The victims of Ricky Gervais

Galwayguy35

ScumLord wrote: »

I would assume it's not the latter. She's a bit of a public figurehead for hunting, so I would assume she'd like to say she used a facility that does everything right so she wouldn't get abuse from conscientious hunters.

Well it doesn't say which in the article but I very much doubt an animal park that was founded to protect animal species would let in hunters to shoot wildlife for money, culling would be a last resort and would be done by wildlife rangers who would be professionals.

ohnonotgmail

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well it doesn't say which in the article but I very much doubt an animal park that was founded to protect animal species would let in hunters to shoot wildlife for money, culling would be a last resort and would be done by wildlife rangers who would be professionals.

but that is exactly what they do. that is how they pay for the conservation work.

Galwayguy35

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No game reserve is going to kill animals that it doesnt have an excess of. it isnt sustainable.

Ok I've no idea what you're trying to say here.

ohnonotgmail

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well it doesn't say which in the article but I very much doubt an animal park that was founded to protect animal species would let in hunters to shoot wildlife for money, culling would be a last resort and would be done by wildlife rangers who would be professionals.

from the link i already posted http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/199

It is managed as a game reserve, with a small area (8%) in the north dedicated to photographic tourism while most of the property is managed as a hunting reserve. As long as quota are established and controlled in a scientific manner, the level of off-take should not impact wildlife populations and, in fact, should generate substantial income which needs to be made available for the management of the reserve in order for the system to be sustainable.

BMMachine

she should be hunted. not killed, but when the hunter catches her he or she shaves her head and keeps her hair as a trophy.

Id imagine she would be pissed and feel violated and abused and live forever more with that fear. So about 0.1% of the cruelty that she puts on the animals she slaughters

ohnonotgmail

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ok I've no idea what you're trying to say here.

If they continually deplete the animals they wont stay open very long.

Galwayguy35

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but that is exactly what they do. that is how they pay for the conservation work.

Really?

They let in hunters like yer wan with a crossbow to kill wildlife to pay for conservation, well that's a new one on me.

I seriously doubt it BTW.

ohnonotgmail

BMMachine wrote: »

she should be hunted. not killed, but when the hunter catches her he or she shaves her head and keeps her hair as a trophy.

Id imagine she would be pissed and feel violated and abused and live forever more with that fear. So about 0.1% of the cruelty that she puts on the animals she slaughters

i'd rather a bullet to the heart than to be eaten by lions.

wonderfullife

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Could you kill a giraffe with a bow and arrow?
I doubt many people could.


Think you may need to edit that, unless you're actually against freedom of speech.

Ha. You know I meant the 2nd!

ohnonotgmail

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Really?

They let in hunters like yer wan with a crossbow to kill wildlife to pay for conservation, well that's a new one on me.

I seriously doubt it BTW.

look at post #155

whether you doubt it or not is irrelevant

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well it doesn't say which in the article but I very much doubt an animal park that was founded to protect animal species would let in hunters to shoot wildlife for money, culling would be a last resort and would be done by wildlife rangers who would be professionals.

They have to, these areas are arse end of nowhere Africa. these reserves cost fortunes to keep running and protected. The only way they can bring in money is through tours, scientific research and allowing people to shot the animals that need culling.

They need the hunters to fund the reserve. The locals simply couldn't afford to run these places without the hunters.

The other thing to take into account is, these being managed reserves that the animals probably have a higher rate of survival and higher birth rates. So they probably do over breed.

Galwayguy35

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

from the link i already posted http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/199

Yes, it's a hunting reserve, there's a difference between a hunting reserve and a protected wildlife park, that's the point I'm making.

Galwayguy35

ScumLord wrote: »

They have to, these areas are arse end of nowhere Africa. these reserves cost fortunes to keep running and protected. The only way they can bring in money is through tours, scientific research and allowing people to shot the animals that need culling.

They need the hunters to fund the reserve. The locals simply couldn't afford to run these places without the hunters.

