Cattle Live Exports and the blind followers of the Vegan Cult.

On the 23rd of August 2015, the ABC Radio station "ABC 720AM" posted the photo below on their FaceBook page. It was accompanied with the following interesting explainer.

Did you know...in the 1880 cattle were shipped from Kimberley pastoral stations to abattoirs in North Coogee, but the jetty for the ships wasn't quite long enough, so the cattle were driven off the boats and forced to swim ashore....

Then the replies flowed in regarding it being disgusting, cruel etc. Cows of course can swim quite ok, some of them can swim better than some of us. Funny how people from crowded Soy Latte quaffing cake houses in leafy suburbs can negatively judge the actions of people from 135 years ago as if the standards and the equipment from today were available back then. I'd expect (yes I'm guessing) the crew had to deliver the load and they had to go off the ship somehow.

Then of course it moves onto "SENTIENT BEINGS" and how their rights were infringed. The whole thread climaxed with the invented claim (among others) that we need to evolve because these days "we don't need to eat meat"

I'm not actually sure which is more staggering. The level of absurdity within the claim or the ability of educated people to swallow it up without even thinking deeply, seriously and all the while deftly side stepping facts, logic and common sense.

Saying we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to eat meat is parallel and equal in stupidity as claiming that we've evolved to a point where we no longer need to enter the ocean and splash around. Peer reviewed scientific study papers please.

If you don't want to swim in the water don't go in the water. Simple.
As for food, same-same. Its your body so you can choose to fuel your body any way you want. Eat a balance diet or go vegetarian or vegan or what ever but do you have to enforce your cult moral laws on all others in Australia?

No meat eater I know is upset or trying to guilt people into dropping their evil immoral vegan ways?
Why? Because no one cares, its your body, fuel it your way. There is no moral law broken by eating meat. No guilt to be had. Heck you can eat triple decker bourbon and coke sandwiches 20 times a day if you want to, wouldn't advise it but if you too silly to stick to a balanced diet that's your choice and no one has the right to impose guilt upon anyone.

As we've said before, "SENTIENT BEING" is a term from philosophy, not science. What definition we can apply to the sentient being is they can feel and experience things, react to stimuli. With that in mind, please remember that bacteria, nematodes, earth worms and many other soil fauna qualify as "sentient" and therefore the number of individuals with rights are being killed in their millions just to produce a kilo of apples, kilo of celery or kilo of any other vegetable or fruit.

Irony much?

 

Never ever seen a doctor say we need to stop eating meat, seen them say we need to reduce sugars and processed foods and get back to proper portions of a balanced diet but nothing about we need to evolve (mentally I assume) and don't "need" to eat meat.

Its very very sad to see educated people in a 1st world country falling for cult like rubbish that is devoid of science, logic and common sense. They're unaware they're following cult propaganda and deeply believe they're pushing a noble and morally superior cause.
Now if Christians knocked on their door to try & spread the Good Word you know they'd be the hypocrites champions of their cult and blow a fuse and the intrusion of intolerance and bigotry.

 

Irony too much.

 



New Proposed Electoral Boundary Changes - Problems & Solutions

When the cry is "One Vote = One Value" and things get changed we end up with regular reviews of Electoral Boundaries. Nothing sinister to be seen. It can however cause an extra burden on some MPs which in turn actually reduces a person's effective representation in Parliament.

Here's a picture with current boundaries on the left & proposed new boundaries on the right. ( http://www.boundaries.wa.gov.au/ )

 

There's smaller less obvious changes to the seat of Albany & Wagin which are going to have serious negative impacts as well but with the maps you can see the obvious negative impacts. Three already large, overly large electorates will become 2 behemoth size electorates. The electorate of North West Central will be over 1500 kms in length from east to west. Rough count shows 13 Shires will be in the electorate. One of them being the Shire of Wiluna is 950kms from Perth and over 185,000 square kilometres on its own. Onslow also in the new big electorate, 1100+kms from Perth and 1600kms from the furtherest part of its own electorate. How is this smart?

