Glenn McGrath hunting photos

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

i just dont get it.

shooting an animal in the wild is exactly the same as killing a cow in the butcher shop, or a fish on a hook. they end up dead. doesnt make Glenn an evil human. probably makes him more human than all of us keyboard warriors. after all, we all killed elephants long long ago. human nature.

we might not eat elephant meat now, but im sure something does. and the death would have been quick, pain short. circle of life.

as long as the animal has a very healthy, stable population, which they do, i dont see a problem. im no hunter, but i do see why people like it. out in the bush, middle of no where, sneaking and having to be quiet to get up close, and the thrill of the chase/kill. honestly, after a rough couple of months, hunting for a hunter must be such a stress reliever. wish he backed himself a little more and just told the moral compasses that he enjoys it and explain why. its not like they are going to change their mind.

monty python :).
"Tiger in Africa"
probably escaped from the zoo, "
not very likely".
 
Horrible statement by McGrath.

He should not have hunted in Zim. Place is a mess, he should have gone to Bots, Namibia,SA......etc. where hunting & poaching is/was closely monitored. (hunting banned in National Parks now in Bots)

I am no expert on the hunting in Africa subject, but seeing the outcry about this makes me realise people should study stuff a bit better before saying anything.
Ive spent 10 of the last 15 years living in different sub-saharan African countries. So Ive read and spoken to a few people about it.

From what Ive seen:

- Every part of everything killed in Africa is eaten.
- The countries that are doing a good job of preventing poaching are getting over stocked. (When I first moved to Botswana in 2004 I believe there was about 60,000 elephants in Chobe National Park. The govt did a cull each year to keep the numbers at 60,000 to prevent deforestation.)
I was last living there in 2013 and the Gov figure was about 200,000 now (a combination of the hunting bans and Elephants getting the hell out of countries where they get shot.) There is not enough food for them. The trees are running out and they will starve.
- Why not get $100K from the King of Spain to shoot one (and the locals have a feast)and maintain the quota, rather than the soldiers just culling them.. (as long as they are not endangered)
- If it wasnt for the monitored parks/farms where this hunting takes place, there'd be nothing left already.
- Everyone that eats meat should have to butcher a chicken and a sheep if they want to complain.
- Humans are a really s**t species.
- Only hunting I do is fishing.
- etc.

:)
 
Killing any animals for fun and trophies should be banned.

Tomorrow someone will say I like to keep trophies of fast bowlers in my pool room, McGrath will be the first one in the line.
 
Admiral Byng said:
The damage is done. Speaking to a friend of mine today she's totally dead-set against Glenn McGrath now, and there's no talking her out of it. That extends to the charity, and she'll find some other way of contributing through another organisation. I think she is being harsh and over the top linking the charity to the man, but I can't convince her otherwise.
Click to expand...

Your friend seems pretty dumb, just quietly.
 
(unless it got cancelled), There was recently an auction in Namibia to hunt a big old male Black Rhino. They were expecting to get a 1 million dollar bid.

cue outrage!

(I am told) When male rhinos get too old and cant get it up anymore, they obviously lose their spot as the alpha male of the herd.
They spend their retirement days trying to kill as many baby and mother rhino's as they can.

All of the money from the auction was (supposedly) going to improve the rhino anti poaching guys in Namibia.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

KevinTaylor said:
(unless it got cancelled), There was recently an auction in Namibia to hunt a big old male Black Rhino. They were expecting to get a 1 million dollar bid.

cue outrage!

(I am told) When male rhinos get too old and cant get it up anymore, they obviously lose their spot as the alpha male of the herd.
They spend their retirement days trying to kill as many baby and mother rhino's as they can.

All of the money from the auction was (supposedly) going to improve the rhino anti poaching guys in Namibia.
Click to expand...

Is this why all our young quicks keep on getting injured?

329684-130823-ryan-harris.jpg
 
Still not outraged.


I also love the "He's killing for fun!" But that's different to killing for food because "Its for food!"…in other words, total personal enjoyment.* But supporting the killing of animals for that type of enjoyment is okay, for a total arbitrary reason.



*There are a minority of people who definitely need meat to help them with their personal health, but for the rest of you peeps, you don't need meat for sustenance or for a healthy diet, nope, you are eating that animal for your own personal enjoyment my friends.
 
nitewalker13 said:
Killing any animals for fun and trophies should be banned.

Tomorrow someone will say I like to keep trophies of fast bowlers in my pool room, McGrath will be the first one in the line.
Click to expand...
Let me just say that I have zero interest in killing an animal for sport. I dislike the idea of it. I'm not a hunter. I'm not a gun nut. Far from it. Anyone who maliciously hurts an animal should be taken out and whipped in the street.

