zappalot Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Wiek did nothing to get the authorities "into" action. Information is all these days. Orang Utans at Safari Park. He draw at least attention to Pata... And many more. Drawing attention to these horror places for animals is uncomfortable for the authorities. Edited March 23, 2012 by zappalot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Information is all these days I wouldn't say Information is "all"; however information, if researched and fully supported by facts, is indeed important. Drawing attention to a problem is one thing. Making unfounded allegations in order to further your own cause is another thing entirely. Therein lies Wiek's problem. He paid no heed to the facts or to putting together a researched, balanced case and thought he could step on toes in order to push his own star. While these tactics may work in the West, here in Thailand it is just asking for trouble and that is what he got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 you'll find the laws used are property laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taninthai Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 you'll find the laws used are property laws. Sorry but the last 2 posts you made here had nothing in them and know you come out with this stupid random comment what are you actually talkin about and can you back it up 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) REMOVED simply check why the animals are being taken. Edited March 25, 2012 by Rimmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barky Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Look, it's just a matter of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. All these endangered animals in Thailand (elephant, tiger etc) are gonna go extinct within our lifetime. Trying to fight the dumb ass Thais (who either can't see or couldn't be bothered) and the insatiable (kill everything) Chinese market, is ultimately a waste of time and effort. Close your park and move onto a project that has a future and that you are unlikely to get killed for. I'm sorry to be the barer of bad news. I love animals (I think more than humans) too. But, this IS a no win situation...I'm sorry. The corrupt, short-sighted, foolish Thais and their Chinese customers WILL have everything dead soon enough mark my words. And, then I predict they'll blame people like you for the loss of these animals as they will never take responsibility for it. It will be a farang conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 you'll find the laws used are property laws. Sorry but the last 2 posts you made here had nothing in them and know you come out with this stupid random comment what are you actually talkin about and can you back it up can you counter that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimmer Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Some posts and quoted replies have been removed, be nice please, no need for name calling and flames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) ........ In this case they have been manipulated as an act of revenge by what appears to be a corrupt department who have been exposed trafficking elephants. Did the WWFT ever actually give any evidence of this or did they just make broad statements? This is a sincere question as I am genuinely interested because I have not formed an opinion on who is right and who wrong in this yet. It just seems there is a lack of "hard" facts on both sides at the moment. Or maybe I just dont know where to look on the net for it? Sincerely Edited March 29, 2012 by Whale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 2, 2012 Author Share Posted April 2, 2012 it seems that many posters don;t realise what this all started from - or at least a major factor was the charging of 5 Keang Krachan officials after they burned an elephant carcass that was to be used as evidence against them. THey appear to have shot 8 (or more?) elephants in the park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 2, 2012 Author Share Posted April 2, 2012 "a group of people from Padeng village in tambon Huay Sat Yai in Phetchaburi's Kaeng Krachan district, who found the carcass of the younger elephant last week, told police park officials had ordered its tusks removed and its body burned. Police took the villagers to a "safe house"after witnesses said they had received death threats from unidentified people." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 2, 2012 Author Share Posted April 2, 2012 (edited) THis strikes at the very heart of Thailand's conservation efforts, showing that corruption is present right at the forefront amongst the very people who are entrusted with looking after and protecting this wildlife. THe males had their tusks removed. Among those accused was the assistant chief of the national park Edited April 2, 2012 by cowslip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Got it. So where can I see what WTFF's comment was? I am assuming its quite something if it is the cause of a accused "revenge attack". I read the wildlife friends website and their opinions do not strike me as one-sided, quite balanced, but I cant find out from there what they claim caused this situation either. I read the DNP letter on the wildlife friends site also and that seems very balanced as well. So what are the comments that allegedly caused this? It seems key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted April 2, 2012 Share Posted April 2, 2012 Posts with formatting issues have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 I did my own digging. And concluded... six of one half a dozen of the other. Seems one side has a reputation for being vocal, the other side is tired of be harangued when it is making bigger strides that ever on protection. Activists have a role to be vocal. Government departments are trying their hardest with limited resources provided to them. Corruption exists in both Government departments and in some private wildlife facilities in Thailand (a simple internet search will bring you a very prominent example of this). A lot of sense has been said throughout this thread but their seems to be misconceptions that you cannot be on both sides, from some posters. So I will remain on the fence on this in the knowledge that both "sides" will continue to do good for wildlife, in their respective areas. One statement that seems to be causing confusion though has been "Thailand has currently no animal protection laws". This is not true and quite misleading, Thailand does have a protection act (1992) for wild animals. For those of your who feel that public activism is your preference, I saw that............. a new alliance of animal lovers, small animal rescue groups and animal related societies and foundations are planning a small rally for animal rights in bangkok. This rally will be held in front of parliament on Thursday the 5th of April from 09:00 till 12:00, where the "AAA" will hand over a petition to push for an animal rights bill. I for one will continue to support and donate to projects that support the DNP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 8, 2012 