One vote one value on the head count yes. In reality on the ground and on the Parliament floor no. How can one MP service all that area effectively? That's close to 900,000 square kilometres of environment issues to hover over. That's 900,000 square kilometres of industry to hover over. Then there's overblown problems of delivering education, policing, health, electricity, water and many state based social services. Where somehow the far flung constituents have an equal vote to the residents of the electorate of Cottesloe but on the ground the people of the remote area suffer.

The cost of getting services to all the people of North West Central is one thing, the range of services is not equal to the electorate of Cottesloe who also enjoy many more amenities from the tax payers purse and only covers 38 square kilometres opposed to the proposed  North West Central's 900,000 square kilometres.

The disparity and inequity is every bit as mammoth as the size and remoteness that causes it.

One Vote is One Value only in the seat arrangements in Parliament on a per capita basis.
No public transport in Onslow, Carnarvon, Meekatharra, Wiluna. You can drive a cab all around the Cottesloe electorate far cheaper than you can drive you own car 1% of the way around the North West Central boundary.

ONE VOTE ONE VALUE ? NOT BY A LONG SHOT

 

So yes there is a set of solutions on offer. Offer no service in the electorate of Cottesloe that cannot be offered in the electorate of North West Central to an equal or greater standard. Great solution but won't be introduced. We all know that.

Maybe the only solution we need is a smart solution. But it will require lateral thinking and on those grounds many won't get their head around it. It would face opposition but it would raise the standard of effective representation of the far flung people of the proposed new North West Central and yet maintain the metro area's cherished One Vote One Value aspect.


The large electorates maintain one vote in the seat of parliament they occupy but the bigger electorates have 2 or more MPs elected working as a team, representing their constituents more equitably than they currently can. Yes electors on election day elected not a candidate but elected 2 or 3 candidate team of MPs who collectively have only one vote.


That or we see MPs rotated so the Premier for example has to spend one term as the members for Eyre etc. No another nice thought that would never happen.


Imagine 2 or 3 MPs covering the proposed new North West Central all from the same elected party. Gets it down to around 300,000 square kilometres each, still far greater than Colin Barnett's 38 square kilometres but a vast improvement and allows the MP to have only 4 shire councils to liaise with instead of 13+.

 

Tell me it can't be done & I know I'm talking to a barrier to equity in representation in the Western Australian Parliament.

If you're on social or not, copy the link, spread the concept and maybe, just maybe a political party will see the merit & run with it

Dear Minister - Re Lawful Firearms

So, here is the reply I sent the Minister on 4th of June 2015. Hopefully I have clarified problems in the Act, including the inconsistency over "it's not the calibre" reflecting in her reply. I don't blame the minister. She has a ton of stuff on her every minute of the day and she has pretty much a helicopter view of day to day issues at best, but the calibre inconsistency and the return of the baseless "Port Arthur" angle being brought in needed correction. Letter is lengthy so fair warning :-)


Dear Minister,
Apologies, I may have not worded my main point properly.
I'm at a loss regards the non prescriptive nature of a firearm being judge by "appearance" which is entirely subjective by whomever the officer on the day might be.
I think this part of the current legislation needs attention and applying a more prescriptive guideline as to what actually constitutes a military style firearm. This also protects those working under the Act from unfair critics.

I hope to provide a better wording of how this affects me in the farming operation I own and run.

A lever action rifle was a military firearm well over 100 years ago, but isn't any more. Lever actions are now freely available under the legislation.

A M1 Garand is also no longer a military rifle, but was during WW2 & the Korean War. One rifle that closely resembles it is the Ruger 10/22 which, as a primary producer I qualify for. The calibres are different.

At present we have feral animals in amongst our bluegum plantation. A self loading centrefire firearm in .223 would actually be of great benefit to our feral control programme. We run cattle in an ongoing rotational system in the plantation and whilst cells of trees & pasture are unoccupied by livestock we can properly address feral animals. At present I use a bolt action .223, but I have one shot because I cannot get a clean and accurate 2nd shot off before ferals move 8 to 12 feet in the old language and are lost from view/rifle range into the next row of trees and are gone. So its firstly find the feral, take aim & fire. Then come back a fortnight or two later (or longer) when I can finally approach them within an accurate firing distance again.