The other thing to take into account is, these being managed reserves that the animals probably have a higher rate of survival and higher birth rates. So they probably do over breed.

It's a hunting reserve, the animals are bred for sport.

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's a hunting reserve, the animals are bred for sport.

Who says it's a hunting reserve? The reason these reserves were set up was to stop people over hunting these animals, mostly to stop the locals from hunting the animals for sale to the rest of the world. Those hunters looked for specifics like rhino horns or lion skins. They would often trap the animals take what they needed and leave the animal to die of it's injuries.

These reserves were agreements between the local people and conservationists as a way of giving an income to locals and protecting the animals. These reserves enlist locals to patrol the parks for poachers (a mammoth task given their size), it educates locals on animals to an international level.

These reserves have allowed the locals to continue to utilize their local environment in a new way that protect the species and ecosystems without taking their source of income and food away.

They are the best solution that they could come up with given the current climate. It may well change in time, African children are being brought up with a respect for the animals around them. They may well find ways of changing the way they operate once they grow up but at this stage the reserves are the best that can be made of a bad situation.

Galwayguy35

ScumLord wrote: »

Who says it's a hunting reserve? The reason these reserves were set up was to stop people over hunting these animals, mostly to stop the locals from hunting the animals for sale to the rest of the world. Those hunters looked for specifics like rhino horns or lion skins. They would often trap the animals take what they needed and leave the animal to die of it's injuries.

These reserves were agreements between the local people and conservationists as a way of giving an income to locals and protecting the animals. These reserves enlist locals to patrol the parks for poachers (a mammoth task given their size), it educates locals on animals to an international level.

These reserves have allowed the locals to continue to utilize their local environment in a new way that protect the species and ecosystems without taking their source of income and food away.

They are the best solution that they could come up with given the current climate. It may well change in time, African children are being brought up with a respect for the animals around them. They may well find ways of changing the way they operate once they grow up but at this stage the reserves are the best that can be made of a bad situation.

It says it on the link yer man posted on post 155.

I watched a programme about this on Nat Geo, believe me they are about as far away from conservation as you could get, for example a white lion is very rare, in one of these places they specifically breed them because that's what the rich yanks that come over look for. Bearing in mind the lion population is declining rapidly.

D-FENS

Some neck on her…the giraffe like.

As for your one….some neck on her…killing giraffes like.

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It says it on the link yer man posted on post 155.

I watched a programme about this on Nat Geo, believe me they are about as far away from conservation as you could get, for example a white lion is very rare, in one of these places they specifically breed them because that's what the rich yanks that come over look for. Bearing in mind the lion population is declining rapidly.

If you are referring to the reserve in post 155, strange that it's a UNESCO World Heritage site?

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are referring to the reserve in post 155, strange that it's a UNESCO World Heritage site?

No I was referring to the one I saw on the programme I watched and I'm assuming you didn't.

BMMachine

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's a hunting reserve, the animals are bred for sport.

OH THATS FINE THEN. THEY SHOULD BE KILLED BY RICH IDIOTS.


you have to really wonder just what kind of perspective on life guys like you have. absolutely backwards and culturally poisonous

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

No I was referring to the one I saw on the programme I watched and I'm assuming you didn't.

Ah.

So when you said "I saw a programme about this", you didn't mean "this reserve"?

Like you, I have seen programmes about reserves that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or the one mentioned a few posts up. Some were good, some were bad.

Galwayguy35

BMMachine wrote: »

OH THATS FINE THEN. THEY SHOULD BE KILLED BY RICH IDIOTS.


you have to really wonder just what kind of perspective on life guys like you have. absolutely backwards and culturally poisonous

How about you open your eyes and read back a few pages before jumping down my throat, if you did you might see I strongly disagree with bloodsports.

Galwayguy35

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah.

So when you said "I saw a programme about this", you didn't mean "this reserve"?

Like you, I have seen programmes about reserves that have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or the one mentioned a few posts up. Some were good, some were bad.

