Jump to content

Herr Barnack

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Culling still means the elephants are hunted and shot - and I'd strongly suspect that often the people who do the culling pay for the "privilege".

 

 

That is not the case - it is done by professionals - a high percentage of them suffer from PTSS afterwards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a few pages so far then cut to the end, so obviously I don't know the whole story. What I'm interested to know is whether Thorsen von Overgaard has been on the forum to explain himself. I he hasn't I think he needs to do so soon.

 

Yes he has. Make the effort; read up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the fact of the matter:

 

This specific bag is elephant hide from Zimbabwe, which is one of the countries that have a remarkable growth of in population of Luxodonta africana elephants (84,000) within their reserves. The sale of hides from naturally deceased elephants goes into funding the reserves, the security and veterinarians. In other words, the protection and growth of elephants. We do not use elephant skin from hunted elephants.

 

 

It’s my fault that I didn’t consider people’s feeling and ignorance on this subject. I’ve known all about these bags for more than a year, the history of the skin, the certification, the legality of different types of sources. My video mentions that the skin is certified, and when you buy a bag with exotic skin, you get a certificate for its origin.

 

But 15 pages of heated discussion without a clue to the facts! And an “administrator” going elephant man on his profile …

 

I’m a public person with a website that displays my phone number and my e-mail. Only esteemed forum member Jono Slack was sensible enough to not part-take in this sideshow, but e-mailed me directly to question how this works, and did his own research as well, opening more questions that he asked me.

 

Anyone who feel they want to do something about this should donate to for example www.earthorganization.org or www.savetheelephants.org

 

 

/Thorsten

 

Hello Steve,

 

Here it is, Post #318 on Page 16.There was additional material by him after this Post.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Pete,

 

And don't forget plants. New Zealand, as with many other parts of the World, has been colonized by all types of non-native plants in the last 500 years. ...

Michael,

 

That's why I wrote "fauna and flora".

 

Pete.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read a few pages so far then cut to the end, so obviously I don't know the whole story. What I'm interested to know is whether Thorsen von Overgaard has been on the forum to explain himself. I he hasn't I think he needs to do so soon.

A number of the recent posts directly quote his response.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm

I feel that perhaps, as an esteemed member (?!), I should chip in here to say that whilst I'm convinced that TO is convinced in the ethical sourcing of his leather, I am not, and more than that I can't see that the use of crocodile and elephant leather to make camera bags is going to do credit to either the wearer or the maker or the designer. . . and that's roughly what I told TO (in the hope that he would quietly backtrack).

Thanks, Jono. I read your Get DPI posts and interpreted that you thought your initial defense might have been a bit hasty.

 

Your clarification reinforces TO’s efforts as spin doctor.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm

I feel that perhaps, as an esteemed member (?!), I should chip in here to say that whilst I'm convinced that TO is convinced in the ethical sourcing of his leather, I am not, and more than that I can't see that the use of crocodile and elephant leather to make camera bags is going to do credit to either the wearer or the maker or the designer. . . and that's roughly what I told TO (in the hope that he would quietly backtrack).

Jono, thanks for the clarification.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, these elephants did not die by natural causes. Please refer to this: http://www.rojeleather.com/species-and-leathers/elephant-leather/

 

 

....

Your link to the site of a n American salesman of leather products is important.

 

It clearly says: „Hunting reserves are the source of all legally traded African elephant skins. It’s very similar to our deer season in the United States. Designers, manufactures, and leather enthusiasts should not feel emotional or have guilt for using this leather as we are not creating a demand rather using a by product. We deal with reputable international partners who abide by all regulations and we never sell poached hides.“

 

Again: Hunting reserves are the source of all legally traded African elephant skins. Not just some skins, but all skins.

 

So either this site is lying and there are other sources than hunting reserves, or the salesman, who is the topic of this thread is wrong saying, that hunting is not the source of his - legally acquired - elephant skins.

 

There is another difference between the two salesmen: only one defends hunting. The other implies - though not very clearly - that he objects hunting elephants.

 

Whether hunting elephants is defendable is up to debate. I strictly object all use of firearms, so I object to hunting. This is an emotional point of view, not based on rational grounds. When I think twice I would like to leave the decision to people who know more about the circumstances.

 

I have seen groups of elephants in Botswana devastating little forests in a couple of hours. Perhaps this is just nature - but over here we would call it vandalism. I can understand that an overpopulation of elephants may cause serious problems for the ecological system - just because of their size and their enormous need of green food - and first of all because men have set up so many fences and other barriers for a natural development.

