Bear Grylls stunt an act of animal cruelty

[Catherine]

I understand that Bear Grylls is famous for his stunts on his show. Some people will do anything for better ratings.
This time he had someone kill a crocodile with a knife. The croc did eventually die, but not before suffering.

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sr=1&ct2=...t=2&at=dt0


It was a horrible killing and people have responded with shock and outrage. There are calls to have his show cancelled.
I think that is a good idea. Do we really need a show that uses animal cruelty as entertainment.

If this is all Bear Grylls has to offer then I am glad I don't get his show.

Big hisses to a man who uses animals as entertainment even to the point of killing them.

[LPC]

Appalling. This killing was not really done for food for survival, but to entertain people on the TV. That is sick.

[platy]

(09-01-2016, 05:46 PM)LPC Wrote: Appalling. This killing was not really done for food for survival, but to entertain people on the TV. That is sick.

Ugh I can't stand him. I watched his show once and found it completely unnecessary. It's not even entertaining.

[Catherine]

I am glad I can't get his show.

He does terrible things, sells it as entertainment and this encourages other people to try things like this. I am unhappy about him being involved with killing animals. What about all the other people who will hurt animals because of what they saw on his show.
He is responsible for a lot of bad things that will happen. A show like this should be cancelled.

I think we have encountered him before with some other act of animal cruelty. If he isn't stopped, he will just keep doing bad things for the sake of TV ratings.

[LPC]

(09-02-2016, 03:22 PM)Catherine Wrote: I think we have encountered him before with some other act of animal cruelty. If he isn't stopped, he will just keep doing bad things for the sake of TV ratings.

Yes, we have discussed this "man" before. See http://www.animalloverswebforum.com/show...p?tid=1365

It seems that this show will not be cancelled whilst so many people are still watching it - sadly. Tobi's comment on that thread is particularly apposite: "When we start looking to this kind of 'entertainment' for something to do in the evenings, we are just as bad as those who were involved in the decadence of ancient Rome!"

Watching killing for entertainment is a indeed a sign of moral decadence.

[Tobi]

How horrendous and unnecessary to do a thing like that for a TV show.

The big "I Am" at work again ? Re: Bear Grylls, and re: the producer of that 'show'.

I am interested in wilderness survival, and admit that on occasion one would maybe have to kill to live. Perhaps. Though of course there are subtler ways to living in the wilderness, such as avoidance of danger situations by using wit, awareness, and skill, and knowledge/respect of wild animals and their ways.

But to brutally kill a creature for the sake of a TV show is too much and very wrong. This should never have been done and never have been filmed.
I also observed Bear Grylls manically hacking his way through territory which no sane wilderness person would even go near -not even in an emergency. In situations such as that, conservation of energy would be important for survival's sake and an alternative route would have been found, or one would just hunker down saving strength and foraging near at hand.
To follow Bear Grylls' lead, would be to risk dehydration, and to become even faint and not to survive much longer!

It is based on ratings and it is based on ego.

I think he should hear that we do not wish to be a part of cruelty like that for egotistical reasons. And we are not interested in any excuses which say that we ought to be a part of it, such as 'get real. This is what it's like out there' ....or the film couldn't have been made realistically without that, etc

[Catherine]

You are right about it not being real survival techniques. If anyone lost in the woods tried them they would not survive.
Survival is about water and shelter. Then it is about keeping warm in the shelter.

Food comes later. First you eat vegetation because that is safer. Going after an animal puts you at risk of injury.  

The show give people a false sense of survival skills. Killing an animal is for the sake of ratings not teaching someone to survive.
If you did have to kill to live you would never tackle a large animal. The risk of ending up as the prey not the predator is too great.

This man is dangerous. He fills people with lies and he encourages animal cruelty. He was bad the first time we posted about him and he is bad now. 

Can we find out who sponsors his shows. They would be the ones to go after. If animal lovers refused to use their products it might have better results.

Quote:Watching killing for entertainment is a indeed a sign of moral decadence.

This is so true. I worry about our society and what it calls entertainment.

[LPC]

(09-03-2016, 02:40 PM)Catherine Wrote: Can we find out who sponsors his shows. They would be the ones to go after. If animal lovers refused to use their products it might have better results.

In the UK, many programmes are still not sponsored. This one might have been, but if so I can't find out by whom. Tobi might know.

However, I did find this page, about another of this "man's" projects and its sponsors:
http://www.beargryllssurvivalrace.com/partners/

Sadly, this appalling UK series has actually received awards and is unlikely to be scrapped. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Island...ear_Grylls

[Tobi]

I don't know, off-hand, who sponsors the TV shows. But for "Bear Grylls -Survival Race"  there are a number of sponsors:
http://www.beargryllssurvivalrace.com/partners/

The thing is, I don't have a TV, and whatever I watch has to be on TV catch up online. Some shows don't feature on TV catch up.

This isn't the first time for Bear Grylls and/or the producers of his 'shows':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...uelty.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebrit...-show.html

And this isn't a question of "if you want to eat meat you have to take full responsibility for it." Or "There was no other food available"....or "People in survival situations cannot afford to be sentimental or squeamish"....etc

This is not a question of any of those things. The animals were deliberately set up to be slaughtered cruelly, many of them tame!

My attitude is -if the animals could be specially flown in, then so could bags of lentils and beans and rice. And Bear Grylls could have had a talk with the group, explaining that in SOME survival situations, animals may need to be killed, and give verbal guidance on how to do that most effectively or humanely.

*************************************

Some ideas from PETA, plus a short video where Bear Grylls is held to account for what happened at a book promotion:
http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/watch-bear-g...stitution/

[Catherine]

Grylls is the worst sort of entertainer.   He will do anything to improve his ratings. The way these shows work they are very much staged. We are not seeing what really happens. They fill people's heads with so called survival nonsense.  Real survival is what our ancestors did. They did what ever is needed to keep alive and keep going.  Bringing in animals so they can be killed for entertainment is nasty. They certainly were not killing a wild pig. That would have been a lot harder and the pig would have fought back.

I would hope that no one would want to go on a show like this, but I suppose people are lined up waiting for a chance. It doesn't speak to highly of people that they want to go one the show and it isn't good that so many people want to watch it.

We don't have bull fighting, but it seems there is still a desire to see killing as entertainment.

Getting rid of Grylls is not going to be easy. First you have to change the audience. The public needs to be made aware of how wrong it is to treat animals that way.
Good for groups like PETA that they are working to stop him.