But elephants are culled in some countries – South Africa reintroduced the practice in 2008. So imagine that a country already has a practice of killing certain animals to control the population. Is it really so immoral for a country's authorities to accept a substantial sum of money from someone – in this case a wealthy sportsman – who wants to do it 'for sport'?

If these guys were going into land illegally and wantonly poaching an endangered population, then they should be locked up in a dark, windowless room for a very long time. But there are instances where the animals will be killed either way as part of a broader conservation policy. So if someone wants to pay to do it, surely it makes sense to take that money.

For mine, there's an echo in this of the arguments made against bullfighting. I also have zero interest in attending a bullfight and watching an animal being killed in the name of 'art' or 'theatre' or 'culture'. But a bull killed in a ring has a vastly superior quality of life than farmed beef cattle and suffers less in death. Yet you'll still hear people insisting that bullfighting is indefensible, while tucking into a steak. The inconsistency suggests that there's a purely emotional reaction at work, rather than a tenable argument about animal welfare. And I think that's evident in some of the reaction to McGrath's trophy pics.

Here's a quote from Peter Singer: "To protest about bullfighting in Spain, the eating of dogs in South Korea, or the slaughter of baby seals in Canada while continuing to eat eggs from hens who have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves who have been deprived of their mothers, their proper diet, and the freedom to lie down with their legs extended, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbours not to sell their houses to blacks.”

Basically, there's a really selective moral outrage at work. Hypocrisy, even. And, in the instances of big game hunting and bullfighting, the argument seems to be more about the moral virtue of the person involved: 'What kind of person would shoot an elephant? What kind of person would pay to watch a bull be killed in a ring?'

Well, by way of juxtaposition, what kind of person would choose to eat bacon? I mean, I like bacon. But if it's an issue of animal welfare, eating bacon is surely more morally problematic than shooting an elephant that would be culled anyway or paying to watch a bull that's been bred for fighting killed in the ring.

 
Last edited:
Sweet Jesus said:
Let me just say that I have zero interest in killing an animal for sport. I dislike the idea of it. I'm not a hunter. I'm not a gun nut. Far from it. Anyone who maliciously hurts an animal should be taken out and whipped in the street.

But elephants are culled in some countries – South Africa reintroduced the practice in 2008. So imagine that a country already has a practice of killing certain animals to control the population. Is it really so immoral for a country's authorities to accept a substantial sum of money from someone – in this case a wealthy sportsman – who wants to do it 'for sport'?

If these guys were going into land illegally and wantonly poaching an endangered population, then they should be locked up in a dark, windowless room for a very long time. But there are instances where the animals will be killed either way as part of a broader conservation policy. So if someone wants to pay to do it, surely it makes sense to take that money.

For mine, there's an echo in this of the arguments made against bullfighting. I also have zero interest in attending a bullfight and watching an animal being killed in the name of 'art' or 'theatre' or 'culture'. But a bull killed in a ring has a vastly superior quality of life than farmed beef cattle and suffers less in death. Yet you'll still hear people insisting that bullfighting is indefensible, while tucking into a steak. The inconsistency suggests that there's a purely emotional reaction at work, rather than a tenable argument about animal welfare. And I think that's evident in some of the reaction to McGrath's trophy pics.

Here's a quote from Peter Singer: "To protest about bullfighting in Spain, the eating of dogs in South Korea, or the slaughter of baby seals in Canada while continuing to eat eggs from hens who have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves who have been deprived of their mothers, their proper diet, and the freedom to lie down with their legs extended, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbours not to sell their houses to blacks.”

Basically, there's a really selective moral outrage at work. Hypocrisy, even. And, in the instances of big game hunting and bullfighting, the argument seems to be more about the moral virtue of the person involved: 'What kind of person would shoot an elephant? What kind of person would pay to watch a bull be killed in a ring?'

Well, by way of juxtaposition, what kind of person would choose to eat bacon? I mean, I like bacon. But if it's an issue of animal welfare, eating bacon is surely more morally problematic than shooting an elephant that would be culled anyway or paying to watch a bull that's been bred for fighting killed in the ring.

Click to expand...


TL;DR. And what do I care if Pigeon goes hunting, maybe he gets a bang out of it.
 
I've never understood hunting for sport. "Yeah look at this buffalo I shot, big one isn't he". Yeah, big man for shooting an animal just going about it's life without giving two shits about humans.
 
Moist Biscuit said:
Oh who gives a crap. Hes obviously apologised for it and regrets it, some people will literally have a crack for the sake of it. Some on this site need to lighten up, it was 7 years ago.
Click to expand...
I doubt he regrets it.

He probably asked for a free ticket from the owners in exchange for website advertising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sosos
Glenn Maxwell Australian of the year.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Cmarsh
Cmarsh

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top