A solution to this would be a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle which is a self loading .223.
I was told I cannot get this firearm because of the legislative section you also cited in your correspondence "
That "a self-loading centre fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates such a firearm in design, function, or appearance".The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle is self loading centrefire but it is not designed or adapted for military purposes.
It does duplicate in design and function a M1 Garand which was a World War II firearm.
The M1 Garanad is, like the lever action is no longer a military firearm, its a collectible historical firearm.
The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle also substantially replicates the Ruger 10/22 which I can qualify for.

The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle also differs from the now non-military M1 Garand in that the Ranch Rifle is .223 not the larger 30-30 calibre. The .223 a humane cartridge size for larger ferals like dogs & kangaroos giving less recoil and better chance of an accurate 2nd or even 3rd shot on feral animals.

With utmost respect minister your letter related that in regards to the Ruger 10/22 "The calibre of a firearm has no bearing on determining whether a firearm meets the criteria under regulation 26" - In the case of myself needing a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle, the main difference between it and the Ruger 10/22 is the calibre, one is .22 & one .223. Both have the same appearance, both have the same design and function, neither are military firearms nor resemble current military firearms.
Both have the same bullet diameter. The main difference is one is rimfire, one is centrefire and one has more powder powering it than the other.

Here are 2 comparison photos.
Firstly the Ruger 10/22 then the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. Neither resemble military rifles.  One has more powder powering it. Under Regulation 26 one of the rifles below sits on the prohibited list with mortars, hand grenades, bazookas, machine guns, tear gas guns, chemical and incendiary ammunition & 20mm missiles etc.

Neither are based on military rifles, both are completely legal in other states of Australia and very much available to primary producers.

In my situation as a primary producer running an innovative farming operation with a complex management system to allow renewable timber plantation & beef cattle to be combined we're held back by not being able to use the specific tool for our operation. We have a greater feral problem than an operation without renewable timber aspect because we have higher shelter for feral animals and hence harder to shoot and control. Its a feral haven. Ironically I can more easily get a larger 30-30 calibre lever action (or even larger) but its overkill, harder to manage an accurate first and second shot and more importantly has a far greater range (distance) than I'm comfortable with.

If I farmed cattle on a renewable timber plantation in Queensland, this firearm would not be on the prohibited list and easily accessible to a farmer. I genuinely urge the minister to review this and a small number of other firearms that fall into Cat. D that should be made available to those of us with genuine and reasonable need.

In closing Minister, you also referenced the Port Arthur massacre, one of the saddest and darkest events in Australian history. It is worth noting that firearms used there were actual high powered automatic military assault rifles. All were illegally purchased by a person of very serious mental dysfunction who did not have a firearms licence nor even a drivers licence and should not have been in possession of any firearm at all. Aside from his serious mental sickness, he was not a legal and lawful fire arm owner with a genuine & reasonable need. You'll note that I do not use his name. For my own reasons I refuse to use his actual name and only refer to him as the convicted gunman. I understand the Minister's deep regard for keeping the community safe but some firearms, in strict circumstances should be off the Cat D list as they are in other states of Australia.

Below is a FN AR-10, identical to one of the military assault rifles used at Port Arthur. This will show how far removed the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle is from an assault rifle.

 

 

I wish to thank the Minister for her genuine regard for the community in an area of legislation that has some faults and lacks harmony with other states and fails some of the genuine need of some primary producers. I understand the current legislation is not of your making Minister & you're working hard to improve things. I hope I have been able to show you a side that may not have been presented to you and an area I hope you can rectify.

