WWF policies and Sir Peter Scott

[Guest guest]

Deeds speak louder than words.

 

Regardless of whatever pious and pretty words the late Peter

Scott may have said, this is the historical record of his deeds,

and of the fundamental policy of the World Wildlife Fund:

 

 

> " Founded in 1961 by trophy hunter Sir Peter Scott and pals,

>among them captive bird-shooters Prince Philip of Britain and Prince

>Bernhardt of The Netherlands, the whaler Aristotle Onassis, and

>then-National Rifle Association president C.R. " Pink " Gutermuth, WWF

>is the leading global voice of the idea that wildlife should " pay

>for itself " through " sustainable use, " meaning sport hunting and

>the sale of wildlife products. "

 

Scott shot countless animals with these questionable gents

before giving up hunting at whatever advanced age, a " deathbed

conversion " of sorts which reminds me of old drinkers and fornicators

giving up alcohol and fornication after their livers and prostates

have given up the ghost.

 

WWF doesn't favor tiger farming for body parts, because that

practice might cover for further poaching, until the wild tiger

population is entirely wiped out. But would WWF favor hunting

tigers, if tigers were restored to huntable abundance?

 

You bet.

 

" Animal rights is a threat to conservation, " WWF/South

Africa conservation director Rob Little opined in November 2003.

" As the population of the wealthy 'developed' nations move ever

further from their daily interactions with Nature, " Little

elaborated, " they move into a realm where simplistic 'animal rights'

approaches/solutions to mankind's interaction with wildlife become

ever more appealing to 'the man in the street.' WWF/South Africa

believes that the conservation community completely underestimates

how devastating this trend could be, if allowed to proceed unchecked. "

 

Little was speaking against proposed further restrictions on

hunting in South Africa.

 

To fret about elephant polo on the one hand, while arguing

that WWF is on the pro-animal side of the issues on the other,

arguing in effect that playing polo is a fate worse than having one's

head mounted on a wall.

 

 

 

--

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.]

[Guest guest]

Dear colleagues,

Deeds speak louder than words. Yes they do and Sir

Peter Scott's deeds have ensured him an honourable place in the history of

animal conservation and he has been dubbed 'the patron saint of

conservation' by none other than Sir David Attenborough. And the words in my

message on him were not verbiage, they were a reflection of his hard won

achievements, some of which were simply stunning in the Indian context.

Whilst it is true that his association with Philip and other hunting royalty

is questionable and he may have been a flawed human being as most human

beings tend to be, as far as animal protection goes, he was one of the great

men of our day, and the greatness of his contribution is only now beginning

to sink in. Sir Peter Scott gave up hunting before 1961(when his

autobiography was published) so that is long before he died in 1989 and does

not fit the 'death bed conversion' description given by Merritt Clifton who

himself proclaimed on AAPN that he did not believe in saints. Nowhere have I

suggested that death by hunting is a better fate than playing elephant polo

and neither have I defended the controversial policies of WWF currently in

place and under discussion, what I have said is that Sir Peter Scott is

possibly not responsible for these policies and he did not envisage them

when he founded WWF. There can be valid questions on WWF policies just as

there can be valid questions on the policies of many animal welfare and

animal rights organisations some of which Merritt Clifton has examined

himself. Also, WWF Finland is involved in an elephant training programme in

Nepal that was cited as an alternative training method for elephants by

WSPA during the elephant polo campaign. As I quite clearly mentioned, people

are free to draw their own conclusions on the work of WWF or any other

organisation. Did I say that WWF is on the pro animal side of some issues?

Yes, I did and I say it again. They have done many valuable animal

protection projects and many conservationists and animal welfarists in India

are individuals who used to work for WWF and gained valuable experience from

their association with the organisation.

Best wishes and kind regards,

 

Sincerely yours,