The significance of WWF policies

[Guest guest]

Merritt Clifton's points are well taken and I agree that WWF is currently

preaching sustainable use, a policy I disagree with and am uncomfortable

with.

(Link here: http://www.wwf.fi/english/international/history/ )

I am however attaching a copy of the original Conservation Charter of WWF

written by Sir Peter Scott in 1961 and it does not mention sustainable use.

Actually WWF started for single species protection and gradually changed

focus and in 1986 they changed their name from World Wildlife Fund to World

Wide Fund for Nature(although the American and Canadian offices continued to

use the original name) to better portray their range of activities. The

impression I got of Sir Peter Scott as a conservationist from Elspeth

Huxley's biography is that he was compelled to compromise on some of his

core beliefs out of neccesity and fundraising purposes which possibly

explains his friendship with Philip and Rainer. Indeed on the issue of

hybridisation, Sir Peter Scott made it clear that his personal views were

not necessarily in line with the official stance of the Species Survival

Commission, an allied organisation of WWF.

I would also tend to agree with Pablo's view that no single organisation is

flawless. Speaking of sustainable use, is humane slaughter not also a kind

of sustainable use, a form of killing that is openly supported by many

animal welfare organisations? At the last AfA conference, I remember John

Wedderburn was the only person who opposed a move to legitimise humane

slaughter during the resolution period. And what about organisations that

euthanise dogs and cats regularly and promote mercy killing techniques?

Should we be wary of them as well just as we should be wary of the

activities of WWF? Should Freedom Food Schemes give clean chit to farms ?

What about compassionate measures in farming that eventually lead to death?

These are difficult questions to answer, every bit as difficult as deciding

on the credentials of WWF. As the saying goes, the vision may be painted in

the colours of the rainbow, but the reality is sketched in duller tones of

black, white and grey.

In my book, Sir Peter Scott is a great achiever not only in conservation

but in many other fields as well. Some of his wildlife paintings are so

beautiful that they made me gasp and took my breath away. I respect the fact

that he gave up hunting out of a moral conscience, appreciate the fact that

he saved the Nene Goose of Hawaii singlehandedly and honour his efforts to

make people care for the protection of nature. Call it sycophancy if you

like, as one AAPN member has let me know personally, but I am an ardent

admirer of Sir Peter Markham Scott, Companion of Honour, Commander of the

Order of the British Empire, Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the

Zoological Society(September 14, 1909 - 29 August, 1989).

 

 

 

*CONSERVATION CHARTER OF WWF, 1961*

*WRITTEN BY PETER MARKHAM SCOTT*

**

**

* What man did to the Dodo, and has since been doing to the Blue Whale, and

about 1000 other kinds of animals, may or may not be morally wrong. But the

conservation of nature is most important because of what nature does for

man.*

* I believe something goes wrong with man when he cuts himself off from the

natural world. I think he knows it, and this is why he keeps gardens and

window-boxes and house plants, and dogs and cats and budgerigars. Man does

not live by bread alone. I believe he should take just as great pains to

look after the natural treasures which inspire him as he does to preserve

his man-made treasures in art galleries and in museums. This is a

responsibility we have to future generations, just as we are responsible for

the safeguarding of Westminster Abbey or the Mona Lisa.*

* It has been argued that if the human population of the world continues to

increase at its present rate, there will soon be no room for either wildlife

or wild places, so why waste time, effort and money trying to conserve them

now? But I believe that sooner or later man will learn to limit his own

overpopulation. Then he will become much more widely concerned with optimum

rather than maximum, quality rather than quantity, and will rediscover the

need within himself for contact with wilderness and nature.*

* No one can tell when this will happen. I am concerned that when it does,

breeding stocks of wild animals and plants should continue to exist,

preserved perhaps mainly in nature reserves and national parks, even in zoos

and botanical gardens, from which to re-populate the natural environment man

will then wish to recreate and rehabilitate.*

* These are my reasons for believing passionately in the conservation of

nature. *

* All this calls for action of three kinds: more research in ecology, the

setting aside of more land as effectively inviolate strongholds, and above

all education. By calling attention to the plight of the world's wildlife,

and by encouraging people to enrich their lives by the enjoyment of nature,

it may be possible to accelerate both the change in outlook and the

necessary action.*

* It has been estimated that conservation all over the world needs each

year 2 million pounds. This is no astronomical figure. It is half the price

of a V- bomber, less than one-twelfth the price of the new Cunard liner, or

the price of, say, three or four world-famous paintings. *

* Much money is needed for relieving human suffering, but some is also

needed for human fulfilment and inspiration. Conservation, like education

and art, claims some proportion of the money we give to help others,

including the as yet unborn. *

* Even if I am wrong about the long term prospects - if man were to fail to

solve his own overpopulation problem, and reaches the stage 530 years hence

when there will be standing room only on this earth- even then the

conservation effort will have been worthwhile. It will have retained at

least for a time, some of the natural wonders. Measured in man-hours of

enjoyment and inspiration this alone would be worth the effort. Many will

have enjoyed the pictures even if the gallery is burnt down in the end. *

*The community chest which seeks to make the gallery representative and

maintains the fire-alarm system is the World Wildlife Fund.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 7/8/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote:

