Conservation's Dirty Secrets....

[Red Robin]

Dispatches Ch4 (or Ch4+1) now.

Hmmm......... Not good!

[htcdude]

I saw this on the TV Guide and wondered what it was all about.

Was it intresting?

Nige

[Red Robin]

Yes, very interesting and surprising but showed a lot of negatives regarding the activities of conservation organisations, including WWF! The prog wasn't anti but was rather more objective and what was exposed wasn't nice - Hence the program's title.

[htcdude]

Was what they exposed true? Is there corruption in conservation??

(I will watch the program at some point!)

Nige

[earthdragon64]

I watched the programme, and the only conservation organisation mentioned that I'd actually heard of was the WWF.

It was quite interesting, but I think they would have been better concentrating on only one aspect in one programme. It felt like there were too many issues being crammed into one programme; a couple of times the presenter made some quite damning statements, but produced no evidence to actually back up what he said, which he may have been able to do if he was only concentrating on one thing.

I felt it was a bit like a lot of investigative type programmes these days, big on claims of dreadful deeds, short on substance. Which is a shame because I think that some of the things raised are worthy of deeper scrutiny.

Regards, Audrey.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by htcdude

Was what they exposed true?

As is so often the case, it's hard to be sure.

It's all too easy to show a reporter a photograph of a dead body or two and claim that they were killed by X for reason Y, but the people making such claims had a vested interest in making X look bad. There was no indication in the programme about what, if anything, the reporter had done to verify the claims. I'm not saying they weren't true but I'm not prepared to just accept them either, not without more evidence.

Dave P.

[Red Robin]

I think that some of the evidence presented such as firsthand accounts of what Joy Adamson was really like, the violent displacement of tribal people (ignoring the question of whether murder on behalf of certain interests was actually committed), the incestuous structure of board members in that 'Big O' American conservation org, was very clear evidence of truth. Sure, one never really knows the truth about anything!

But put it this way, I shan't be contributing to any conservation organisations after watching that prog. The intentions are noble, but.

The fundamental message of the prog was that conservationists should include the needs of local human species as well as the animals etc. The bottom line is, as said in the prog, that there ain't no longer room for both - It's competition and man is a predator.

Personally, I regard animal life as equal to human life but I am a realist and not taken in by the marketing of furry cuddly animals.

One of the problems is that corruption is totally normal behaviour in many of the areas involved where conservation is viewed as needed.

[RKB]

Joy Adamson though? It's a bit weak, she's been dead for over 30 years, but that was meant to set the scene for the mentality of 'conservation'. We were supposed to then look at WWF in 2011 (an organisation) as if it had the same attitude as Joy Adamson in 1981 (an individual). I thought it was sloppy and weak. Especially as they failed to mention that Joy Adamson got her lion cubs after her husband (a ranger) killed their mother to protect local people. So it was putting human interests first that got her started.

There is already a large industry that puts people first (Oxfam etc), but if you apply that to conservation then what you end up with is wildlife having no protection from exploitation by people. You either ban people from Virunga National Park, or you accept that they are going to eat the last few Mountain Gorillas on the planet. Which individuals do you put first?

Interesting that they highlighted the displacement of the Maasai from the Serengeti. The Maasai actually conquered the area themselves only in the 1800s, displacing or wiping out the original inhabitants. So the 'traditional lands' the Maasai were displaced from to establish the reserve had only been occupied by them for a matter of decades, not centuries. So the programme was damning the 'conservationists' for doing to the Maasai (through coercion and maybe payment) what the Maasai had done to other people (with spears and clubs) not long before. No mention of the Maasai's 'dirty secrets' though!

There is a very good commercial reason why WWF markets big furry mammals - people like them. Human nature of the public is not WWF's fault, and they'd be idiots if they kept trying to engage people with toads. So they were being lambasted for being intelligent and playing to their strengths.

There is also a good scientific basis to their strategy, which I was disappointed not to hear them say, which is that large mammals are keystone species that require large ranges. So conserving elephants, tigers or gorillas also conserves their habitat and everything else in it. This is a basic tenet of conservation, and nothing to be worried about. Yet here it was being portrayed as a 'dirty secret' rather than a sensible and efficient approach.

The programme was a conclusion looking for a story, rather than the other way round.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by RKB

The programme was a conclusion looking for a story, rather than the other way round.

....Nearly always the way with all presentations to the public, and especially in televised media. I see the good points you make, RKB, but I also think it's right to raise challenging questions of any conservationist organisation just as it is to challenge a corporate. Where human beings are involved it's rarely black and white.

People tend to come to the table with their opinions and then seek every way they can to justify them, whichever 'side' they're on. True objectivity is extremely rare indeed and sadly not within the grasp of most folks.

Btw, I probably only watched it because of the title. It's about time that some balance was introduced to the idea that all corporate organisations are bad guys.

[pressld2]

Spot on RKB.

Originally Posted by RKB

There is also a good scientific basis to their strategy, which I was disappointed not to hear them say, which is that large mammals are keystone species that require large ranges. So conserving elephants, tigers or gorillas also conserves their habitat and everything else in it. This is a basic tenet of conservation, and nothing to be worried about. Yet here it was being portrayed as a 'dirty secret' rather than a sensible and efficient approach.

I too was dissapointed that this point was either not made by the organisations or was not included by the programme makers. It doesn't just apply to the big mammals either. The RSPB reserve at Minsmere was created for just one reason: to protect avocets. But look at it now - teeming with wildlife of all descriptions.

Originally Posted by Red Robin

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

I agree with that too. We should always challenge but should do so constructively. When I was a school governor the role was described as being a "critical friend" and I think that's the best approach to take.

Dave P.