Very best regards
Peter Robins

The Letter to the Minister re Legal Firearms & their "Appearance Test"

So I sent an email off to LIZA HARVEY MLA - Western Australia's Minister for Police, Road Safety, Training and Workforce Development & Women's Interests re a recent firearms issue that effects Legal firearm owners. There's a couple of issues in the letter I sent, some surrounding the "appearance" of a military firearm causing an otherwise legal firearm being refused at the application level.

I pointed out to the minister that a 1795 Springfield Musket is an ex-military firearm but it isn't refused on grounds of appearance.
I also pointed out I am currently legal to own a Ruger 10/22 semi automatic .22 rifle as long as it doesn't look military even though no matter what an owner does to it, it was never military as it was .22 calibre.

My point was, that the "appearance" test was subjective and highly flawed and needed either scrapping or replacing with a sensible but very clear and prescriptive set of guidelines. At present a firearm might be rejected by one officer but passed by another. It is a wrong and clumsy system based on no logic at all.

 

Lever actions were once military firearms also, but are not any longer and haven't been for a long time. They are legal for recreational shooters and primary producers. My point was missed by the minister that when does a defunct military rifle become OK for the general public and miss the "appearance rule"?

 

Here's the minister's reply to my letter. Have a read then read part two. :-)

 

 

 

Hunting - cruel or cultural, good or bad?

Lets define some stuff first...

Hunter - Well you get that, self evident.

Huntress - Well same thing except female. FWIW I see the pursuit of hunting as gender neutral, just as I see the term farmer gender neutral. I don't believe in "farmer's wife" if she's part of the farming operation, she's a farmer too. I don't believe in "hunter's wife" unless the wife does not hunt & I think a woman who hunts is hunting, not huntressing. If you use the term huntress though its ok with me, just splitting the hairs a bit.

Fishing - Well you're trying to catch fish which is of course a form of hunting...odd though that some fishermen or "fishers" don't call or see themselves as hunters. No dramas either way.

Illegal Hunters - Pretty obvious again, people hunting where they shouldn't which in most cases is breaking the law which is why I don't like the term "illegal hunters" cos I'd prefer to see them well separated from proper hunters who are law abiding people. As a hunter, don't lump me in with them, makes it just that little tiny bit easier for those wishing to ban hunting. There's a better name for those who hunt illegally, its the only name I use for them. To me they are...

Poachers - People who break the law and hunt illegally. You may have done it before, don't care about then, concerned about now & forever...make sure you're a law abiding legal hunter. Separate your lawful pursuit from those that break the law at every opportunity. Look to condemn and oppose "poaching" when ever the chance arises. Mention poachers aren't hunters, they're criminals. Why? Same reason the Drag Racing fraternity say "Street Racing isn't Drag Racing, its just dumb"
Drag racing happens at properly built tracks and is run formally and legally in the safest possible environment. Street racing is illegal can more easily kill them and/or innocent people. Same deal, distance yourself from poaching, make your hunt legal and lawful and you then give opponents one less thread to pull.

I'd define some of the hunting opponents but who knows where the language would go ;-)

Now, the view.

What is wrong with hunting? Well if you 're a tribesman somewhere nothing really. In fact very few people get wound up about it. Now if indigenous people around the world are allowed to "morally" be fine with continuing their cultural tradition I'm in a very happy place in the world.
Hunting in my family goes back longer than we can account for. My race is actually irrelevant, fact is if one person is ok to hunt culturally so am I. Long as I obey the law of the land there is no moral problem, nothing to seek mental counselling over, I'm good to go. If you're a hunter, become a good shot. If that means hitting paper targets or some other drill, do it. The better shot you are, the better the chances of encasing hunting as a normal part of every day life. Be seen to be practising, be precise and careful with your firearm or bow...fuss over it.

What will some people who oppose hunting say & how do we respond?