 

In Europe overpopulation of deers causes serious problems for the growth of young trees which are necessary for a rebirth of natural forests against the devastation caused by wood industry. Since rabies has been almost completely extinguished the strong increase of foxes has caused great dangers for many species of ground breeding birds. So shooting deers or foxes may be necessary to protect the ecological system as a whole - even if the true reasons for the endangering of many species are manmade.

 

At the same time I uphold my feelings that I detest all use of firearms - and I like foxes not less than elephants.

 

If the debate about the ugly leather bags makes any sense, it should be honest about the sources, the reasons and the circumstances. Even if I sharply object to the point of view taken by the American salesman in the link above, I have to admit that it does not conceal a very simple point: the source is hunting - and not some „natural cause“.

 

The debate can only start at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm

I feel that perhaps, as an esteemed member (?!), I should chip in here to say that whilst I'm convinced that TO is convinced in the ethical sourcing of his leather, I am not, and more than that I can't see that the use of crocodile and elephant leather to make camera bags is going to do credit to either the wearer or the maker or the designer. . . and that's roughly what I told TO (in the hope that he would quietly backtrack).

 

I don't understand his adamant stance. It does a disservice to him. Lessons are sometimes learned the hard way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s be honest. Thorsten could lose all of his Leica based sales, and all his goodwill from Leica users, and provided he sold a handful of these disgraceful bags he’d make more money than from his Leica based activity. I think that’s a sacrifice he’s prepared to make.

 

We’ve learned that he was never a Leica ambassador, I hope that Leica have the good sense to sever any ties they may have had with him.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand his adamant stance. It does a disservice to him. Lessons are sometimes learned the hard way.

 

Nor do I James - It might be hard to discern whether the source of the leather is ethical or not, but it seems to me to be glaringly obvious that using it for camera bags is a catastrophic decision

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your link to the site of a n American salesman of leather products is important.

 

It clearly says: „Hunting reserves are the source of all legally traded African elephant skins. It’s very similar to our deer season in the United States. Designers, manufactures, and leather enthusiasts should not feel emotional or have guilt for using this leather as we are not creating a demand rather using a by product. We deal with reputable international partners who abide by all regulations and we never sell poached hides.“

 

Again: Hunting reserves are the source of all legally traded African elephant skins. Not just some skins, but all skins.

 

So either this site is lying and there are other sources than hunting reserves, or the salesman, who is the topic of this thread is wrong saying, that hunting is not the source of his - legally acquired - elephant skins.

 

There is another difference between the two salesmen: only one defends hunting. The other implies - though not very clearly - that he objects hunting elephants.

 

Whether hunting elephants is defendable is up to debate. I strictly object all use of firearms, so I object to hunting. This is an emotional point of view, not based on rational grounds. When I think twice I would like to leave the decision to people who know more about the circumstances.

 

I have seen groups of elephants in Botswana devastating little forests in a couple of hours. Perhaps this is just nature - but over here we would call it vandalism. I can understand that an overpopulation of elephants may cause serious problems for the ecological system - just because of their size and their enormous need of green food - and first of all because men have set up so many fences and other barriers for a natural development.

 

In Europe overpopulation of deers causes serious problems for the growth of young trees which are necessary for a rebirth of natural forests against the devastation caused by wood industry. Since rabies has been almost completely extinguished the strong increase of foxes has caused great dangers for many species of ground breeding birds. So shooting deers or foxes may be necessary to protect the ecological system as a whole - even if the true reasons for the endangering of many species are manmade.

 

At the same time I uphold my feelings that I detest all use of firearms - and I like foxes not less than elephants.

 

If the debate about the ugly leather bags makes any sense, it should be honest about the sources, the reasons and the circumstances. Even if I sharply object to the point of view taken by the American salesman in the link above, I have to admit that it does not conceal a very simple point: the source is hunting - and not some „natural cause“.

 

The debate can only start at this point.

 

Hello UliWer,

 

Perhaps 1 thing to think about might be is how Human Utilization of the Planet has not always taken the lives & the needs of other animals they are sharing the Planet with into account appropriately.

 

Just as I would assume that the Native populations Worldwide did not see themselves & the places where they lived as "blank slates" as the invading & occupying Europeans did when they arrived 500 or so years ago: 

 

The same with animal & plant populations which have often been aggressively overwhelmed & disregarded by the same people who saw a "blank slate" in front of them.

 

The Planet needs to have People restructure their manner of utilization of resources to include the needs of plants & animals. This also includes "rewilding" where it is appropriate.

 

People don't inherit the World they live in from there parents as theirs to do with as they please. Instead, People borrow the Planet from their children & have a responsibility to protect the Planet it & to give it to their children in a better condition than they received it in. So that their children can do the same thing.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited by Michael Geschlecht
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello UliWer,

 

Perhaps 1 thing to think about might be is how Human Utilization of the Planet has not always taken the lives & the needs of other animals they are sharing the Planet with into account appropriately.

