Hello from a well known animal artist and conservation lobbyist

[CurreHound]

I understand that I am not allowed to give personal details out here.
This may be aswell as sometimes what I have to say may not be popular with some of you.
I am aligned to the new conservation thinking. Yes the one that keeps pointing out that hunting is good for conservation; especially by indigenous peoples. I work with them sometimes. That may not have much relevance here in terms of British conservation you may think.
There is no difference. If you hunt...for whatever reason...you must protect habitat for quarry. Currently the Cree ain't very happy with the fact we may stop having their bearskins for the guards. I don't blame them. They have a right to manage the land and the wildlife and the way they do it is good for conservation.

Ahh I hear you cry. It is very different; a culture that hunts for subsistence.
This is a patronising view and on which has never spent time with native peoples. A view that doesn't appreciate that they need to sell furs or have hunting tourism to earn money. Money that protects their forests and hunting grounds from development by logging energy companies and crass tourism. Trouble with the eco tourists is they didn't spend a lot.
They enjoy hunting and celebrate it. As a ritual, there is little difference between theirs and british foxhunting. Yes the quarry isn't eaten and the fur is not worn or sold. Matters little to the animal. But native people hunt for sport too. Prince Charles gets on very well with the Cree for a reason. They share, as I do, this view of conservation.
Both ...most...kinds of hunting are good for habitat protection. Furs are another thing for example that many so called animal lovers object to. Ironic that a westen society that turned its back on fur twenty five years ago has done more damage to the environmnt in its exploitation of non renewable rsources to provide heat and synthetic clothing to replace them than any other human culture. That is not coincidence. They are linked. Remember if well managed, animals are infinitely renewable as a resource. "Where are your bear?" a Russian hunter once said to me.


Two million years and a small eco footprint by hunter cultures, and now suddenly its wrong. And now we do massive damage with our "enlightened" ways.

We must learn from traditional animal dependant economies and hunting societies. Land in the modern world is of conomic importance. If we rid the world of hunting and animal farming we must replace it with something else. So far, that has brought the planet to the brink of destruction.
If you think tax on 4x4s is anything other than an excuse to raise tax, I believe you are naive.

Now greenpeace are getting the message and trying to help the Sami. They wouldn't have needed any help if we had bought their fur harvest and rejected cheap furniture and valued furniture to be long lasting. Feel guity now about chucking grandma's barley twist table out and having that cool one from a certain scandinavian store that won't last ten years? So you should be.

If global warming is proven to be caused by CO2 emissions, then don't you think the massive destruction of forest for "alternative" land use may have an imporatnt role? Trees absorb CO2 don't they?
A good friend of mine worked with Evenkian native people on a fur farm twenty years ago. Now these same native pople, who once hunted sable and farmed foxes for the fur trade, had forests and were secure, are either poverty stricken, work for the oil industry, or in logging. Think of that next time you put on synthetic clothing, turn the heating up because its cold, or buy some cheap wood furniture, play a cd by paul McCartney or waste paper. We have made them change. Now they are angry.
Th same is true in Canada, and waht grenpeace did to the Inuit in the 70s was a disgrace and now some groups are at it again.
They are returning to their traditional ways and the fashion industry has responded. DKNY was the first and the inuit have now shown furs on Paris catwalks. Certain "animal" charities have invested a lot on tugging our heartstrings while being compacent in habitat destruction; and have set once again their fundraising on attacking this.

In the UK, one must consider too the fabulous habitat protection offered by hunting shhoting and fishing. You may not have the stomach for it; I have no interest in doing it. But I am glad and appreciative it is all there. Pheasant and rabbit are game animals; not indigenous wildlife. The former offers natural woodland in which red squirrels thrive. Often alongside grey I may add. Virtually the only red squirrels left are on such lands. Coverts for foxes are useless econimically, and why would farmers otherwise have them? Yet they are oasis for wildlife. Natural hedgrows were encouraged by farmers. They are good for horses to jump, but also the farmer enjoys wildlife as much as any of us. I don't lik seeing th wir fences instead. I don't like seeing the changes in rural life by urban poeple settling there; often with false gardens which do little for wildlife. I certainly don't like a government who bans foxhunting, and has the idea of taxing 4x4s as its soluton to global warming, cutting into green belt with urban development.

Anyway I thought I would join. I came here to read about something else entirely but thought I would contribute with maybe a different perspective on some matters. I also look forward to learning here and seeing other peoples insights and perspectives.