic jerk. I also happen to think he did this purely for thrill, and was hoping to spin it into something humanitarian.)

  76. Anonymous says:

    Goodbye renewal of my domain!

  77. Anonymous says:

    What does elephant meat taste like?

  78. Anonymous says:

    While elephants are endangered, wealthy CEOs are not. In fact they’re out there right now, causing destruction, destroying villages, and decimating the environment.

    Also, 1and1.com has cheap domains too.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Reason # 9 to leave godaddy.

    Was already contemplating the move now all domains will go to more vegan friendly registrars.

  80. Anonymous says:

    we have an account with them; sure only about $1,000 bucks a year but i’m going to do my best to withdraw…

  81. happyez says:

    Well, I’ve heard the term ‘eat the rich’. Is that what is suggested here?
    I imagine those who say CEO’s are worth eating as much as elephants really mean it. These aren’t just empty words, are they?

    Should be easy to do this – get or build a mobile oven and attach it to your largish vehicle. Go to the wealthiest suburb in your town, choose houses (not units) that have at LEAST an 3/4 acre on them of land in total. Even if the residents are renting (highly unlikely), look at the way the garden is kept. If it is extremely neat, the cars in the driveway (if not in a garage) are of the expensive variety, and the energy emitted is one of intense security and comfort, they are probably rich….

    (zip forward a few steps)…some vinegar and sour creme to taste, and voilá, you have yourself a tasty mobile meal. Now, what I would do is drive very fast in your van, because they tend to protect their own kind quite well.

    Happy canniballing people, and as you do it with a smile and a sense of equalising the field, know you are doing it for the jumping ants, honeybees, wasps, mosquitoes, ladybugs and redback spiders equally as much for the bunny rabbits, lambs, calves and other random mammals.

  82. Anonymous says:

    i’m not sure i get the outrage here. sure, he didn’t personally have a stake in it, but it looks like the elephants were trampling their crops. that seems like justification for shooting an elephant to me. plus, they ate it, so it’s not like it was just sport hunting. as others have pointed out, much cuter and less threatening animals have been killed today in the service of food, and they had much worse lives.

  83. grimc says:

    Anybody who receives an honorary doctorate and starts calling himself “Dr.” is an asshole, even before he starts shooting elephants.

  84. adonai says:

    I was conflicted about this (very much not black and white) issue until I found that PETA was on one side of it.

    Screw it, shoot away.

  85. YarbroughFair says:

    I’ve tried to wade through my ignorance and stay focused on facts which has left me with the following points:

    Humans eat meat. Some people choose to give a voice to some animals and not others.

    Most agricultural based societies, especially those who eat directly from their crops, will protect their crops at all cost.

    I believe this C.E.O, pays for the opportunity to hunt elephants. I believe this because I refuse to believe a culture, who have lived among these animals for hundreds of years, don’t know how to hunt and deal with them. What the fuck does a C.E.O know about hunting elephants more than the locals do? Money, a posse, and a big gun.

    Finally, some hunters are bloodthirsty and this guy makes excuses trying to get us to believe he had a major hand in feeding starving people. There are many types of hunters. Some measure their success on how elusive the animal is, how large the animal is or even how rare. Those are NOT reasons to hunt. Why doesn’t this guy travel to Florida and hunt wild pigs? They are destructive to flora, crowd out fauna and killed humans. He would be protecting the environment and he could donate the meat. Maybe they are to small and too fast?

    Or just too plain fucking common.

    • Major Variola (ret) says:

      In SoCal, communities will hire hunters to shoot bunnies
      because they eat the flowers.

      The hunters only work at dawn so as not to freak the residents.

    • Anonymous says:

      The differences have been explained enough that it’s hard to believe people still don’t notice. African elephants are a vulnerable species, and they’re smart enough to have culture, whereas deer are neither. Shooting gorillas might be a legitimate comparison, but nobody seems to have offered it.

  86. bcsizemo says:

    I wonder how much a pint of tiger’s blood is going for on the black market now…

    I’m kind of with most people here. He was doing this legally. What’s the difference between hunting an elephant and deer or any other animal?

    The world might be a different place if people weren’t so far removed from their food. My parents grew up on farms and my dad has told me many of stories about slaughtering pigs in the winter. Or how my grandmother could break a chicken’s neck with a quick snap of her wrist. Or just use the cleaver and let it run around headless till it fell over….

    Fried chicken sounds good right about now.

    • Major Variola (ret) says:

      Its not the killing and eating / game management that is fail.
      Its the presentation. By a CEO, not just some random yahoo
      filming a deer hunt fer his buds.