Simple...respond calmly. If you're hunting an animal you don't launch out of a trench with fixed bayonet screaming at the top of your lungs. Nope, you study your prey, you stay concealed, control your breathing after going through all the things you do and gently pull the trigger as calmly as you can to try and get the best, cleanest shot you can. You want the dispatching of an animal to be quick, clean and hopefully with it never knowing what hit it. Cleary you can't sedate it in its sleep, this all happens in the wild but you do put effort into the cleanest shot possible. Some folk are better than others with this, get used to it. Soooo why would you do any different to one of your worst critics???
A critic that would clearly prefer to stir you up so you lose your lolly, raise your voice, throw away your temper and hurl abuse. Once you're in that place, YOU are the quarry and YOU are in the THIER sights. You are on toast because it makes their job of demonising you far too easy. You keep your cool, know your subject, defend it properly and at some point if need be inform them "I'm doing nothing wrong at all by being a hunter and nothing I can say will change your mind, its now we must part, there is no point continuing the discussion because both of us are steadfast and I don't need to vent my spleen or blow off steam. Have a nice day" Whilst you may not EVER convince hunting is fine, you might convince the person/s standing next to them watching you're not an unreasonable monster, a thug or a verbal bully. You may well begin to appear to others to not quite tally with the blood thirsty murderer tag your accuser had previously levelled. How you conduct yourself is how people will judge you. People are not fools, eventually some will see their extremist friend as being a very unreasonable person. If they ever have a fall out, its not something they're going to think about, but you could possibly rate higher than the extremist. Many of the extremists are Rebels Without A Clue, going through their young angry stage. It will pass. If you hurl abuse you are fully and most likely permanently situated on the monster thug list. Remember its very emotive for them, if you remain cool, calm and collected like you might in the field you are miles in front. Robert Borsak once asked an extremist "Can't you intellectualise it?"

What did he mean? Its real simple. The extremist has a view, a view they're passionate, extremely passionate about. They're emotionally involved and highly strung over it. They have arrived at a position and push the daylights out of the position, but unable to simply say WHY it is what they think? No its a little more than that even. Many will not want to sit down and converse at length so you can explore not what they believe but why, what's it all based on.

Why is that? Ahh simple, I'm no brain surgeon. I'm a dumb ol' ploughboy/cowboy at best on a good day but I do know one thing if you say something is very very wrongon all sorts of emotional levels, you ought to be able to got through every nut & bolt of your position to explore & explain...and if you want to stay on Rant Level 10 & avoid (as Robert put it) trying to intellectualise it then you have a serious problem.

a) You don't understand it past emotional thought bubble and placard slogans
b) You're actually afraid of what will be laid bare, possibly the extremist is actually intolerant and very wrong.

But they mention morals - Yes be aware you will come across a lot of terms, phrases and words which are not relevant to what you're doing. Opponents will pull unrelated issues over to help oppose your hunting position because they need to bolster what is a failing argument. "Seriously thing" ? you bet, be aware and respond accordingly as you would in the bush.
Morals or hunting is immoral is one of the biggies, so to is murder, sentient beings, rights of the animals...so we need to go through them one at a time, nice and slow.

Murder - I usually ask under what statute is it murder because that's a criminal charge that a person is held account for when taking the life of another human. No one who took the life of an animal whilst legally hunting has ever been convicted on a murder charge. If I was called a murderer I would take great issue with that, I would then have been called guilty, convicted and sentence to a serious criminal charge. Its factually wrong, its accusing me of serious crime and its just plain dumb nonsense. You'll know straight away the person opposing hunting is using emotive language designed to shock, upset and then rally other totally indifferent people to agree with what they hate. Seriously I try not to use the word hate about things or people I don't agree with, but I do hate peas and asparagus. I support the farmers that grow it right up to the consumers that enjoy it. My hate is with me for me...not as a tool to shut down a form of horticulture or farming of vegetables that actually don't affect me at all.

Sentient beings - If you're not read any other blog spoutings from me, well you probably missed this explainer before so we'll try to tackle it...briefly if we can. Animal Rights people will claim its a sentient being and deserves to live without pain or suffering. They extend this further to oppose all forms of animal farming, pet ownership (unless its their own pet), manufacture of any products made or derived from animals and then the biggy...they oppose meat as food. Animal Welfare (AW) seeks to improve the welfare of the animal within the idea that animals are not humans and some are food. Animal Rights (AR) seeks to free all animals, turn everyone vegan and live at one with nature. Yep there's some bad acid dropping going on there. Extended to its full extend, we sit on a rock and do nothing to help nor hinder the animal, eat grass and make clothes out of hessian.