No I wasn't specifically talking about this one.

ScumLord

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It says it on the link yer man posted on post 155.

What it says is that it's a game reserve. Game reserve does not mean hunting reserve. It means an area of conservation. In that link it mentions hunting twice. It does say they make the majority of their income through the hunting business.

I watched a programme about this on Nat Geo, believe me they are about as far away from conservation as you could get, for example a white lion is very rare, in one of these places they specifically breed them because that's what the rich yanks that come over look for. Bearing in mind the lion population is declining rapidly.

I wouldn't really accept that kind of spin on that type of breeding without knowing more. The thing you seem to be over looking there is that they have a funded breeding program for a rare animal.

I think taking advantage of hunters to increase the population of a species is a novel and brilliant way of solving two problems with one solution. Without these reserves these hunters would still be going to Africa and probably killing everything they saw. This way it's very controlled and has huge long term benefits.

Lau2976

This is disgusting. I agree wholeheartedly with Ricky Gervais. Parents who fail to teach their children compassion towards other living creatures have failed their children.

I hope that someday when she's old she reflects back on her life and experiences the disgust that I'm feeling for her right now. And her motto of "life's too short" is painfully ironic considering her "living life to the fullest" is taking life from other living creatures.

Junkyard Tom

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

hunting .. sport.

Humans getting a thrill from blasting animals to death with guns is neither hunting nor sport.

Mint Aero

She's hot

catallus

How do we know the giraffe wasn't coming right for her?

Like the lion in this video?

2:20 for the relevant part.

ScumLord

Lau2976 wrote: »

This is disgusting. I agree wholeheartedly with Ricky Gervais. Parents who fail to teach their children compassion towards other living creatures have failed their children.

So you think that the parents of African children who used to hunt these animals to extinction, have failed their children by setting up protective reserves where you have to get permission to shot an animal that's been designated for culling and teach their children the benefits of a balanced ecosystem?

You have to take into account the way things where in the past there. The locals lived in poverty, they needed to hunt to survive and got payed crap for whatever they tried to sell. Animals were being hunted to extinction, that's why these reserves were set up. It manages hunting in a way that's beneficial to the local population of humans so they don't have to hunt for survival.

Lau2976

ScumLord wrote: »

So you think that the parents of African children who used to hunt these animals to extinction, have failed their children by setting up protective reserves where you have to get permission to shot an animal that's been designated for culling and teach their children the benefits of a balanced ecosystem?

You have to take into account the way things where in the past there. The locals lived in poverty, they needed to hunt to survive and got payed crap for whatever they tried to sell. Animals were being hunted to extinction, that's why these reserves were set up. It manages hunting in a way that's beneficial to the local population of humans so they don't have to hunt for survival.

Hunting for survival and hunting for sport is very different. From what I can tell this woman hints purely because she gets a thrill from it. IMO, that lacks compassion for other living creatures.

If she was killing those animals to survive it isn't a lack of compassion, it's necessity.

Discodog

Using hunting as a revenue source is just plain wrong. It sends a message to the poachers that killing game is acceptable. It belittles the wildlife by turning them into objects for "entertainment & sport". If Wildlife needs to be culled then it should be done in a dignified way by an expert.

The revenue from hunting also puts the Park Management in a serious conflict of interests & leads to all sorts of possibilities for corruption & abuse. Rather than ethically controlling numbers it encourages the breeding of Wildlife in order to provide fodder for the hunters.

Wildlife tourists should boycott any Park or Country that allows this exploitation. I doubt that the tourists on Safari in these Parks realise that hunters are paying to kill the Wildlife.

Whenever we get these topics raised the criticism is made that most of us are ignorant. The standard pro hunt argument is that stupid "townies" don't understand the environment. Wildlife, including African Wildlife, is the responsibility of all of us.

ohnonotgmail

Lau2976 wrote: »

This is disgusting. I agree wholeheartedly with Ricky Gervais. Parents who fail to teach their children compassion towards other living creatures have failed their children.

