HATING GLENN MCGRATH

I have little to say on the topic of recent Glenn McGrath hunting revelations that I've not said on the topic of big game hunting in previous posts, with the possible exception that I think it's very disappointing he has chosen to plead temporary insanity due to the death of his wife in 2008 when the hunting trip that's got him tied to a stake in the town square apparently took place.

That said, I guess it's somewhat understandable that in desperation he should grasp at straws in order to save his charity - the McGrath Foundation.

Glenn McGrath, focus of so much homicidal 'tolerance'

Notable is the response of the oh-so responsible, enlightened and morally superior anti-hunters, who've gathered via Facebook and Twitter to assure the McGrath Foundation that Glenn will never get another cent of their hard earned ethically superior money. 

What shallow angry little chimps you all are, jumping about, screaming incoherently, teeth bared, limp-wristedly pounding the ground with your clubs. Still, if one can't think I suppose one must emote.

Glenn McGrath is not the beneficiary of your money, imbeciles. Women suffering breast-cancer and the search for cures and treatments is. When reduced to  mathematical formula, your decision to stop supporting the McGrath Foundation looks something like this:

Ex-cricketer kills elephant 6 years ago    +
The righteous public demands retribution
_____________________________
= Australian women and girls must suffer

Seems fair.

And of-course brovo the Australian media, which dived on the carrion of 6 year-old photographs relating to a total non-event and shoved them it front of predatory keyboard warriors and Change.org slacktivists to increase the circulation and advertising revenue of their respective rags.

You should all be aware you have facilitated damage to a charitable organistion with a proven track record. Your priorities are astonishingly amoral. The pride you must feel? One assumes your partners and daughters are immune to breast cancer?

I think it's important someone points this out to you, because it's clear your minds are so filled with the fog of self-indulgent opportunism and puerile disapproval you cannot see the great damage you're responsible for.

People are fond of judging big game hunters. I must admit to having some reservations about the practice myself. It's just not my thang, but I accept that folks do lots of stuff that’s not for me and accepting that is the essence of tolerance.

We hear the word 'tolerance' a lot these days and of course being branded 'intolerant' is quite the insult of the times. However the tolerance so many people claim to embody in relation to things such as immigration and Islam, isn't tolerance at all.

Tolerance is not a matter of embracing something one does not oppose, something one enjoys or approves of. Tolerance is the act of accepting that which one is not comfortable with, does not like and does not approve of.

Unlike those who emote their position on McGrath's big game hunting from a position of warm-fuzzy feelings and general ignorance, I at least have bothered to look into what big game or “trophy” hunting involves. Having done so, and with a mind thirsty for facts rather than evidence in support of a gut feeling, I have decided that I will be tolerant of the practice until I am given reason (not emotive drivel) to change that view.

As National Geographic points out, "...without the financial resources provided by hunters to protect habitat and stop poachers, there would be no infrastructure for wildlife management” (Sept 2nd, 2013).

This money is provided by hunters, not vegans or greenies, who devote their spare cash to self-indulgent displays and the promulgation of hate speech, denying facts, forcing their philosophical bent on others and paying for not one scrap of infrastructure for either endangered elephants or impoverished villagers as hunters' fees do.

  

In short, it is largely because of the work of hunters, not photographers, that there are animals left to capture on film and hunters in fact pay for the photo-safari infrastructure.

Sadly, it has been found that the average photographer leaves a much larger ecological footprint than the hunter, with his demand for comfy motels, coaches, bodyguards, viewing platforms, restaurants, souvenir shops, hot showers, toilet facilities and all the waste that lot entails. But hey, as long as we feel better about photographers than hunters, what does any of that matter?

For further information about legal hunting's contribution to wildlife conservation programs and the realities of hunting vs. shooting with cameras et al, I encourage you to watch the expert panel assembled by the University of NSW program "The Hot Seat" below. 

The Hot Seat: They Kill Lions Don't They?

It won't cause the haters to rethink their positions I know, but it may give the Twittersphere some brief respite from their bile.

Anyway, I'll get outaya way now...

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/hating-glenn-mcgrath_22.html 

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.