 

Just as I would assume that the Native populations Worldwide did not see themselves & the places where they lived as "blank slates" as the invading & occupying Europeans did when they arrived 500 or so years ago: 

 

The same with animal & plant populations which have often been aggressively overwhelmed & disregarded by the same people who saw a "blank slate" in front of them.

 

The Planet needs to have People restructure their manner of utilization of resources to include the needs of plants & animals. This also includes "rewilding" where it is appropriate.

 

People don't inherit the World they live in from there parents as theirs to do with as they please. Instead, People borrow the Planet from their children & have a responsibility to protect the Planet it & to give it to their children in a better condition than they received it in. So that their children can do the same thing.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

Michael, I am with you.

 

While TO business model is outrageous, and morally questionable, let's keep some perspective : Those of us eating meat and dairy are directly and indirectly responsible for immense animal suffering and extinction of many species through the pollution of waters, the destruction of lands and forest caused by intensive animal farming. Our love for meat and dairy is incompatible with sustainable environment - animal farming is a major contributor to global warming (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/). In addition it comes also at a huge cost for our health. In 2015 the World Health Organization classified all processed meat as carcinogen for human and red meat a probable carcinogen (http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/).

 

The good news, the healthier diets are those that are mostly vegetarian (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/vegetarian-diets-linked-lower-mortality).

 

As Michael said above we all need to reflect and restructure the way we use the resources of our planet - and it looks like what is good for our body and health is also good for the planet. Elephant, crocodile, fishes, and hundreds of other species deserve our attention.

 

Cheers,

Samir

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good one Samir.

 

The vegetarians don't get away from their influences on animal suffering and loss of species either.  Huge areas of broad acre farming; grains, pasture, palm oil, etc.  

 

Cities, roads, developments of many sorts, mining, tourism, etc.  There is not much we do that is kind to nature.

 

All contribute to "habitat loss", by far the main reason for reduced biodiversity and animal reduction.

 

...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find his attitude predictable.

 

He knows he isn’t going to sell many of these hideous bags, but he knows he will sell some. He knows, as we all do, that there are arrogant, gullible, tasteless and stupid people out there with more money than moral decency who will buy his bags. He’s going to make far more money out of a few bag sales than he will make out of selling his crappy lens hoods and other stick-on junk to his newsletter and YouTube subscribers.

 

There are maybe a dozen or so active people on this thread who continue to voice their outrage with varying degrees of hysteria. In the greater scheme of his enterprise there are probably so few objectors here as to be irrelevant to him and he may see this as a risk worth taking. All he needs to do is manipulate his sales terminology. He knows that this forum isn’t going to significantly influence anything or anyone because the type of posts that might do so will be instantly deleted.

 

He is a better businessman than a photographer and the only effective way to demonstrate your contempt for his enterprise is to boycott him totally. It won’t stop him selling his bags, but at least you can sleep soundly in the knowledge that you aren’t aiding and abetting him in his disgusting and shameful sideline.

 

Ouch - that's going to leave a mark.

 

I am in 100% agreement.  Effective retroactive to 23 March 2018 when I started this thread, I am boycotting all things Thorsten until he comes clean, extends an apology that is sincere rather than condescending and ends this debacle by ceasing the production and sale his vile elephant and crocodile bags. 

 

That won't happen, though.  It is obvious that this is no longer about his view on the skins, or about ethics, or about elephants and crocodiles, or even about money.

 

This is about ego.

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, I am with you.

 

While TO business model is outrageous, and morally questionable, let's keep some perspective : Those of us eating meat and dairy are directly and indirectly responsible for immense animal suffering and extinction of many species through the pollution of waters, the destruction of lands and forest caused by intensive animal farming. Our love for meat and dairy is incompatible with sustainable environment - animal farming is a major contributor to global warming (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367646/). In addition it comes also at a huge cost for our health. In 2015 the World Health Organization classified all processed meat as carcinogen for human and red meat a probable carcinogen (http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/).

 

The good news, the healthier diets are those that are mostly vegetarian (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/vegetarian-diets-linked-lower-mortality).

 

As Michael said above we all need to reflect and restructure the way we use the resources of our planet - and it looks like what is good for our body and health is also good for the planet. Elephant, crocodile, fishes, and hundreds of other species deserve our attention.

 

Cheers,

Samir

 

Agreed.

 

I personally believe also that all life is sacred, and any animal slaughtering is invariably associated with suffering. In this perspective, I do not really appreciate that it's ok to kill some animals but not others. All animal killing should be banned.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...