I hope that someday when she's old she reflects back on her life and experiences the disgust that I'm feeling for her right now. And her motto of "life's too short" is painfully ironic considering her "living life to the fullest" is taking life from other living creatures.

i presume you are a vegan?

osarusan

As I understand it, these reserves often need to sacrifice a certain number of animals to hunters, whose fees pay for the preservation of the rest of the animal population.

It sounds unfortunate to have to operate in that way, but I'm not sure that there are queues of donors who want to hand over cash to preserve all of them.

The first google search I did for 'elephant hunting licence Africa' brought up a price of 35,145 US dollars per person. I've no idea if that hunting operation operates the 'ethical hunting' policy above, but it gives an indication of the price.

ohnonotgmail

Lau2976 wrote: »

Hunting for survival and hunting for sport is very different. From what I can tell this woman hints purely because she gets a thrill from it. IMO, that lacks compassion for other living creatures.

If she was killing those animals to survive it isn't a lack of compassion, it's necessity.

ignore most of what you quoted why dont you.

ScumLord

Lau2976 wrote: »

Hunting for survival and hunting for sport is very different. From what I can tell this woman hints purely because she gets a thrill from it. IMO, that lacks compassion for other living creatures.

If she was killing those animals to survive it isn't a lack of compassion, it's necessity.

Yes but, when it was hunting for survival it was bringing hundreds of species to the brink of extinction. Now when it's hunting for sport it's actually increasing populations. It's the better of two evils at worst.

jackofalltrades

Lau2976 wrote: »

Hunting for survival and hunting for sport is very different. From what I can tell this woman hints purely because she gets a thrill from it. IMO, that lacks compassion for other living creatures.

If she was killing those animals to survive it isn't a lack of compassion, it's necessity.

Whether you buy your meat in the shops or go out and kill it yourself, the end result is that an animal is going to be killed.

As long as your eating the meat from the animal that you are hunting, they're on the same level when it comes to compassion.

OpenYourEyes

While there is definitely an argument to be made for trophy hunting where it removes old or genetically unimportant animals from a population and helps finance the species conservation at the same time, with regards the woman Gervais referred to - she has pictures lying next to seemingly every kind of large mammal she can find, and has used a bow as well as a gun.

They weren't all done while contributing funds to conservation, and it seems unlikely they were all done in a way that minimised the suffering of the target animal.

NotASheeple

Knex. wrote: »

I think Gervais is great twat.

Fyp.

blatantrereg

I don't take great issue with hunting. It strikes me as ethically superior to farming animals for meat.

I find the pictures in bad taste but it's a double standard to be okay with slaughtering animals like pigs and cows but take issue with a giraffe being killed.

Ricky Gervais can be very funny but he is also a tool. I see he is going on a lot about animal welfare and intermittently describing himself as vegetarian, while generally not being vegetarian at all, and enthusing over cheese.

If he wants to champion the cause of animal welfare then he might try something positive, like becoming a genuine vegan or vegetarian, like doing some voluntary work to help the welfare of animals, like donating money etc to such causes etc. Instigating a hate campaign against someone accomplishes nothing at the end of the day.

Areyouwell

I find the wagon who killed the poor giraffe, to be only marginally more distasteful than the insufferable Gervais.

Lau2976

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Whether you buy your meat in the shops or go out and kill it yourself, the end result is that an animal is going to be killed.

As long as your eating the meat from the animal that you are hunting, they're on the same level when it comes to compassion.

I agree to an extent but this woman wanted to eat these animals, while (not necessarily now but in the past) we had to eat cows to survive, because we have the climate for them.

Killing the animal out of need for meat is different then killing an animal because you want to taste them.

Lau2976

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ignore most of what you quoted why dont you.

I presumed your post was informing me that I had neglected to mention Africans who killed these animals out if necessity and not greed, I countered that killing out if necessity, as is the case with those, is different then killing for fun, as she did, and therefore neither are relatable and they are different moral questions. They set up reserves out of need, do again a different moral question to what this woman is doing.

