Author Topic: Random pics  (Read 4173754 times)

Permabulker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
  • 1*
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52100 on: November 17, 2013, 02:54:02 PM »

Kwon_2

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 33812
  • Pretty sure he isn't in Ibiza getting the girls
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52101 on: November 17, 2013, 02:54:39 PM »


Isn't that one of our favorite mods?

Permabulker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
  • 1*
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52102 on: November 17, 2013, 02:57:01 PM »

Permabulker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
  • 1*
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52103 on: November 17, 2013, 03:00:54 PM »

Permabulker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
  • 1*
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52104 on: November 17, 2013, 03:04:03 PM »

Permabulker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
  • 1*
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52105 on: November 17, 2013, 03:07:53 PM »

jude2

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12154
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52106 on: November 17, 2013, 03:08:57 PM »
Isn't that one of our favorite mods?
Sure looks just like him. I say yes.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52107 on: November 17, 2013, 03:41:14 PM »

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52108 on: November 17, 2013, 03:41:50 PM »

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52109 on: November 17, 2013, 03:43:03 PM »

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52110 on: November 17, 2013, 03:50:24 PM »


sigh....red head with freckles...the perfect woman for me

Gregzs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17372
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52111 on: November 17, 2013, 04:36:58 PM »
Lights out


Gregzs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17372
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52112 on: November 17, 2013, 04:37:39 PM »

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52113 on: November 17, 2013, 04:41:10 PM »


why do Europeans always have such creepy looking fences?

Gregzs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17372
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52114 on: November 17, 2013, 04:44:43 PM »

Gregzs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17372
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52115 on: November 17, 2013, 04:46:23 PM »

Gregzs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17372
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52116 on: November 17, 2013, 04:52:18 PM »

Gregzs

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17372
  • Getbig!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52117 on: November 17, 2013, 04:53:45 PM »

The Showstoppa

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26878
  • Call the vet, cause these pythons are sick!
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52118 on: November 17, 2013, 04:54:10 PM »


Groink turned out Frosty's headlights !

pedro01

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4800
  • Hello Hunior
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52119 on: November 17, 2013, 05:53:11 PM »
Petitioning "The Government of the Republic of South Africa: Deny future entry to Melissa Bachman."

For those who care, sign! http://www.change.org/petitions/the-government-of-the-republic-of-south-africa-deny-future-entry-to-melissa-bachman



Signed.

It ain't sport - both animals were almost certainly standing still when shot. So you sneak up on an animal and shoot it & that's 'sport'.

I hope someone sneaks up on her.

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52120 on: November 17, 2013, 06:09:27 PM »
Petitioning "The Government of the Republic of South Africa: Deny future entry to Melissa Bachman."

For those who care, sign! http://www.change.org/petitions/the-government-of-the-republic-of-south-africa-deny-future-entry-to-melissa-bachman



Would hit

1 day ago
CV_M14
How many of you have been to South Africa and talked to Game Wardens and Licensed Wildlife Guides? I have, in Zimbabwe.

In the National Parks, no hunting is allowed. Only visual tourism. Some firms pay the government to get a "concession" which allows them to erect a tourist camp within the park boundaries, and tourists can view spectacular wildlife. Some firms purchase a "concession" on the outside of the National Park, but adjacent to the park boundary. They then purchase hunting tags from the government that allows a certain number of animals to be hunted. The government only issues a certain number of tags for each species each year, based on population numbers.

So, each Hunting Lodge Concession, located outside of, but adjacent to National Parks, allows strictly controlled hunting. Ok. You may not agree with hunting. However, these Hunting Concessions have a second, even more important duty: to kill poachers. In many countries, Game Wardens are allowed to shoot poachers on site. However, Game Wardens are poorly equipped (no money) and often only have a uniform and a gun. No truck. No radio or phone. It is nearly impossible for them to catch poachers in the act. The Hunting Lodges help them. They patrol the borders of the park, and if there are poachers, the Hunting Lodges will kill them.

