The significance of WWF policies

[Guest guest]

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

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.]