Author Share Posted April 8, 2012 I did my own digging. And concluded... six of one half a dozen of the other. Seems one side has a reputation for being vocal, the other side is tired of be harangued when it is making bigger strides that ever on protection. Activists have a role to be vocal. Government departments are trying their hardest with limited resources provided to them. Corruption exists in both Government departments and in some private wildlife facilities in Thailand (a simple internet search will bring you a very prominent example of this). A lot of sense has been said throughout this thread but their seems to be misconceptions that you cannot be on both sides, from some posters. So I will remain on the fence on this in the knowledge that both "sides" will continue to do good for wildlife, in their respective areas. One statement that seems to be causing confusion though has been "Thailand has currently no animal protection laws". This is not true and quite misleading, Thailand does have a protection act (1992) for wild animals. For those of your who feel that public activism is your preference, I saw that............. a new alliance of animal lovers, small animal rescue groups and animal related societies and foundations are planning a small rally for animal rights in bangkok. This rally will be held in front of parliament on Thursday the 5th of April from 09:00 till 12:00, where the "AAA" will hand over a petition to push for an animal rights bill. I for one will continue to support and donate to projects that support the DNP. Basically the WffT and ENP provided evidence including video evidence that lead to the prosecution or arrest of 5 park officials - it was then these two organisations that were raided by the authorities - so this is just coincidence???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Are you sure about that statement or is it your assumption? I am not being pedantic but just about every article I have read (in english) on this subject, including The Nation and BangkokPost, seems to be slanted with someones assumptions or opinions (there seem to be a lot of Farangs with axes to grind on both sides of this) rather than clear factual statement. So I am very interested if you have just made made a clear factual statement or if its tainted by your opinion (you did start the sentence ...."basically...")? sincerely Edited April 9, 2012 by Whale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Are you sure about that statement or is it your assumption? I am not being pedantic but just about every article I have read (in english) on this subject, including The Nation and BangkokPost, seems to be slanted with someones assumptions or opinions (there seem to be a lot of Farangs with axes to grind on both sides of this) rather than clear factual statement. So I am very interested if you have just made made a clear factual statement or if its tainted by your opinion (you did start the sentence ...."basically...")? sincerely You are trying to suggest that you are unbiased - but in fact you clearly don't understand the very basics of assessment and putting forward an opinio or even how to read a newspaper - simply suggesting that you are the one who is looking at the matter dispassionately really isn't born out by the rest of your commentary. Your comments fly in the face of both the evidence and logic - I think you don't actually realise how biased you are or bad you are at looking at the evidence and making rational deductions. ,,,and no you're not being pedantic because that would imply a greater understanding of the issues involved. Edited April 9, 2012 by cowslip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 A simple "no" or "yes" would have been suffice. What can I say...... I tried to lead you down a path to offering information that would support your statements but you have declined yet again. Most probably because you don't know. Am now going to join everyone else in leaving this thread. Happy Songkhran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) A simple "no" or "yes" would have been suffice. What can I say...... I tried to lead you down a path to offering information that would support your statements but you have declined yet again. Most probably because you don't know. Am now going to join everyone else in leaving this thread. Happy Songkhran sorry but you really seem to be deluding yourself - you are not "leading" anyone anywhere except yourself on a roundabout - however if you decide to stop playing with yourself, the information is there. I don't need to lead anyone, if they have the ability to find out they will. Edited April 9, 2012 by cowslip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 Whale - look at your argument.. I postulated that the raid was motivated by revenge and you suggest this is” six of one and half a dozen of the other” - what a ridiculous thing to suggest........ Follow the story 2 orgs submit evidence that allege National Park officials are involved in elephant smuggling and slaughter. 5 officials are arrested These two orgs are then raided by National Parks officials. (Who are by some accounts not even entitled to carry out these raids) You conclude that this is “six of one and half a dozen of the other” - how on earth can you suggest this? Are you saying that the raid was PARTLY motivated by revenge? - like the “parson’s egg”? In truth you conclusion is risible in it's illogicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 2 orgs submit evidence that allege National Park officials are involved in elephant smuggling and slaughter. 5 officials are arrested How can "evidence" allege? Surely "evidence" proves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) 2 orgs submit evidence that allege National Park officials are involved in elephant smuggling and slaughter. 5 officials are arrested How can "evidence" allege? Surely "evidence" proves? Really? Edited April 10, 2012 by cowslip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Yes, really, otherwise it's scarcely "evidence" is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Yes, really, otherwise it's scarcely "evidence" is it? keep going.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Do I need to? You've done a great job of making yourself look daft already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowslip Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Do I need to? You've done a great job of making yourself look daft already... Oh please - give us your thoughts on the relationship of smoking to lung cancer and maybe something about evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDrinker Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Oh please - give us your thoughts on the relationship of smoking to lung cancer and maybe something about evolution. Why not just stick to replying to the questions posed to you here instead of sounding about as aware of the reality of such issues as a 16 year old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundman Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Topic has run its course and degenerated into a bickering session. Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts