The Lost World: Jurassic Park

[iwfan53]

Ok, I opened this can of worms so I suppose it's time to address this stuff.

It is poaching. Poaching does not exclusively mean killing animals, poaching involves a deliberate distrubtion to an animal's natural life. Killing is the most explicit action in doing so. Taking animals out of their environment in the wild, for the purposes of display IS poaching. It is why zoos get put under scrutiny for the sources of their animals. It is why they advertise "Born in capitivity", so they aren't accused of hiring people like Roiland to kill the mama elephant and steal the baby. Even if they are using non-lethal means, it is still poaching.

Can you source your definition of poaching? I can't help but feel that since the island that the dinosaurs are on belongs to Ingen, Ingen created all the dinosaurs, the situation is more equivalent to if a ranch is hit by a thunderstorm, which creates a hole in its fences through which all the cows stampede out, and now the ranch owner wants to round up and recapture the cows, which were always his property to start with, so it doesn't become illegal to recapture them just because an act of nature temporarily allowed them to escape.

If the Island isn't an official animal sanctuary, and at the start of the movie it very much isn't since turning it into one is what Hammond wants to accomplish, I can't see how capturing the dinosaurs rises to the level of "poaching".

[Rodan56]

Can you source your definition of poaching? I can't help but feel that since the island that the dinosaurs are on belongs to Ingen, Ingen created all the dinosaurs, the situation is more equivalent to if a ranch is hit by a thunderstorm, which creates a hole in its fences through which all the cows stampede out, and now the ranch owner wants to round up and recapture the cows, which were always his property to start with, so it doesn't become illegal to recapture them just because an act of nature temporarily allowed them to escape.

If the Island isn't an official animal sanctuary, and at the start of the movie it very much isn't since turning it into one is what Hammond wants to accomplish, I can't see how capturing the dinosaurs rises to the level of "poaching".

You realize I addressed that point literally in the next paragraph. Concerning the fact Ingen owns the dinosaurs. I was merely explaining that just because animals aren't killed does not mean it isn't poaching. There are illegal exotic animal markets out there that do what the hunters in the movie do, capture animals through non-lethal means, and it is still considered poaching by a number of governments. That was the issue I was addressing, not whether or not the hunters in this movie can be classified as poachers, but that just because you don't kill an animal doesn't mean you can't be classified as one.

More to the point, Hammond created the creatures. He dreamed them up, he financed the research, he made them possible. Technically, they're his. And Peter, his nephew, is try to assert his control over them in his uncle's ailing state. And, according to the dialogue, he wasn't supposed to be here yet. So he's either jumped the gun on the legal matters because he doesn't want to wait anymore or he's pushed the issue through some kind of court loophole to reassert the dinosaurs as HIS company assests, not Hammond's.

So if I really wanted to argue specifically concerning the point about whether or not the hunters are Poachers, I would've come at that angle from the get. Again, I was explaining that poaching is not limited to killing animals in the general sense, not the film.

But if you want a legal definition towards my point that killing animals is not the only thing that encompasses poaching

poaching[ poh-ching ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR poaching ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poaching

Now while again, the precise legal claim to the dinosaurs is still hazy, considering Hammond was the man who financed their existence but did so through Ingen, if our "heroes" are attempting to convince people that Hammond's position is accurate, legally they would have to back his claim to the dinosaurs, the island and everything on it. Allowing him to do whatever he wants with it, including making it a preserve. And given this is Ingen, who kinda suck as the wider universe has revealed over time, it is likely that the board is forcing its position that they own the dinosaurs and not Hammond. So, while I'm not really arguing about whether or not this is poaching, I will say there are plausible grounds to call it so.

Regardless, it does nothing to make me sympathize, like or feel sorry about the well being and safety of a bunch of military wannabe thugs running around an island doing their thing for Ingen's little Circus Maximus. Even if they do legally own the dinosaurs and the island, I already explained why I find that extremely problematic and morally wrong. So again, if they get eaten... that's a shame. (munch popcorn)

[iwfan53]

Can you source your definition of poaching? I can't help but feel that since the island that the dinosaurs are on belongs to Ingen, Ingen created all the dinosaurs, the situation is more equivalent to if a ranch is hit by a thunderstorm, which creates a hole in its fences through which all the cows stampede out, and now the ranch owner wants to round up and recapture the cows, which were always his property to start with, so it doesn't become illegal to recapture them just because an act of nature temporarily allowed them to escape.

