Conservation's Dirty Secrets....

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Red Robin

but I also think it's right to raise challenging questions of any conservationist organisation just as it is to challenge a corporate.

Agree totally. Conservation charities are fully corporate brands these days, reliant on attracting outside funding, and that creates all sorts of problems. There is definitely scope for close scrutiny of some of these organisations and how they operate, but this programme wasn't it. It was a sloppy scattergun approach that bordered on misleading.

What I'm tired of is the conflation between welfare (e.g. the elephant orphanage) and conservation. They have little to do with each other, but ignorant journalists like Dispatches treat them as the same, and tell the public they're the same too. Sometimes they are in outright conflict.

The RSPCA and various rescue centres, for example, treat injured wildlife but are not conservation charities. WWF and the RSPB are conservation charities but have nothing to do with welfare. The RSPB wants to see much more culling of muntjac deer. The RSPCA, on the other hand, rescues and releases muntjac into the wild.

Being a conservationists means you are interested in conserving populations, not the welfare of every individual. So it is perfectly reasonable to have elephants as a flagship species and yet cull elephants to control numbers. Conservation is not about an open-eneded increase in elephant numbers - it is about preventing a terminal decline in elephant numbers. These are very different things.

[Red Robin]

I'm enjoying this discussion and am learning from it

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by htcdude

Was what they exposed true?

I've just watched the program, and the answer is that they exposed absolutely nothing.
IMO the program was poorly put together trash.

Originally Posted by RKB

There is definitely scope for close scrutiny of some of these organisations and how they operate, but this programme wasn't it. It was a sloppy scattergun approach that bordered on misleading.

What I'm tired of is the conflation between welfare (e.g. the elephant orphanage) and conservation. They have little to do with each other, but ignorant journalists like Dispatches treat them as the same, and tell the public they're the same too. Sometimes they are in outright conflict.

I completely agree with this. There were two valid points touched on in the program (that conservation organisations should perhaps be more careful about which companies they work with/take donations from, and that it is important to get local communities on side).

I was quite amused to see the presenter slagging off the WWF for using "flagship species" early on in the program, and then go off to view lions as an example of how well the small scale community based conservation project he wanted to show as the "correct way to do things" worked (pot, kettle, black?).

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by RoyW

I was quite amused to see the presenter slagging off the WWF for using "flagship species" early on in the program, and then go off to view lions as an example of how well the small scale community based conservation project he wanted to show as the "correct way to do things" worked (pot, kettle, black?).

lol I spotted that to.

I agree on your point about using cute and big to get adoption money. That said they (or we!) could be investing a bit more in research on amphibians. The amount spend on the doomed giant pandas could probably save 100s of amphibian species.

The point made on elephants was partly correct. I think if an elephant is about to eat the food you and your rnetire family of village depends on well I'm afriad the elephant will have to go, shooting if necessary.

Mostly though I thought the documentry was pretty much hyped up inaccurate nonsense. Won't affect my money donation anyway. I don't give to born free (don't agree with their anti-captivity at all costs) and tend to give to UK conservation charities - always thought it a bit silly telling other countries what to do when we are building on and killing our own natural history.

[Johnny Redgate]

Originally Posted by RKB

What I'm tired of is the conflation between welfare (e.g. the elephant orphanage) and conservation. They have little to do with each other, but ignorant journalists like Dispatches treat them as the same, and tell the public they're the same too. Sometimes they are in outright conflict.

The RSPCA and various rescue centres, for example, treat injured wildlife but are not conservation charities. WWF and the RSPB are conservation charities but have nothing to do with welfare. The RSPB wants to see much more culling of muntjac deer. The RSPCA, on the other hand, rescues and releases muntjac into the wild.

Being a conservationists means you are interested in conserving populations, not the welfare of every individual. So it is perfectly reasonable to have elephants as a flagship species and yet cull elephants to control numbers. Conservation is not about an open-eneded increase in elephant numbers - it is about preventing a terminal decline in elephant numbers. These are very different things.

Well put!

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

I agree on your point about using cute and big to get adoption money. That said they (or we!) could be investing a bit more in research on amphibians. The amount spend on the doomed giant pandas could probably save 100s of amphibian species.

Who's "they"? Virtually all of the panda money is spent by the Chinese state, as far as I know. One could argue that China is securing a lucrative natural and cultural resource, just like we spend money on Lincoln Cathedral for the same purpose. Few developed nations have endangered amphibians, and those that do (e.g. Japan) spend a fair bit of money on them. But for a charity to want to spend money on amphibians, it has to get that money from donations or companies. And the simple fact is that most people don't care and aren't willing to donate. If a company like BP wants to donate for whatever reason (hey, it might be genuine!), then the charity is accused of sleeping with the Devil and the company is accused of 'greenwashing'. They can't win. But where is the money supposed to come from to do research on a toad?