What's the difference between the Hunting Lodges and the Poachers? Well, the Lodges sell a tag to a US Hunter for $10,000 - $50,000 depending on the species the hunter wants to attempt to hunt (remember, there is no guarantee they will bag an animal). Part of this money goes to the government for anti-poaching work. Hunting lodges will legally take the one animal allowed. Poachers take everything, all the time. In September 2013, a poaching ring put cyanide into a salt lick - kiling 90 elephants, dozens of antelope, kudu, and predators like lions, hyaena, jackals, hawks and vultures - which ate the dead elephants. That's the difference.

You may not agree with the concept of hunting. That's fine. We're all different. But don't attack a person for paying to do a legally accepted activity, that does actually help more wildlife in the long view.

By the way, one of my guides in Zimbabwe said this: "Well, now Botswana has made all hunting illegal. That means that there will be no one hunting the poachers. They will get in and decimate the animals in the National Parks. There will be so little wildlife left that the eco-tourism will completely bottom out -- and they won't have any money to try to combat poachers."

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5649
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52121 on: November 17, 2013, 07:00:39 PM »
Would hit

1 day ago
CV_M14
How many of you have been to South Africa and talked to Game Wardens and Licensed Wildlife Guides? I have, in Zimbabwe.

In the National Parks, no hunting is allowed. Only visual tourism. Some firms pay the government to get a "concession" which allows them to erect a tourist camp within the park boundaries, and tourists can view spectacular wildlife. Some firms purchase a "concession" on the outside of the National Park, but adjacent to the park boundary. They then purchase hunting tags from the government that allows a certain number of animals to be hunted. The government only issues a certain number of tags for each species each year, based on population numbers.

So, each Hunting Lodge Concession, located outside of, but adjacent to National Parks, allows strictly controlled hunting. Ok. You may not agree with hunting. However, these Hunting Concessions have a second, even more important duty: to kill poachers. In many countries, Game Wardens are allowed to shoot poachers on site. However, Game Wardens are poorly equipped (no money) and often only have a uniform and a gun. No truck. No radio or phone. It is nearly impossible for them to catch poachers in the act. The Hunting Lodges help them. They patrol the borders of the park, and if there are poachers, the Hunting Lodges will kill them.

What's the difference between the Hunting Lodges and the Poachers? Well, the Lodges sell a tag to a US Hunter for $10,000 - $50,000 depending on the species the hunter wants to attempt to hunt (remember, there is no guarantee they will bag an animal). Part of this money goes to the government for anti-poaching work. Hunting lodges will legally take the one animal allowed. Poachers take everything, all the time. In September 2013, a poaching ring put cyanide into a salt lick - kiling 90 elephants, dozens of antelope, kudu, and predators like lions, hyaena, jackals, hawks and vultures - which ate the dead elephants. That's the difference.

You may not agree with the concept of hunting. That's fine. We're all different. But don't attack a person for paying to do a legally accepted activity, that does actually help more wildlife in the long view.

By the way, one of my guides in Zimbabwe said this: "Well, now Botswana has made all hunting illegal. That means that there will be no one hunting the poachers. They will get in and decimate the animals in the National Parks. There will be so little wildlife left that the eco-tourism will completely bottom out -- and they won't have any money to try to combat poachers."

I personally find the concept of hunting uninteresting; despite that I can rationally justify killing an animal if the meat is used as food, but can't see any point in the killing of animals if they aren't going to be used as food but as a photo-op prop and/or wall decoration. But I don't believe my opinions are dicta or should be binding on anyone other than myself. So if hunting in legal in a country (something which the people of that country can decide) then those who wish to hunt should be able to do it, provided they do so within the bounds established by law.

More specifically to address the points in this post: I don't disagree with some parts of the message (namely that income from hunting licenses, etc can be used to fund conservation efforts and finance anti-poaching operations) but I would like to point out the following:

First, it's the height of irony to claim that killing a lion - a species that's already listed as vulnerable - for sport "helps" the cause of conservation in any way, shape or form. If your car leaks oil, stopping the leak by punching a hole in the oil sump so the oil drains quicker isn't a solution. Hunting endangered species is punching a hole in the oil sump; it makes no sense. The simple fact is a species that is on the endangered list should not be hunted.

