Luxury Camera Bags by Thorsten von Overgaard

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

Most Elephants live in what we perceive as wilderness, i.e. National Parks, some as large as Switzerland. The conservation ethos there is: don't interfere, unless the problem is man-made.

[Lonescapes]

Courtesy of The Simpsons:

 

[wattsy]

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.

 

 

I haven't read that particular book but have read a number of Jeffries' books. A very fine nature writer and also a very enthusiastic shooter of (not so rare) birds and mammals.

[MarkP]

Well said.

 

...and real people wear fake fur :-)

Edited March 28, 2018 by MarkP

[wattsy]

Sooner rather than later, humanity is going to have to address this issue and not with building walls and fences but by a more equitable share of the worlds resources and wealth - the clock is ticking and daily getting faster. 

 

 

Yes, and if the world is going to be even remotely sustainable, that more equitable redistribution will have to involve us (in the richer West) consuming far less than we currently do. I share the disgust at the endangerment of wild animals for fashion trinkets, luxury, etc. but I do wish some of this concern for the headline large fauna was transferred or spread to other less celebrated creatures. The insatiable demands for consumer goods, cheaper food and associated energy demands are wreaking untold damage on biodiversity in the oceans, forests and land around all of us. Man has been causing (or contributing to) the extinction of mega fauna for millennia – it is not new – but the current rate of extinction amongst species of plantlife and invertebrates is totally unprecedented. Frankly, the probable extinction of elephants, whilst sad, is nothing compared to what is happening throughout the rest of the natural world.

Edited March 28, 2018 by wattsy

[jaapv]

You couldn’t be more right, Ian, but getting ideas like conservation accepted needs a lead species. Nature could sustain the slaughter of baby seals, but the way they look made them an ideal symbol for inhumane hunting. Nobody can argue the loss to the world should we lose the Elephant.

[NERICSSON]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"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?"

 

As long as humans eats chikens,Thorsten will continue with his elephant bags? When did chikens get to be an endangered spieces?

[M9reno]

Indeed, the comparison of the elephant with the chicken makes no sense.  It simply shows how little our argument matters to him, for whatever cognitive or ideological reason private to him and at which we can only guess.

[pgk]

The insatiable demands for consumer goods, cheaper food and associated energy demands are wreaking untold damage on biodiversity in the oceans .....

 

The oceans are probably of primary concern - for a start they produce the largest proportion of the planet's oxygen. From a talk I give on 'Protected Areas':

 

In Professor Thomas Huxley’s inaugural address at the Fisheries Exhibition in London in 1883, he said that “…..the cod, herring, pilchard, and mackerel fishery, and probably all the great sea fisheries, are inexhaustible ….. nothing we do seriously affects the number of the fish. And any attempt to regulate these fisheries seems consequently, from the nature of the case, to be useless.” but he did add that “there are other sea fisheries, however, of which this cannot be said.”

 

We are still overfishing. But unlike elephant's and other large and iconic species, the oceans hide what lives in them and the ocean depths are as alien to us as is Mars. The entire problem discussed in this thread is essentially about the disregard that we have for our surroundings provided we are able to individually have what we want. We have a burgeoning population and finite resources and a contemptuous attitude to how we utilise them. Go figure.

[andybarton]

Response via Twitter from Leica AG

“Thank you for pointing this out. Please note that Thorsten von Overgaard is not a Leica Ambassador.”

[MarkP]

 

 

Response via Twitter from Leica AG

“Thank you for pointing this out. Please note that Thorsten von Overgaard is not a Leica Ambassador.”

 

That's good.

[ianman]

The entire problem discussed in this thread is essentially about the disregard that we have for our surroundings provided we are able to individually have what we want. We have a burgeoning population and finite resources and a contemptuous attitude to how we utilise them. Go figure.

 

Ignorance and greed.

[ianman]

That's good.

 

Not really enough though is it? What do those two sentences actually say? Nothing.Ambassador or not TO is very much linked to Leica. Of course it could be just the way he writes his articles making people believe he is some kind of advisor or has some some of privileged (ha! that word) relationship with them. Leica PR should put out a statement explicitly denouncing TO for his latest poorly judged endeavour and clearly stating that he does not represent the company in any way or form. Behind the scenes I think Leica management should look into the possibility of suing him for bringing the company - and it's customers! - into disrepute.

Edited March 28, 2018 by ianman

[stunsworth]

Response via Twitter from Leica AG

“Thank you for pointing this out. Please note that Thorsten von Overgaard is not a Leica Ambassador.”

Thanks Andy, so “not” rather than “no longer” implying he’s never been one. I always assumed he was one given the number or reviews he did. Good to hear that’s not been the case. Hopefully the supply of review equipment will now dry up.

[ianman]

Steve, I think if you assumed he was an ambassador (as did I), I think it's fair to assume that just about everybody did. All more the reason for Leica to distance themselves publicly from him. 

[Jeffry Abt]

Leica PR should put out a statement explicitly denouncing TO for his latest poorly judged endeavour and clearly stating that he does not represent the company in any way or form. Behind the scenes I think Leica management should look into the possibility of suing him for bringing the company - and it's customers! - into disrepute.

This would be a dangerous precedent for Leica...commenting on the views and lifestyles of the owners of their products.

[satijntje]

Steve, I think if you assumed he was an ambassador (as did I), I think it's fair to assume that just about everybody did. All more the reason for Leica to distance themselves publicly from him.

 

Not only distancing from Wetzlar, also this forum should ban this guy.

There were people banned here for less.

My opinion

 

John

[stunsworth]

Not only distancing from Wetzlar, also this forum should ban this guy.

There were people banned here for less.

My opinion

 

 

I can't think of anyone banned for legal activity (however distasteful) done outside of the forum. Maybe I missed someone.

[james.liam]

We inherited a world where breeds of animals have been bred for food. This is the way things have been for tens of thousands of years, an 'evil' ingrained in nearly all human societies. I admire vegans for their principled life but it is a distinct challenge for most. It is also a shame, as 'paulmac' points out, that many places on Earth are woefully impoverished and people driven to do dreadful things for survival; wealth redistribution is less of a ready and quick solution than schemes to pay locals NOT to hunt and protect their own natural treasures. This can be quickly instituted.

 

But there are limits. When humans cross over certain lines, like the bestial tradition in Red China of stealing pet dogs and making a "Dog Meat Festival' of torturing sentient creatures to death for stir fry, or Norway's unending 'research' of killing whales for little more than food. In China's case, it is a facile moral step to executing political prisoners and selling their organs on a black market run by government-allied rackets. Or the famed traveling exhibit of the dissected men that was featured across the world several years ago; also people reportedly executed by the State.

Edited March 28, 2018 by james.liam

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[edwardkaraa]

I think the guy was given the death penalty without a trial. Angry mob reactions.