If the Island isn't an official animal sanctuary, and at the start of the movie it very much isn't since turning it into one is what Hammond wants to accomplish, I can't see how capturing the dinosaurs rises to the level of "poaching".

You realize I addressed that point literally in the next paragraph. Concerning the fact Ingen owns the dinosaurs. I was merely explaining that just because animals aren't killed does not mean it isn't poaching. There are illegal exotic animal markets out there that do what the hunters in the movie do, capture animals through non-lethal means, and it is still considered poaching by a number of governments. That was the issue I was addressing, not whether or not the hunters in this movie can be classified as poachers, but that just because you don't kill an animal doesn't mean you can't be classified as one.

More to the point, Hammond created the creatures. He dreamed them up, he financed the research, he made them possible. Technically, they're his. And Peter, his nephew, is try to assert his control over them in his uncle's ailing state. And, according to the dialogue, he wasn't supposed to be here yet. So he's either jumped the gun on the legal matters because he doesn't want to wait anymore or he's pushed the issue through some kind of court loophole to reassert the dinosaurs as HIS company assests, not Hammond's.

So if I really wanted to argue specifically concerning the point about whether or not the hunters are Poachers, I would've come at that angle from the get. Again, I was explaining that poaching is not limited to killing animals in the general sense, not the film.

But if you want a legal definition towards my point that killing animals is not the only thing that encompasses poaching

poaching[ poh-ching ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR poaching ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poaching

Now while again, the precise legal claim to the dinosaurs is still hazy, considering Hammond was the man who financed their existence but did so through Ingen, if our "heroes" are attempting to convince people that Hammond's position is accurate, legally they would have to back his claim to the dinosaurs, the island and everything on it. Allowing him to do whatever he wants with it, including making it a preserve. And given this is Ingen, who kinda suck as the wider universe has revealed over time, it is likely that the board is forcing its position that they own the dinosaurs and not Hammond. So, while I'm not really arguing about whether or not this is poaching, I will say there are plausible grounds to call it so.

Regardless, it does nothing to make me sympathize, like or feel sorry about the well being and safety of a bunch of military wannabe thugs running around an island doing their thing for Ingen's little Circus Maximus. Even if they do legally own the dinosaurs and the island, I already explained why I find that extremely problematic and morally wrong. So again, if they get eaten... that's a shame. (munch popcorn)

My argument does indeed lay on the the issue of "another's property" part of the definition, since it seems like legally we're supposed to view what is happening as Ingen property being taken by people who were directly hired by a member of Ingen (Peter) in their official capacity, and thus can't qualify as poaching because they're not doing it from another legal owner of the animals involved.

Given how outspoken the Lost World is about its support of dinosaurs rights to just be left alone, if we were supposed to view these people as poachers... I think that it would tell us that directly to our faces through its heroes rather than leave it as something subtle for the viewer to come up with themselves. Yet neither Sarah or Nick even calls the bad guys poachers as far as I can remember... is there any other place that this movie is subtle about its ecological agenda?

That said, it is also clear that the Ingen higher ups have obviously engaged in some board room shenanigans on Hammond due to the failure of the park in the first movie, combined with Hammond's own failing health in order to sideline him and bring people who are willing to try and squeeze more profit out of the dinosaurs at the expense of said dinosaur's quality of life.

What they're doing is probably legal... and is probably all the more unethical for it.

That said, if one wants to take the position that even if what the dinosaur wranglers is doing is legal, it's still immoral to the point of meaning that they not only fail to garner your sympathy but actively start to make you wan to see them get munched on, I can understand that point of view, so I won't argue the matter further.