      PS: ever reach into a live pigs abdomen? I have. Its ok, she was asleep. But we weren’t allowed to eat it after the lab / euthanasia. (But I’m sure she was recycled into fine fish food, etc) Since farms and hunters are so rare now, most don’t have that kind of visceral experience (I’ve never hunted, and stopped fishing once out of empathy, not that I stopped eating meats).

      “If we weren’t supposed to eat them, how come they’re made out of meat?” –Sarah P

    • Ito Kagehisa says:

      Yeah, the problem is that those of us who are totally OK with well managed elephant hunting don’t necessarily want to say anything that might serve to defend Bob Parsons. It’s vexing.

  87. Don says:

    A couple things:

    1. Culling a herd by predation does improve the health of the herd. Reintroduction of wolves to Isle Royale, for example, resulted in an increase in the number of moose hunters who managed to bag a moose. Perhaps the wolves took older, less-fertile females.

    2. For hunters to claim they are culling, and not just joy-killing, they would have to take the sick and old animals. They don’t.

    3. I’ve had a great hosting experience at Dreamhost. Dumped Godaddy some time ago, when they destroyed one of my web sites rather than pick up the phone and ask why my credit card was declined.

    • travtastic says:

      Culling a herd by predation does improve the health of the herd.

      In a manner of speaking, if done correctly, yes. But it rarely is. The animals that tend to be killed are the big, gloriously stuffable ones. This generally leads to the rough equivalent of a drug-fueled orgy, where all the somewhat weaker males now have a chance at all the females. Coyote hunting, for instance, almost always makes the population grow, for that reason.

      What I assume you’re getting at is that it can increase genetic diversity and provide a new, sharp selection pressure. The issue in most cases, though, is that’s not what you want. Most of this stiff is done for funsies and population control. So more, smarter animals is what you’re trying to avoid.

  88. Anonymous says:

    I submit, the meat on a CEO is MORE full of protein and nutrition than a herd of elephants. CEOs are as kings, gods. That’s why they’re paid so much. Brothers and sisters, why settle for cake when there is bounty that will last a whole generation? They know this and that is why they live in exclusivity.

  89. Major Variola (ret) says:

    This is such epic fail its wonderful. He has no idea how crude and stereotypical both he and the villagers appear.

    If he wants to be a Big Man, distribute contraceptives to the farmers. That is the actual solution to the problem, which is overpopulation.

  90. DanielVincentKelley says:

    youtube.com/danielvincentkelley is my channel on youtube. I’m a vegetarian about 5 years now, which is the best thing I did for myself, health and conscience, in my whole life. Quitting plutonium laden tobacco is a close 2nd.

    It irks me that there’s not more information online to say how often Bob Parsons has been going on these “humanitarian” hunting expeditions. Godaddy did a racist super bowl ad this year, the black guy in the commercial didn’t complete 1 sentence and Danicka Patrick harped on how EASY it is to setup a website on godaddy. Some of the standard racial stereotypes of, especially rich, black men were prominent in the ad, particularly objectification of women and materialism.

    I just read Bob Parsons was a US Marine during Vietnam, which has me wondering how many people he has killed in his lifetime. I read also that he’s been going to Africa, apparently on hunting expeditions, for 6 years and has heard much about “elephant problems” in that time. Which, it seems to me, 6 years is long enough to do some research and come to the conclusion that fences are what’s good for preventing elephant’s damaging crops.

    I’d have less of a problem with his hunt, if he was man enough to own up to doing it for “fun” and admitted paying big cash to the government there to do it. But presenting it as a humanitarian operation, when OBVIOUSLY actual solutions exist for crop protection, distributing go daddy gear to use the dead elephant as a photo opportunity that he think will bolster his sales AND the picture of him beaming standing over a carcass is all ridiculously distasteful, disingenuous, dastardly, conniving and psychotic.

    Just to be clear, I’m not in support of hunting for fun, in fact I know humans are, as great apes and most primates for that matter, naturally herbivores.

    But if he at least stated his real motivation, I’d be less skeeved by what he did. As it is, the guy seems like a real weasel (forgive me weasels for the insult to your kind) and that he’s a billionaire weasel who thinks killing things is fun and enjoys gun play, he is quite nauseating.

    More than that, he’s a boldly lieing buffoon, who thinks people will be fooled by his charade over the matter.

