andybarton Posted March 27, 2018 Share #261 Posted March 27, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Indeed. But not all animal skin is the same. By a long chalk. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 Hi andybarton, Take a look here Luxury Camera Bags by Thorsten von Overgaard. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted March 27, 2018 Share #262 Posted March 27, 2018 Actually, I think that if an animal has been killed ethically, and that is a huge if for an endangered species, if not a contradiction, it is a mark of respect to use all of it and let nothing go to waste. For a naturally dead wild animal that means: let Nature take its course. I do not understand what "let Nature take its course" means. Is it Nature that determines the outcome, disposal, final resting place of a corpse? If so, should we not consider how nature or elephants deal with deaths? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 27, 2018 Share #263 Posted March 27, 2018 I do not understand what "let Nature take its course" means Things eat things. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted March 27, 2018 Share #264 Posted March 27, 2018 He’s amended the web page to reduce the number of reference to elephant hide, so he’s obviously read the criticism both here and elsewhere. He's been answering comments on the Youtube page since day 1. So he's very aware that there is a lot of bad feelings about this issue. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted March 27, 2018 Share #265 Posted March 27, 2018 The amendments show that he’s aware of the criticism. The fact that he’s done so little indicates how much it means to him. Oh, it seems that I just happened to have made a screenshot of his page before amendments... just for posterity. So if anyone needs it at any time, just give me a buzz. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 27, 2018 Share #266 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) He knew about it. To suggest otherwise is laughable. Addressing this via his newsletter is pathetic. I'm not surprised in the slightest by any of this. Edited March 27, 2018 by Paul J 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted March 28, 2018 Share #267 Posted March 28, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) This sounds like typical Greenwash. Just saying "helping preserve endangered species" doesn't prove that it is. This is far too vague to accept. Just saying they are naturally deceased doesn't prove they are, or tell how it is monitored, regulated and/or certified. This is far too vague to accept too. How much do these reserves get from "hide sales" that contribute to the so-called preservation of endangered species? I just googled Elephant Hide sales and it is sells for a measly $45 per square foot (I won't link the source giving them a backlink, google "elephant hide price"). Padding out animal numbers with all mammal and bird species has little relevance and is vague. It seems like smoke and mirror tactics. How many elephants does this sanctuary have? More information is needed. Hello Paul, $45.00 per square foot is not that "measly". Depending on how big & what parts are actually usable: That is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 per elephant. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted March 28, 2018 Share #268 Posted March 28, 2018 I'll say just one thing to this: anyone who thinks that "Zimbabwe" inspires trust and confidence and guarantees that everything is above-board, hasn't read one newspaper during the last fifteen years... Exactly: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/grace-mugabe-linked-alleged-ivory-smuggling-zimbabwe-54010517 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonescapes Posted March 28, 2018 Share #269 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) His tone in his video would seem to suggest that he is aware that some people object to the use of animal hide, and that they should just find somewhere else to go for bags. Seems these are made for people who don't have those reservations, and it is his belief--or at least was going into this--that those in the know about quality hides would find the particular hides he is using acceptable, and that he has done his homework in this regard. Having been a very casual observer of what he puts out there in the past, and having now looked at more of his videos and his website, it seems to me that this is somebody who made his money as a marketing professional, and who now continues to do so, except he's marketing his own brand instead of someone else's, and that brand is based on the cultural cachet of photography It is also fairly clear that, for some time now, that brand has been based often, if not always, on the ethos of conspicuous consumption dressed up as some sort of special capacity for the discernment of quality or good aesthetics. This really is the side of the Leica brand that makes it difficult to carry a Leica camera with a straight face. I don't doubt that he is a decent individual with a reasonably evolved way of looking at the world, even if he is kooky enough to buy into several things (elephant bags included) that most on this forum would find absolutely outrageous. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone who got into Leica to take pictures should believe for a second that this guy is anything other than an advertising professional who cashed in and retired into his photography hobby. I don't mean that as an attack, I mean it as an advisement to take everything he says and does with an enormous grain of salt if you're foremost concerned with taking pictures. In that particular regard, he has very little to offer as a role model. I do think this is relevant to the matter at hand: I simply don't think someone who came to this with a photographer's mindset would have done this. Someone quoted a post from another board to the effect of--Why not take a picture of an elephant instead of carrying a bag made out of one? I think that's the whole thing in a nutshell. Edited March 28, 2018 by Lonescapes 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 28, 2018 Share #270 Posted March 28, 2018 We are the sum of our parts, and we do not, and have never had a right to anonymity. What we do, what we say and how we behave defines who we are and we will be assessed based on those factors. It informs how we see people and how we relate to them. Like anyone else, Thorsten is the sum of his parts. Depending on your values, members here may like some aspects, and may dislike others. It’s unrealistic to say that Thorsten should not be considered in light of this bag thing, or any of the other things he has posted publicly about himself. He is what he is. The bags surprise me, largely for how ugly they are for their price, and apparent prestige (according to Thorsten and the bag maker). I prefer my dothebag Mono 9 for its looks and the Peak Design backpacks and messenger bags for their functionality. I now think they’re cheap! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 28, 2018 Share #271 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) Hello Paul, $45.00 per square foot is not that "measly". Depending on how big & what parts are actually usable: That is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 per elephant. Best Regards, Michael How did you arrive at $20,000? That would mean an elephant is 444 square feet. The average hide is 20 square feet. That is $900. link: National Geographic: Zimbabwe Elephant Auctions quote: "In 2007-16, according to CITES data (which are recorded inconsistently), Zimbabwe and South Africa together exported the whole hides of 38,858 elephants plus another 609,000 square feet and 21,504 pounds of skins and leatherwork. At an average 20 square feet per processed hide, these would represent more than 30,000 elephants." . Edited March 28, 2018 by Paul J Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share #272 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) Again, I was referring to Dr Kaufmann having an account here not TO. It's quite amazing that TO claimed to have been unaware of this thread, given that he visits here regularly, had responded to subscribers to his newsletter fairly promptly and has also altered his advertisements. It would be better if he 'stood up' and defended his position here as he clearly sees nothing wrong with what he's doing. Defending the indefensible would be an exercise in futility and a waste of everyone's time. Overgaard obviously thinks what he has done is above reproach. He may also think that grass is purple and the sky is green plaid. That doesn't make it so. Edited March 28, 2018 by Herr Barnack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsleica Posted March 28, 2018 Share #273 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) Maybe he should switch to Whales..then..Gorillas..and then..well... As bad as it is to verbally attack someones wife..she is part and parcel of his business enterprise.. Maybe he should use his Noctiluxes and M's..to shoot her modeling the different bags..dancing around..posing..selling.. Their ad logo could be.. "Get em fast..before they go extinct.." The sound of elephants in the back round as a sound track...then silence.. Edited March 28, 2018 by tsleica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_W Posted March 28, 2018 Share #274 Posted March 28, 2018 I can't wait for the special edition bag made from the hides of 101 Dalmatian puppies. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 5 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/283052-luxury-camera-bags-by-thorsten-von-overgaard/?do=findComment&comment=3489266'>More sharing options...