[Nealithi]

Just looking at the past few entries here. I think there might be a legal case against Ingen for poaching.
Hammond wanted a team to go to the island and do a study and show the animals were thriving 'naturally' as part of a court case. Gathering information is allowed during legal proceedings. Gathering materials for the sake of selling them while ownership is in dispute is not, the last I heard.
So Ingen gathers some hunters to grab a bunch of specimens before they are totally locked out. Now with a statement of having sold some of the dinosaurs they can claim precedent.

To me it would be like if a husband and wife divorced and while in hearings one of them sent people to slaughter the herd on the ranch.

[Seaward]

One thing that I feel like might be being overlooked in the 'poaching or not' debate is the fact that the animals on the island were not only engineered and bred by InGen, they were by my understanding bred (at least initially) for the specific purpose of being displayed as captive creatures in Jurassic Park itself.

Of course, assuming the four-year gap between release of the films translates to a four year gap between the events themselves (I don't remember if a timeline is given in TLW itself) it can be assumed that at least one generation of dinosaurs has been born and matured between InGen abandoning Isla Sorna and the wrangling team capturing specimens. This muddies things some, since it's probable that some (of not most) of the animals they capture are ones that were born outside of InGen's control. From a legal standpoint, I wonder how that would ultimately affect things.

From a completely different direction entirely, it's frustrating that the movie presents Isla Sorna as this 'natural habitat', considering the nature of everything that now lives there. Not just because, as Chuck and TLW novel point out, there's a bigger time gap between Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaur than between Tyrannosaurus and us, but because of the number of formerly captive populations that are now running free in an environment rather unlike the one that their species thrived in. For example, I'm led to believe that *grass* didn't exist during the Mesazoic era. Flowering plants only evolved during the Cretaceous. Also, there appear to be only two Tyrannosaur adults with one child, with no mention of any others. One can only guess that they at least are going to go extinct all over again in a number of years.

I get that the movie is trying to carry on with the message of the first; don't try and control things you don't understand, life finds a way, et cetera, but stepping outside of what the film's version of reality is, does anybody else feel like the better way to sustainably keep these creatures alive longer-term would realistically be to put them back into a controlled environment?

[Thebestoftherest]

One thing that I feel like might be being overlooked in the 'poaching or not' debate is the fact that the animals on the island were not only engineered and bred by InGen, they were by my understanding bred (at least initially) for the specific purpose of being displayed as captive creatures in Jurassic Park itself.

Of course, assuming the four-year gap between release of the films translates to a four year gap between the events themselves (I don't remember if a timeline is given in TLW itself) it can be assumed that at least one generation of dinosaurs has been born and matured between InGen abandoning Isla Sorna and the wrangling team capturing specimens. This muddies things some, since it's probable that some (of not most) of the animals they capture are ones that were born outside of InGen's control. From a legal standpoint, I wonder how that would ultimately affect things.

From a completely different direction entirely, it's frustrating that the movie presents Isla Sorna as this 'natural habitat', considering the nature of everything that now lives there. Not just because, as Chuck and TLW novel point out, there's a bigger time gap between Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaur than between Tyrannosaurus and us, but because of the number of formerly captive populations that are now running free in an environment rather unlike the one that their species thrived in. For example, I'm led to believe that *grass* didn't exist during the Mesazoic era. Flowering plants only evolved during the Cretaceous. Also, there appear to be only two Tyrannosaur adults with one child, with no mention of any others. One can only guess that they at least are going to go extinct all over again in a number of years.

I get that the movie is trying to carry on with the message of the first; don't try and control things you don't understand, life finds a way, et cetera, but stepping outside of what the film's version of reality is, does anybody else feel like the better way to sustainably keep these creatures alive longer-term would realistically be to put them back into a controlled environment?

I'm with you there.

[TrueMetis]

You know, it never occurred to me to think that Roland broke the baby Rex's leg, I assumed that it happened during the chaos of the dinos' escape, and so was the "Heroes" fault like so many other things.

Nealithi, as I recall in the movie point of sending people to the island to document them was to get stuff they could use to gain public support. Rather than stuff to fight a court battle with. But then it has been a long time since I've watch the movie and I don't feel like tracking down a copy to check.