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

The point made on elephants was partly correct. I think if an elephant is about to eat the food you and your rnetire family of village depends on well I'm afriad the elephant will have to go, shooting if necessary.

What if it is the last breeding female elephant in the region, and the crop was planted by people who have slashed and burned the forest in the elephant's dwindling territory in order to plant it? What do you do then?

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

always thought it a bit silly telling other countries what to do when we are building on and killing our own natural history.

Our state spends £400 million per year just on agri-environmental subsidies. We have greenbelt laws, tree preservation laws, Wildlife & Countryside Act, the state reintroduces species and has large agencies in place for wildlife protection. I think the UK stands up pretty well, but telling countries what to do wasn't part of the Dispatches programme - it was telling charities what to do with their donations.

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by RKB

Who's "they"? Virtually all of the panda money is spent by the Chinese state, as far as I know. One could argue that China is securing a lucrative natural and cultural resource, just like we spend money on Lincoln Cathedral for the same purpose. Few developed nations have endangered amphibians, and those that do (e.g. Japan) spend a fair bit of money on them. But for a charity to want to spend money on amphibians, it has to get that money from donations or companies. And the simple fact is that most people don't care and aren't willing to donate. If a company like BP wants to donate for whatever reason (hey, it might be genuine!), then the charity is accused of sleeping with the Devil and the company is accused of 'greenwashing'. They can't win. But where is the money supposed to come from to do research on a toad?

To be fair I did put we in brackets - as in the human race. As for the charities they need to do more to show the fate of the less appealing animals. 2 years ago was the year of the frog. How many of the big charities mentioned it?

Originally Posted by RKB

What if it is the last breeding female elephant in the region, and the crop was planted by people who have slashed and burned the forest in the elephant's dwindling territory in order to plant it? What do you do then?

Talk about extreme example!
But even in this extreme example what do you think should happen? Let the people starve? Not all these people are slash and burn farmers, some are just trying to survive.

Some thing I meant to add in my last post was the documentry didn't mention some of the big conservation bodies ARE working with local people, showing them how the local wildlife can be of value to them.

Originally Posted by RKB

Our state spends £400 million per year just on agri-environmental subsidies. We have greenbelt laws, tree preservation laws, Wildlife & Countryside Act, the state reintroduces species and has large agencies in place for wildlife protection. I think the UK stands up pretty well, but telling countries what to do wasn't part of the Dispatches programme - it was telling charities what to do with their donations.

And yet we have:

• Illegal killing of BOP
• Our rivers and lakes are becoming more eutrophic
• Have rapidly declining numbers of farmland bird species
• Our nature reserves and SSSIs are largely in 'poor' condition
• Shoot amber list species of bird
• Build on brownfield sites containing the only known site for an invertebrate species in the UK

I could go on but may take thread to far of topic!

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

2 years ago was the year of the frog. How many of the big charities mentioned it?

But how would they pay for it? To 'mention' it they'd need staff time and publicity material, which costs money that someone has to donate. People just aren't willing to donate for frogs. Ask PondLife how their donations compare the RSPB's or IFAW's!

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Talk about extreme example!
But even in this extreme example what do you think should happen? Let the people starve? Not all these people are slash and burn farmers, some are just trying to survive.

Yeah, a bit extreme, but it was a simplified representation of what's becoming more and more pressing. This decision is what's happening around the World where we have dwindling populations (I simplified to an individual) that are being encroached upon, either legally, illegally or with corruption. If you put people first all the time, then they will destroy these things through necessity/greed/tradition/whatever.

In Africa and Asia people are executed (sometimes summarily) in order to preserve species. China hangs them after a trial, some African countries have rangers who shoot 'poachers'. Conservation charities may fund these rangers (buying the bullets that kill the people?). Tough decision, but the World seems to have decided that the animals actually come first in some cases.

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Some thing I meant to add in my last post was the documentry didn't mention some of the big conservation bodies ARE working with local people, showing them how the local wildlife can be of value to them.

I think it's often a pipe dream. A tiger is worth much more to one man dead than it is worth to a village alive, and people often think on the individual level. There will always be individuals out for personal gain. But consider this, those locals who are shown the value of the wildlife to their community might then start killing other non-locals who come to try and take it from them. So you're still paying people to kill other people for the sake of animals for everyone else's benefit. The killers might be a ranger, a villager, or a state judge trying a poacher.

Quite a lot of conservationists seem to accept that, whereas human rights campaigners presumably wouldn't. It's a similar argument to the welfare/conservation conflation, but with higher stakes.