Lonescapes Posted March 28, 2018 Share #275 Posted March 28, 2018 There's an NZ-based company that actually does eco-friendly leather bags (The Loyal Workshop). Finding a way to tan the leather without doing horrible harm to the environment took them a long time and a lot of experimentation, as I understand. Maybe Thorsten could have dedicated his considerable resources to something like this. That's one of the frustrating parts about this: There are some people out there trying to find ways to meet leather demand which are in fact ethical from the animals themselves down to the tanning process and the use of labor. The worthiness of their task shouldn't be co-opted by folks selling elephant skin. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted March 28, 2018 Share #276 Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) This seems to be his official position, or at least what he again and again refers to when criticised on the video page: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjtwDeGdYrY "The political correct stand on it is no elephant skin. Anyone who have seen a Disney movie and heard about the cruel murders of elephants know what stand to take on this. However, a few things are wrong with this picture. In a period where more than 5 million elephants were killed for ivory, about 100,000 were killed for skin. That's historically speaking, from the first 72 years of last century, before elephant killing was subject to any rules. The ivory was used for all sorts of things that has now to a large degree been replaced by plastic. So first off, the legal killing of elephants was what de-facto what made the elephant a concern. Then comes recent years illegal killing, which is 35,000 a year. It's not that any law is missing for it, it's been illegal for 40+ years but still happens. I guess one would have to be closer to India, Africa, etc to understand how that hasn't been stopped. On the other hand, people get killed every day even there are laws against that also. So to some degree I can understand that it is probably not because the governments and police don't care. Further, on political correct or not, it wasn't till today I realized mankind kill 18 billion chickens a year to make food of them. You could say, what' s the difference between an elephants life and a chickens? A big deal, apparently! But is that the right way of thinking? Now that we're talking animal ethics, shouldn't we bring on the full discussion? What was I thinking? I think elephant skin is the most durable you can get, and it's legal. Further, it's ethical (in my view, when sourced from animals that die of a natural causes)." Edited March 28, 2018 by M9reno 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stray cat Posted March 28, 2018 Share #277 Posted March 28, 2018 Natural causes being a bullet to the brain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonescapes Posted March 28, 2018 Share #278 Posted March 28, 2018 Yes, one gathers from that video that he has thought this over and believes his is a considered position. Still not sure why he thought--especially after that Cecil the Lion flap--that this opinion would be shared by very many people. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted March 28, 2018 Share #279 Posted March 28, 2018 The summary of the justification seems to be: - they're dead no matter what. - just like chickens. - criticism is misinformed, politically correct, and comes from Disney movies. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted March 28, 2018 Share #280 Posted March 28, 2018 I do not understand what "let Nature take its course" means. Is it Nature that determines the outcome, disposal, final resting place of a corpse? If so, should we not consider how nature or elephants deal with deaths? That said, we are a part of nature. The concept of 'nature taking its course' in a hugely man-influenced environment is patently an incorrect one. Assuming an old elephant dies of natural causes, in a wilderness (of which there are very few and none which bear no influence of man), and can be found quickly enough to skin it of its smooth, undamaged hide which shows no signs of its vast age, so that it can be used; probable - no, possible - very vaguely but extremely unlikely or in reality is this simply a fairy tale?. I rather liked the word 'greenwash' to describe such infantile suggestions as attempts to disguise the truth. Hopefully the sort of reaction shown here in this thread will cause those thinking of producing such products to pause and reconsider. Changing their appreciation of such things might be a very tall order, but we may at least reduce their desire to try to make money from doing so. I wonder what the reaction in the street would be if someone were seen to be carrying an elephant hide bag? I suspect its not likely to happen because we know what the reaction would likely be. Which brings us to the point of trying to determine why anyone would want such a bag, given that using it might well have very negative repercussions, were it to be known. IMO owning such items is all about bragging rights in some very strange social circles. FWIW if anyone reads Richard Jeffries' book "Bevis" they will find a Victorian story of a boy who makes a gun and succeeds in shooting the first otter see in an area for a very long time (it was set not far from Swindon I believe). There has never been an appreciation amongst those who enjoy killing rare creatures that doing so will wipe them out and unfortunately it is nothing new. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts