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
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