Thing is, "sentient", "sentience" and "Sentient beings" are not terms from science, they are terms from philosophy. Like a lot of philosophical ideas, some (for some people) get taken to the next level and a cult or worldview evolves. The premise is that a sentient being is an animal that feels pain and pleasure therefore it has inferred rights to be free of pain and the ability to feel pleasure and live its life unhindered by us. Who gave the rights? Ahh they're inferred. Who inferred them first? Ahh we don't know but we can track this all back long before Peter Singer and others. In fact we can find philosophical traces nearly 200 years ago and its not been refined a great deal since then. My view, its still being invented.

So we have animals that because they feel, have rights that no one gave them but somehow without any basis these rights do exist even though they're not quantified or formalised properly yet. Oooook.

If you believe that I gotta bridge in Sydney you just have to buy.

Hunting is ok, its neither moral or immoral. Its not murder just like the lion killing the antelope isn't murdering or being moral/immoral. In the case of duck season and number of programmes like "Farmer Assist" where hunters are helping farmers by hunting on properties to get feral numbers down. Will it eradicate ferals?

Probably not, but every dead fox, wild dog or wild car is a win. As most of the hunters do this at their own cost, there is no other cost efficient solution that even comes close.

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky...what the???

Yeah Rick Gervais weighed into the whole young lady shooting the giraffe thing. Weighed in heavily, as heavily and thorough as you can on Twitter's 140 character tirade limit.

Here's some things, I might be wrong, but I think he's promoting Brand Gervais as much as anything. Lets face it for an ageing comic hack, you gotta stay current, raise a twitter storm. Job done. Job done easier when your short messages are acid laced and provide no real depth of knowledge, experience or understanding...let alone research.

I googled online, not the best research tool, but it seems better than whatever Ricky is or isn't using. I looked to see if he's vegan. What I did find was a number of comments of interest. apparently he eats cheese and free range meat and wants to be a vegetarian. Hmmm, ok.
He is or has been very outspoken on the topic of us humans using animal based products. He's very much against it.

I found a curious tirade against Ricky from a vegan group called the Feminist Vegan Network. Who regarded him as a bit of a sexist pig, bit of a woman abuser and not a proper vegan. My reading of it was, those are all lowest of the low insults to that network. No real help, except even they thought he was a hypocrite.

So, in regards the lass who shot the giraffe & then posed with it. Again google looked. I don't know how we verify all this but she's a mother of 8 and a grandmother. She has a hunting programme on the TV, cable, internet or some platform so she at least derives some sort of income out of it. Maybe that's why she posts the photos on social media, seems reasonable enough.

Here's some other things...
1) She's quite the bloody good shot
2) She paid some big dollars to take that animal. (think local economy)
3) Locals used the entire animal
4) No real biggie but kind of like PETA, Animals Australia footage etc its kinda old news. It was taken 5 years ago.
5) Along with paying for her time at the hunting lodge, she has paid for trackers, hotel, food & beverage, vehicles you name it.
6) The Giraffe I'm told was an ousted bull. Further told being an older bull, it will go into decline as its time with the herd is over and if it were to try to return, their retirement plan is pretty much zero. Retired bulls ousted by a new dominant bull can be healthy for a year or so before declining & dying but it kinda depends on the injuries they've sustained from the fight with the new dominant bull. In any case, the ousted bull is history and his clock to the end is ticking very fast.
7) Under the various land management plans in that country, taking of the giraffe is highly regulated to ensure a sustainable giraffe population to avoid over hunting. The cost of a giraffe hunt is at one lodge (which we think is the one Rebecca Francis used) is $3000. Its one of the dearest animals to kill & its stays such a high price because its so tightly regulated and numbers per year for harvesting are kept low.
8) Harvesting, we use this word for good reason. Its a highly regulated & controlled harvest, not a species wipe out. Locals get the carcase, the meat. The shooter can and often does get the rights to taxidermy the pelt and export it home. Lot of paper work involved but many do it.