 

> WWF founder Peter Scott lived until 1989, and the founding

> board members he chose remained firmly in control of the organization

> for many years after that. One of them, Prince Rainer, was still

> involved at his death in 2005. If Scott had at any point opposed the

> direction of WWF, he had ample opportunity to speak out.

>

> To the contrary, WWF has remained quite consistent in

> advocating the doctrine of " sustainable use, " chiefly the premise

> that conservation should be funded by selling permits for sport

> hunting and other consumptive uses of wildlife. WWF was founded to

> introduce internationally the hunting-based philosophy of wildlife

> management promoted by the National Wildlife Federation since 1936.

> This has never been any secret--except to the legions of non-hunting

> donors to both WWF and NWF, who mostly remain unaware of their

> formation and continuing role as institutions meant to expand and

> promote sport hunting.

>

> The policies of the WWF should be of concern to anyone

> working to advance non-consumptive philosophies of wildlife

> conservation and management. The WWF " sustainable use " philosophy is

> in fact now the predominant government approach to wildlife

> conservation and management worldwide. WWF may at times disagree

> with various governments about the execution of various aspects of

> their wildlife programs, but not about the fundamental principle of

> " making wildlife pay for itself " by using animals and habitat for

> economic purpose.

>

> The majority of wildlife policy makers worldwide have been

> schooled, directly or indirectly, by programs funded by WWF and

> NWF, and several organizations of parallel philosophy, such as the

> African Wildlife Foundation, which were put together by some of the

> same people to fulfill specific allied purposes.

>

> The WWF influence in wildlife management, and incidentally

> in zoo management as well, is only part of the reason why people

> promoting other approaches should be aware of WWF.

>

> The other part is that WWF is in itself an enormous

> institution. The U.S. branch of WWF alone has approximately four

> times the annual budget of PETA. Only IFAW and the Humane Society of

> the U.S., including Humane Society International, are approximately

> as large--but WWF is still much larger when all international

> branches are included.

>

> Further, the WWF influence in funding wildlife programs is

> magnified by the clout of allied private foundations and

> organizations such as the Conservation Fund and The Nature

> Conservancy. The latter pair, both actually much larger than even

> WWF, acquire and manage habitat consonant with the WWF philosophy.

>

> If your purpose is to abolish sport hunting and wildlife

> exploitation, these folks are not going to help you. They may help

> you to protect land from being logged, and may help to stop

> poaching, but the price of that help will be further entrenching the

> notion of " sustainable use " and the idea that regulated sport hunting

> should be a primary purpose and funding source for wildlife

> management.

>

> --

> Merritt Clifton

> Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

> P.O. Box 960

> Clinton, WA 98236

>

> Telephone: 360-579-2505

> Fax: 360-579-2575

> E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>

> Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

>

> [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

> original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

> founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

> decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

> We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

> for free sample, send address.]

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> I am however attaching a copy of the original Conservation Charter

>of WWF written by Sir Peter Scott in 1961 and it does not mention

>sustainable use.

 

 

Neither is it actually a charter, in the normal sense of the

word. It is a pretty personal statement meant for public

consumption, bearing the signatures of none of the other founding

board members.

 

Among that chosen lineup, as I keep pointing out, were

Princes Philip, Reinhard, and Rainier, three of the most prominent

and blood-soaked bird shooters of their day; National Rifle

Association president C.R. " Pink " Gutermuth; and Aristotle Onassis,

the most notorious whaler in Europe at the time, whose bar stools

aboard his private yacht were reputedly covered with the skin from

the scrotums of whales.

 

Scott didn't pick these gents for a cuddle-fest with the

warm-and-fuzzies. He picked them because he believed, like many

others, that " Power comes out of the barrel of a gun. "

 

Incidentally, the actual term " sustainable use " wasn't

popularized for another decade, but the concept had been promoted by

hunters, without a catchy short phrase to describe it, since the

heyday of George Bird Grinnell and Theodore Roosevelt. Grinnell

founded both the Boone & Crockett Club (1887) and the National

Audubon Society (1905) to help establish the primacy of hunters in

regulating wildlife.

 

[Competitive birding was then mostly done from the barrel of

a gun, too. Birders would go out, shoot everything in sight, &

then compare dead piles to see who had the most rare species. These

days birders tend reserve that approach for cats & squirrels.]

 

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]