Compassion doesn't outweigh need but it should outweigh want.

Lau2976

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i presume you are a vegan?

Because if I am all my opinions are invalid because I'm a crazy hippy vegan?

And if I'm not I'm a hypocrite?

blatantrereg

blatantrereg wrote: »

I
Ricky Gervais can be very funny but he is also a tool. I see he is going on a lot about animal welfare and intermittently describing himself as vegetarian, while generally not being vegetarian at all, and enthusing over cheese.

He says he is nearly a vegetarian, except he eats chicken and any meat at all that doesn't look like an animal. So he's a vegetarian apart from the chicken, sausages, burger patties and so on. I'm not sure if that's part of a routine because it sounds so moronic...

Discodog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i presume you are a vegan?

Why does this argument always raise it's head? You don't have to be a Vegan to object to Wildlife being killed for money.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

Why does this argument always raise it's head? You don't have to be a Vegan to object to Wildlife being killed for money.

No, but enjoying the results of cattle being killed for money and objecting to giraffes being killed for money where that is legal and regulated...it's a bit like dancing on the head of a pin.

I get the sport v food argument, but think the killing farm animals for money v killing wildlife for money is less distinct.

Son Of A Vidic

CosmicSmash wrote: »

The laughable thing is some call themselves sportspeople. I say arm the animals and let's make it a fair fight.

Or maybe just some hand to claw/paw/hoof combat. I'd like to see the fúcktard take down a giraffe with her bare hands.

ohnonotgmail

Lau2976 wrote: »

Because if I am all my opinions are invalid because I'm a crazy hippy vegan?

And if I'm not I'm a hypocrite?

well if you talk about compassion for animals then yes. Do you eat eggs? You know that battery hens live a live with much more cruelty than any of the animals this lady has hunted. So if you criticise this lady on the ground of cruelty then yes you would be a hypocrite. How could you not be?

But if you are a vegan then fair play you're being consistent

diomed

I assume this hunting of African animals in happening in the USA. The companies providing this service to hunters are called outfitters.
http://www.huntingoutfitters.com/
This is not hunting. It is killing African animals in enclosures with high powered weapons.

I worked in Africa for two years in the 1970s and visited game parks about a dozen times. Hunting was not legal in game parks, but hunting was legal outside the parks if you had a licence to kill that animal. It is a rich person's hobby, costing ten of thousands of dollars a trip.
I went on walking safaris with a camera, walking up to ten miles in a morning. I met hunters who were driven around the fringes of the game park with a guide. Why they wanted to be brought in front of animals so they could shoot the stationary animals remains a mystery to me.

ohnonotgmail

diomed wrote: »

I assume this hunting of African animals in happening in the USA. The companies providing this service to hunters are called outfitters.
http://www.huntingoutfitters.com/
This is not hunting. It is killing African animals in enclosures with high powered weapons.

I worked in Africa for two years in the 1970s and visited game parks about a dozen times. Hunting was not legal in game parks, but hunting was legal outside the parks if you had a licence to kill that animal. It is a rich person's hobby, costing ten of thousands of dollars a trip.
I went on walking safaris with a camera, walking up to ten miles in a morning. I met hunters who were driven around the fringes of the game park with a guide. Why they wanted to be brought in front of animals so they could shoot the stationary animals remains a mystery to me.

The giraffe at least was killed in africa http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/570630/Giraffe-hunter-Rebecca-Francis-sent-death-threats-Ricky-Gervais-tweets-DEFENDS-act

diomed

diomed wrote: »

I assume this hunting of African animals in happening in the USA. The companies providing this service to hunters are called outfitters.
http://www.huntingoutfitters.com/
This is not hunting. It is killing African animals in enclosures with high powered weapons.

Can't see giraffe on their list of prey. The African game link is empty.

Can see turkey and "varmint" though. Not sure either would thrill the woman in the OP.