So what exactly did she do wrong? On what level and under which particular moral law did she commit wrong doing?

Ricky is never clear on this. Not clear on harvesting or the highly regulated nature of the harvest.

What he is clear on is he's completely & totally against hunting.
Apparently he recently said "Sport is fair. If hunting was a sport the animal would have a gun too. If it doesn't you can't call yourself a sportsman. Just a c***."

Wish he'd make his mind up, one minute hunting is a grim sport, then it isn't a sport. Bit of a problem when you think and post on the run I guess.

On the topic of trophy hunting Gervais has said "men and women that do it [trophy hunt] are equally vile and worthless".Ahhh don't catch a fish on a line, then take a photo...whether you eat it or catch & release.

Gervais went onto tweet "It's critical now. Poaching and Trophy Hunting are causing extinction. Don't believe anything different. They kill for fun & money." - Poaching is bad and should be opposed by all. So he's half right there. Trophy hunting and poaching are two distinctly different things.

Gervais also stated that the hunters were "rich psychopaths who get their cheap f*****g thrills" - I think he added the word rich to connect with not rich people, 'I'm one of you' when on his last hunting trip, house hunting, Ricky was looking at buying a  £11million mansion.
Hmmm noble of him to not go into an exclusive mansion that may even have a bigger carbon burden than hunting with a bow. Funny. Ricky's hypocrisy, not his stage & TV work.

But here's the monumental beauty from Ricky...
"And would we allow some billionaire sicko to shoot one cancer patient if he gave a million dollars to cancer research? No. Of course we f*****g wouldn’t. If they really wanted to do a good deed they would donate the money, and not shoot the animal. They would be heroes then. As opposed to murdering scum."

We don't actually cull or harvest sick humans with cancer. That's because we can distinguish the difference between a human and a non human. Speciesist? Well yes...that thankfully is also what stops most of us from wanting to eat other people. Comparison is invalid, flawed, misleading and false.

Ricky could, of course spend $10,000 and have 3 ousted giraffe bulls put down by a vet, money still goes into the system and no shooting happens. Why doesn't he do this? Simple he doesn't want to do good deeds, he wants to rule others actions. Ricky has not saved ONE giraffe, but he has gone house hunting for a £11million mansion. Good deed? Nope he's a narcissistic atheist...all about him

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIquHbS3wHg

Animal Cult Extremists.

Over on Facebook there's a dedicated community page titled "I Love Animals But Hate Animal Rights Activists" (you can find it at https://www.facebook.com/ILAHARA?fref=nf )

Its a page worthy of your attention because it will cause you to stop and think seriously about what is being said by radical animal rights extremists. Basically they come across all manner of absurd claims, comments & attacks from Animal Rights Activists usually fired against sensible, free thinking people.

This latest one the page highlighted below is a classic in the genre of profoundly vague thought bubble doctrine of the weirder sects of the animal cult. Sometimes I wonder are their comments out-loud-words as they think out ways to arrive at an idea or a way of legitimising what's really some very perverted cult talk. Have a look see and don't be afraid to read it 3 or 4 times slowly before reading further down the page. Chances are the more you read, the more you'll discover or worry. You're not going to re-read it and find yourself relaxed at their position.

 "It’s easy to no longer use animals - once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect…and remember what our spirit has always known: that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive. Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back."

Let's break it down into sections...
"It’s easy to no longer use animals -" No problem there, go about your life as you deem appropriate. Although there is the pesky qualifier here, exactly what does no animal use look like? You live in a cave with no medical help and have a garden where no member of the animal kingdom is used?
No vaccinations I hope.

