profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

no opposition to conserving tigers gets heard in the papers

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 27

Post Post subject: no opposition to conserving tigers gets heard in the papers Reply with quote

" A World Wildlife Fund street fundraiser told me tigers kill "only" 100 people a year in Bangladesh/Bengal region, then couldn't understand why I was accusing him of human sacrifice.

Would any conserver of tigers like personally to be eaten? Then it is murder deliberately to sustain in existence a dangerous animal, just for Europeans who don't live in its range to feel romantic about nature. Uncritical popularity for anything labelled "conservation" is clumsiness where care for the details is needed. To exterminate all our animal predators, promptly upon developing the means in each case, is the most obvious duty of self-defence and care for people that any civilisation claiming intelligence can have. "

The above not printed by the Sunday Herald, in Scotland, after its main item last week was a splash on conservation fo tigers and how good it is.

I have never known any media to let be heard any ordinary people's opposition to conservation of trendy animals that happen to be human predators too. Neither from populations where the animals exist, nor from the western public. The human sacrifice crime of conserving dangerous animals, is romantically popular and appeals to a macho spirit in stupid people who live in safer parts of the world. No politician opposes it, hence no media have any motive to let it be known that anyone opposes it. They sell more papers by the trendiness of conservation, and the feel-good effect it produces, at the expense of lives in a most horrible primitive way.

Julian Pettifer, for all his legendary Vietnam War reporting, has in more recent times made himself a disgusting figure by his obsession with tiger conservation in Siberia and his reports to push it and to fight poachers. Never once does he question the morality or sense of conserving a human predator. the only media figure I know of who has, is Jeremy Clarkson! In a column in I think the Times, he courageously bucked the stupid fashion for drooling over the niceness of sharks and saying they have oh such an unjust image. He pointed out that shark attack rates are high enough to prove that talk is deluded wishful sophistry, that you are dead by the time the shark realises he doesn't like human meat after all, and he called for both sharks and lions to be deliberately hunted to extinction. So, Julian Pettifer in the wrong and careless towards human life, Jeremy Clarkson an exceptional and swamped lone voice in the right. How curious!
Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:30 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
   printer friendly