Second, I find the comment from this anonymous Zimbabwean guide to be silly - if it was actually made. Just because hunting is illegal doesn't mean that whatever passes for a government in the shithole that is Zimbabwe won't go after poachers. If the argument is that the income from hunting licenses funded those anti-poaching operations which will have to wind down since there are no more funds, I'm sure that funds could easily be procured - a number of conservation organizations would be more than happy to raise funds, and have done so in the past. Considering that such drives have, more than once, generated amounts in the millions of dollars.

Third, even if the hunters who kill lions legally pay hefty amounts for the license/opportunity to do so, the chances are overwhelming that the money simply ends up lining the pockets of some corrupt bureaucrat or politician instead of going towards actual conservation efforts. To be clear, I don't blame those who hunt for that, but it's something to consider.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I'm allergic to bullshit. Now I'll get off the soapbox.

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52122 on: November 17, 2013, 07:39:20 PM »
I personally find the concept of hunting uninteresting; despite that I can rationally justify killing an animal if the meat is used as food, but can't see any point in the killing of animals if they aren't going to be used as food but as a photo-op prop and/or wall decoration. But I don't believe my opinions are dicta or should be binding on anyone other than myself. So if hunting in legal in a country (something which the people of that country can decide) then those who wish to hunt should be able to do it, provided they do so within the bounds established by law.

More specifically to address the points in this post: I don't disagree with some parts of the message (namely that income from hunting licenses, etc can be used to fund conservation efforts and finance anti-poaching operations) but I would like to point out the following:

First, it's the height of irony to claim that killing a lion - a species that's already listed as vulnerable - for sport "helps" the cause of conservation in any way, shape or form. If your car leaks oil, stopping the leak by punching a hole in the oil sump so the oil drains quicker isn't a solution. Hunting endangered species is punching a hole in the oil sump; it makes no sense. The simple fact is a species that is on the endangered list should not be hunted.

Second, I find the comment from this anonymous Zimbabwean guide to be silly - if it was actually made. Just because hunting is illegal doesn't mean that whatever passes for a government in the shithole that is Zimbabwe won't go after poachers. If the argument is that the income from hunting licenses funded those anti-poaching operations which will have to wind down since there are no more funds, I'm sure that funds could easily be procured - a number of conservation organizations would be more than happy to raise funds, and have done so in the past. Considering that such drives have, more than once, generated amounts in the millions of dollars.

Third, even if the hunters who kill lions legally pay hefty amounts for the license/opportunity to do so, the chances are overwhelming that the money simply ends up lining the pockets of some corrupt bureaucrat or politician instead of going towards actual conservation efforts. To be clear, I don't blame those who hunt for that, but it's something to consider.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I'm allergic to bullshit. Now I'll get off the soapbox.


I read all that...  8)

THEBOSS

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Another day of being huge
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52123 on: November 17, 2013, 08:25:50 PM »
Would hit

1 day ago
CV_M14
How many of you have been to South Africa and talked to Game Wardens and Licensed Wildlife Guides? I have, in Zimbabwe.

In the National Parks, no hunting is allowed. Only visual tourism. Some firms pay the government to get a "concession" which allows them to erect a tourist camp within the park boundaries, and tourists can view spectacular wildlife. Some firms purchase a "concession" on the outside of the National Park, but adjacent to the park boundary. They then purchase hunting tags from the government that allows a certain number of animals to be hunted. The government only issues a certain number of tags for each species each year, based on population numbers.

So, each Hunting Lodge Concession, located outside of, but adjacent to National Parks, allows strictly controlled hunting. Ok. You may not agree with hunting. However, these Hunting Concessions have a second, even more important duty: to kill poachers. In many countries, Game Wardens are allowed to shoot poachers on site. However, Game Wardens are poorly equipped (no money) and often only have a uniform and a gun. No truck. No radio or phone. It is nearly impossible for them to catch poachers in the act. The Hunting Lodges help them. They patrol the borders of the park, and if there are poachers, the Hunting Lodges will kill them.