"...once we go from disconnect in our heart, to connect"Ahh there's a cord from our cardio-vascular system to what exactly? Oh you mean a connection of compassion, endearment etc? Interesting concept, one that's one of the many philosophical strains that have developed by academia and not-so academia to further get us away from theism and in a lot of cases get people well away from Christianity.
If you're theist, that is you believe in God the creator then God (insert which ever one you actually follow) is probably not a vegetarian or vegan god. Rather he or she created animals, plants, chemicals, vapour, water, gas, plasma, rocks and minerals...well everything.
There is no theist system where veganism is the only way, although there's a couple that do go close and skirt the non use of animals thing. However, you'll find your garden variety animal extremist may well borrow aspects of that religion, they will however NOT be full & faithful followers of that religion, like branches of Hinduism, because they have pesky and painful other aspects like vows of poverty. Instead if they do believe in any god it will be a bought product from the IKEA-Theology where you Build-Your-Own Deity for a rock bottom price of $44.95 plus shipping and handling.
They cannot properly belong to a theist religion because things they profess to promote start imploding like a rat plague spreading over a minefield. Better to use extremely vague conceptual words and phrases like "connect, disconnect, heart" - Fooled yet?

"and remember what our spirit has always known:"
Ahh you have a spirit that is separate from your mind? Yep that's a way aways from most theist religions for sure. Your spirit knows, but you haven't. Of course what happens when two people with their own spirits have views that are diametrically opposed? Not just them the person, their "spirits" know and believe in totally opposing things? What happens?
Well the one that's right is...wait hang on!!! "Remember"??? So we know what our "spirit" has always known. This "spirit" that has always known stuff remains very very vague and deliberately distant and conceptual, it also tends to cop a passing mention before the thought bubble can be examined and so easily found wanting.

"...that we didn’t come into this life in bodies that require us to harm any other sentient being in order to live… or to thrive."
Ahhh said who? This life instructional claim did come from somewhere, from someone. Who? Was it a transcendent law giver, a creator, a God, a deity, the origin of the one true Theism? If so who?
If it came from a human, who was it, when and what exactly qualifies them to give such instruction?
Is he/she a prophet of a particular brand of theism and they were just delivering the words of the almighty? If so, which god is this because at present using the Bible, its not currently possible to receive a direct revelation from God so its not that deity so which on is it? Now that's just the "who's the origin" question which splits the source into deity or human being. If its a human being and there is no deity at all, why on earth would or indeed should we take any notice at all. If we're all just animals and results of evolution, natural selection and plain old quirky, mad nature operating with nothing more than pure luck and chance why at all are these premises somehow binding? It's like peeling an onion, you can stop and say "Says who?" or you can go layer after layer after layer and find the deeper you go, the more problem the premise has when its opened up and we go deeper. It just gets more and more nonsensical the further you go. It never ever gets more simple...as youd expect.

"Once awakened, we make a quantum leap, with no going back, and no desire to go back"
Possibly this is the case because if you take a cursory glance, fight the urge to stop, think and question more deeply you will remained completely fooled. I find it odd, as odd as odd gets, that a person makes a determination yet they do not fully or properly understand, nor have questioned that which they ardently believe and fight for.
It is verbose poetry, that is a noble premise which implodes upon itself when more closely questioned. Guess what, it fools many people fully & completely. Watch a shampoo advert or a face cream or other beaut product advert. It doesn't moisturise hair, does not add body, does not make you younger. In physics and any other field, its just not possible. However it still sells and no one fully challenges the advertising companies that spin vague webs that trap people.
Parallel much?

Here's another...

“In order to shift to a compassionate vegan ethic, we need to establish caring as a mode of living. We need to make people feel safer caring. Compassion is very female, feminine. It’s not safe for us to be compassionate. We are called ‘baby,’ told to ‘grow up,’ we are feminized. How can we reclaim the ethic, which is female-identified, while putting down women?”

Your turn, look closely, break it down into bite size bits, chew vigorously and ruminate on it. Yes, its bitter pockets of hot vacuous air. Signifying nothing. You bet its fooled people.