blonde poker forum

Anyone caught this new Attenborough series yet, following Tiger cubs to adulthood via the mechanism of a camera attached to an elephant's trunk?

BBC1 Sundays 8pm

Astonishing stuff, well worth catching on IPlayer if you missed the first couple

Would it not have been better to attach the camera to the cub's mother's nose?

:dontask:

I didn't know this was on - will Sky+ it now  :)up

Yep, I have been watching it.  I love these kind of TV shows.  Attenborough presents great show after great show.  Sky is brilliant for showing his old series, I have Planet Earth saved and ready to watch again when I get a chance.   

My other favorite TV show at the moment is presented by the Geologist Dr Ian Stewart , every week he looks at a different area of the Planet. It is worth having a look at and it keeps getting better .  Last weeks episode was called '10 things you didn't know about volcanoes'.  He also did another series called 'Earth: The Power of the Planet' last year. I am going up to Glasgow later today to buy the box set and book.

I agree wholeheartedly with everyone. (except kinboshi)

Saw it last week, missed this weeks and really enjoyed it.

Slightly related but not quite, did anyone see Louis Theroux in South Africas game reserves?  That was interesting.

Yes, I saw that.  Quite an interesting topic.  IF all the killed animals were going to be used as meat for food (although they said it would be, I wasn't convinced this was actually the case), then I don't think I'd be in a position to have too much of an issue with it. 

but not only that, I was very surprised to hear that if they didn't bread some animals to hunt, then the species would be extinct.  Everyone involved in the industry seemed very professional and mature about it. I half expected some hill billy approach but it was completely opposite to that.

Still wasn't keen on any of those involved though.  The 'it's such a beautiful animal' comments.  Yes it was, until you shot the bloody thing.

I'm not sure conservation is necessarily what they're concerned with though.  I think that's more likely a pleasant side-effect that they can play on. 

Like I said though - it would be hypocritical of me to condemn their activities when I eat meat from animals that are bred for the purpose and tend to spend their lives in less than ideal conditions.  At least the animals they were hunting didn't seem to suffer excessively.

as long as the animals have had a good life and don't suffer needlessly (like being ripped apart by dogs)...and the hunt is not grossly unfair (Like someone clipping a Quale's wings so it can't fly but can only hop  when someone wants to shoot it)  I have no problem with it. And most hunters I know have a tremendous respect for the wildlife and the environment which they hunt in. That seemed to come across fairly well in the Theroux thing (though I only watched part of it as it was on when it was past my bed time already).

The hunt is grossly unfair.  The hunters have high-powered rifles.  The animals don't even have thumbs.

lol..sigh not quite what I meant. The animal should have a way of escape in my opinion.

Even the baboons?

They weren't hunting baboons, you bafoon.

why not?..what have the baboons ever done to them?..surely they too deserve to be hunted?

They did shoot some form of primate.  One of the US guys came back with it.

I missed that bit.  Did they give the primate a gun as well to make it a fair hunt?

A Yank with a gun or an unarmed primate...If it was a test of wits my money would still be on the primate.

no, no gun for the monkey, but they did let him be shot.

How can you have a fair hunt? The aim of a good hunter should be to kill the animal as efficiently and painlessly as possible while allowing the animal a natural life up to that point. I could probably kill a rabbit by throwing stones at rabbits in the field, but a) I'd struggle, and have to be hunting them for a long time, during which they're in fear and unable to live their natural lives. b) there's a high possiblity of me injuring a lot of rabbits. I could go out with a .22 rifle and scope and the rabbit doesn't know what's hit it.

That only sounds fair...I mean the monkey wouldn't really feel part of the whole hunting experience if he couldn't even get shot, would he?

a fair hunt is a hunt where the animal has a chance of escaping...but Kin is being a pain in the arse,

This will all be a bit traumatic for Matt if he views the thread.




Let's make it worse
(http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1453/11181330.JPG)
With a Monkey-eating Eagle ;D

That's a beautiful sight! :)

;booder;

I got the gag, sorry. I was responding to the 'it's not fair, the hunter's got a gun' argument.

That's fine.  Boldie's always wrong so continue telling him.

:)up

I wasn't wrong in this case..I never said a hunt wasn't fair because someone had a gun ..I said an animal needs to be able to escape to make the hunt fair.

...and these animals kept in enclosures, with the hunters' hides placed strategically near the watering holes...

It wasn't like you'd expect an enclosure to be though, it was a fairly large area of land, but yeah they were set up as bait pretty much.

It's not something I'm desperate to do, but I do enjoy clay pigeon shooting.   I enjoy wild boar sausages too, so if the two happened to combine somehow for me, I may give it a go but I wouldn't bust a gut to do some hunting.

and that makes it an unfair hunt.

What if the hunter uses performance enhancing drugs?

As long as they did it for recreational reasons it's OK.

What if the animals use performance-enhancing drugs, maybe like viagra?

Was thinking about this earlier.  These animals suffer far less than those killed according to Jewish kosher or Islamic halal methods where the animal mustn't be stunned and is killed by a single knife cut to the throat, and this cut mustn't sever the spinal cord.  The animals can take several minutes to die.  This is cruel. 

The Sikh method of animal slaughter is far less cruel, and Jhatka is about severing the head of the animal in a single stroke.

I like Sweden's approach.  All animals must be stunned before slaughter. There is no exception on religious grounds.

That's because the Swedes don't have a God...they only believe in the Satan that is IKEA.

That's a political issue though.  Most of the food on supermarket shelves is killed the same way, stunned then killed with little/no pain to the animal. 

The guy that bred the animals for the hunt did emphasise that the animals had a much better life than the ones used in Western Worlds that are bred for food yet it's the them that get all the bad press

It's barbaric that it's allowed to continue.  Animal cruelty is animal cruelty, no matter what part of the animal's life it is.  A pet is 'put to sleep' to put it out of its misery and reduce its suffering.  But a cow that is going to end up on a dinner plate can be made to suffer unnecessarily in the name of a god?


He certainly has a point!