    If he came out and said, “I paid to shoot that elephant and I did it for fun, because that’s what I like to do.” I wouldn’t agree with him, but at least I’d recognize he was honest about it. As it is, the whole charade to guise this as a service to protect crops and as a means to feed a village all ring very hollow and what rings true is Bob Parsons standing over an intelligent sentient being he killed for fun, gloating.

    It gives one real insight to the people Bob Parsons is associating with, that none of his peers were aware that people don’t widely support sport hunting or that no one cared enough to warn him that this would obviously be a huge gaffe for his business. Most people as little kids went to the zoo and saw elephants standing around calm all day, eating hay, chilling with their babies, seen elephants dancing in circles at circuses, seen elephants on TV and in all of that the elephants are just splashing around having a grand old time. Bob Parsons thinks he’s going to be made a hero by blasting dumbo in the face with a shot gun? Ridiculous.

    It also says quite a bit about Bob Parsons detachment from society that he didn’t realize on his own how sick he’d be viewed beyond his global broadcast of killing for fun. AND it says something about his intellect that he not do some research or at least pay someone to do some research before he try to use a dead elephant as a prop in his sick advertisement.

    This reminds me of the Dick Cheney fiasco when he blasted his “friend” in the face with a shotgun while he was hunting little birds. Mostly just because of how obviously sick in the head are these billionaire corporate titans.

    From what I’ve read of his “service” during Vietnam, Bob Parsons doesn’t do too well when his prey are similarly armed, he’s pretty good at catching bullets.

    Answering what hosts people like: I’m on a free host that provides unlimited space and download at 1unlimited.net

    They do provide php hosting databases and all the bells and whistles.

    I don’t see that they have any capacity to register domains, but you can register domains just about anywhere for $8 and then transfer the domain to 1unlimited. Just don’t fund Bob Parsons, ok? Boycott GoDaddy.

  91. aeon says:

    So let me see…

    1. Elephant is trampling the fields of impoverished farmers in Zimbabwe.
    2. Zimbabwe isn’t short of elephants so said elephant is going to die anyway one way or another.
    3. Zimbabwe gets to sell the rights to shoot the pachyderm for much needed foreign exchange.
    4. Villagers get a bit of protein and hopefully some trickle down in terms of tourist spending.
    5. Elephant gets shot, a quicker way to die than spearing or falling in a pit.
    6. Rich entitled white guy gets his rocks off doing some hunting.
    7. Zimbabwe makes rich entitled guy pay handsomely for the privilege of getting his rocks off.
    8. Rich entitled white guy gets to look like the arsehole he is for the entire world’s media.

    So just how is this not a win-win situation all round? OK, so the elephant gets a slightly raw deal, but see points 2 and 5…

    • catgrin says:

      Hey aeon, the problem is he’s wrapping a compound fracture with an ace bandage and then popping a vid of it on the internet in the hopes that people will revel in his glory.

      here’s a link to show you the problem.

      http://africanconservation.org/20080104347/conservation-news-section/zimbabwe-parks-authority-to-produce-biltong-from-elephant-meat.html

      Written in 2008, it gives some info on the scale of the problem with elephant herd size and the fact that there are already local organizations who understand the issue trying to resolve it. Elephants are already culled yearly by parks services in an effort to control herd sizes, and then the meat is dried so it won’t rot in the heat. Parks culled animals are not just wasted. If Parsons genuinely wanted to help, he would have contributed to the efforts for contraception, which is fiscally impossible for the African parks service to do.

      Instead what he chooses to do is fly himself out to Africa so he can have a grand, expensive vacation. He goes on a private safari, and ends up killing one adult male. Oh, and that was one of four that were living too close to the village he was visiting. Then, even though he knew he was there to hunt elephant, he leaves the raw carcass in the sun and turns the kill into a free for all so he can get it on video.

      My problem with the way the video itself is put together is the way in which it heightens the supposed threat of the large game and the thrill of the hunt and then glorifies the hunter for providing for the needy villagers. It’s like a bad 1940s flick, and it’s total propaganda.

      He can’t have it both ways. If he shows up, kills one elephant and leaves, he’s there to hunt game. 600 elephants don’t make a dent in the exploded population of Zimbabwe. If he was a true conservationist, interested in the continued well-being of both humans and elephants, he’d be working with Africa’s parks on a real solution (which could include safaris, but would not be a solo yearly safari). He’s misrepresenting himself in the interest of better branding.

    • Cowicide says:

      So just how is this not a win-win situation all round?

      I can think of some other losers asides from the elephant.

  92. emmdeeaych says:

    Wheras your responses to this post and the last are deeply nuanced studies in good faith and conflict resolution. Clearly.

Leave a Reply