What's the difference between the Hunting Lodges and the Poachers? Well, the Lodges sell a tag to a US Hunter for $10,000 - $50,000 depending on the species the hunter wants to attempt to hunt (remember, there is no guarantee they will bag an animal). Part of this money goes to the government for anti-poaching work. Hunting lodges will legally take the one animal allowed. Poachers take everything, all the time. In September 2013, a poaching ring put cyanide into a salt lick - kiling 90 elephants, dozens of antelope, kudu, and predators like lions, hyaena, jackals, hawks and vultures - which ate the dead elephants. That's the difference.

You may not agree with the concept of hunting. That's fine. We're all different. But don't attack a person for paying to do a legally accepted activity, that does actually help more wildlife in the long view.

By the way, one of my guides in Zimbabwe said this: "Well, now Botswana has made all hunting illegal. That means that there will be no one hunting the poachers. They will get in and decimate the animals in the National Parks. There will be so little wildlife left that the eco-tourism will completely bottom out -- and they won't have any money to try to combat poachers."
::) We are so pathetic as a species that we have to take money from one group of fucktards to prevent another group of even bigger fucktards from doing more fucktard things ?  I forgot we are !  PS  none of this is rational .

DroppingPlates

  • Competitors II
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 49986
  • Team Pocahontas
Re: Re: Random pics
« Reply #52124 on: November 17, 2013, 11:51:44 PM »
Would hit

1 day ago
CV_M14
How many of you have been to South Africa and talked to Game Wardens and Licensed Wildlife Guides? I have, in Zimbabwe.

In the National Parks, no hunting is allowed. Only visual tourism. Some firms pay the government to get a "concession" which allows them to erect a tourist camp within the park boundaries, and tourists can view spectacular wildlife. Some firms purchase a "concession" on the outside of the National Park, but adjacent to the park boundary. They then purchase hunting tags from the government that allows a certain number of animals to be hunted. The government only issues a certain number of tags for each species each year, based on population numbers.

So, each Hunting Lodge Concession, located outside of, but adjacent to National Parks, allows strictly controlled hunting. Ok. You may not agree with hunting. However, these Hunting Concessions have a second, even more important duty: to kill poachers. In many countries, Game Wardens are allowed to shoot poachers on site. However, Game Wardens are poorly equipped (no money) and often only have a uniform and a gun. No truck. No radio or phone. It is nearly impossible for them to catch poachers in the act. The Hunting Lodges help them. They patrol the borders of the park, and if there are poachers, the Hunting Lodges will kill them.

What's the difference between the Hunting Lodges and the Poachers? Well, the Lodges sell a tag to a US Hunter for $10,000 - $50,000 depending on the species the hunter wants to attempt to hunt (remember, there is no guarantee they will bag an animal). Part of this money goes to the government for anti-poaching work. Hunting lodges will legally take the one animal allowed. Poachers take everything, all the time. In September 2013, a poaching ring put cyanide into a salt lick - kiling 90 elephants, dozens of antelope, kudu, and predators like lions, hyaena, jackals, hawks and vultures - which ate the dead elephants. That's the difference.

You may not agree with the concept of hunting. That's fine. We're all different. But don't attack a person for paying to do a legally accepted activity, that does actually help more wildlife in the long view.

By the way, one of my guides in Zimbabwe said this: "Well, now Botswana has made all hunting illegal. That means that there will be no one hunting the poachers. They will get in and decimate the animals in the National Parks. There will be so little wildlife left that the eco-tourism will completely bottom out -- and they won't have any money to try to combat poachers."

Some people seek all kinds of excuses to hunt on certain species, like population control, their well being and other BS. The reality is that animals don't need humans for that, nature is self-organizing by design, but most people are too ignorant to understand/believe this concept. Most -if not all- African governments are corrupt to the bone, so how serious should I interprete their 'laws'? Every person with common sense should realize that hunting on endangered species is a serious crime.
If I had the change, I would prob kill this bitch.