WWF debate

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

We have discussed most of these issues before but I am OK to consider

them again. There is no need to make a guess, wild or otherwise as to where

I am working, for I have openly said it that I am working for TRAFFIC India

at WWF in New Delhi. And if people would take a look at my previous posts on

WWF before I joined TRAFFIC, I reckon that they would find that I have

always been a WWF defender. Responses in no particular order to some issues

raised:

 

 

 

1) History of WWF : Open to interpretation and debate. But history

cannot be changed, for what has happened has happened even though it may not

have been pleasant. One cannot live in the past and the important thing is

to move on. An understanding of the past is essential to chalk out one’s

future plans but it is not very fruitful to continue berating anyone because

of the past. We all have done things in the past we would do differently

given the chance, wouldn’t we? I, for one, certainly would.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is important to consider the history

of the growth of the animal protection movement in the West to gauge the

contradictions involved in the movement. A lot of the early animal

protectionists in UK were colonialists and army people who had done terrible

things to people of other races. A good reference point is R K Narayan’s

autobiography ‘My Days’ where he speaks of one such individual in Madras who

used to ill treat his servants and mollycoddle his pets, an attitude that

prevails among some animal protectionists till this day.

 

 

2) Sustainable use : Most conservation organizations endorse sustainable use

of wild animals and all organizations that promote meat eating also promote

sustainable use of domestic animals. Animal welfare organizations would not

openly say that they promote ‘sustainable use’ but the reality is that

endorsing humane slaughter implies endorsing sustainable use. In my opinion,

the vegetarianism debate is still open and therefore the issue of

sustainable use.

 

Also situations where hunter gatherer communities depend on killing some

animals for meat only for subsistence, that is a low level of sustainable

use for survival. The main contentious issue is commercial sustainable use

and this is something certainly to be discussed. As far as WWF India is

concerned, there cannot be any question of sustainable use of wild animals

here since it is illegal under the Wildlife Protection Act. As far as WWF

International is concerned, there is a conflict of interest and I recognize

and acknowledge this and there should be more efforts to address this at

CITES and other platforms. It is very good that people are questioning

'sustainable use' policies and this should continue. Just for the record,

the WWF/TRAFFIC policy on sustainable use of tigers is currently 'no use' or

'zero level' use. I would be very glad if this could be replicated for other

animal species, wild or domestic.

 

 

3)Elephant polo : I would never say that an animal organization is under any

obligation to protest elephant polo and certainly not a conservation

organization like WWF(because elephant polo is in essence an animal

rights/welfare issue.) Organisations or individuals may not like to state

either opposition or support to this game and I am quite willing to live

with that although I would much rather prefer that they did. For example, if

I understand it correctly, ANIMAL PEOPLE has a non committal position on

this issue. They do not support elephant polo, in the sense that they do not

promote or advocate it, but neither do they oppose it. I am quite willing to

live with this although I am personally totally opposed to this sport. But

this position of ANIMAL PEOPLE does not mean that all their other work goes

invalid and people should start making fun of them by creating funny

acronyms. I do not think. It might also be an idea to write to the

organizations who have been silent on the elephant polo issue and see if

they respond now rather than launching rhetorical questions on AAPN. Help In

Suffering supported one elephant polo match but they have done a lot of work

for elephants and the same applies for Elephant Family. My personal position

is to look at these things on a case by case basis and not to draw general

conclusions on organizations or individuals based on areas of disagreement.

And Elephant polo is only one issue concerning WWF or any other pro or non

committal group. They may have done hundreds of other good projects for

elephants that should be recognized regardless of their stance on elephant

polo. WPSI is Elephant Family’s partner, they openly criticized elephant

polo but cooperate with them on other issues and that is just fine in my

opinion. Taking an extremist view would suggest that an organization should

never cooperate with Elephant Family because they endorsed elephant polo but

I do not share this view.

 

 

4) Pornography and workshops: I am not sure I approve of pornography for any

purpose even though it may attract attention of laymen for I do not

to the policy of ‘any port in a storm’ to promote animal

rights. Mentioning this is not counter criticism but a very germane point to be

mulled over. Do groups that allegedly promote pornography do good work for

animals? Yes they certainly do and groups that conduct workshops do so as well.

Also, is it OK to be openly racist like Brigitte Bardot and promote animal

rights? Not in my book but has she done good things for animals? Certainly. It

is basically a matter of comparative judgment.

 

 

I am personally very open to constructive criticism and WWF has faced these

issues too. I have a lot of material on this which I would gladly share, mainly

on the issues concerning culling and animal experimentation.

 

 

And as far as shifting allegiance to organizations is concerned,

organizational allegiance may not always necessarily conflict with

allegiance to a cause. My commitment to helping animals remains just as strong

at WWF as it would be in any other capacity.

 

 

Merritt Clifton has raised an important point on WWF not addressing the

vegetarianism issue at length, I will have to study that document to comment

on it. WWF, as an organization, has changed over the years, as any other

organization, most certainly in India, and I know of several cases where

they have cooperated with animal welfare organizations. Maybe the

vegetarianism argument for environmentalism will kick in the future, but as

I said, I would need to read the Living Planet report to make up my

mind regarding this. But I know many young people working at WWF India who

are vegetarians and endorse animal welfare and rights. It is a pleasure to

interact and work with them and I certainly would not launch personalized

missiles on them because they are aligned to an organization that promotes

sustainable use internationally.

 

 

As far as donations to ANIMAL NEPAL are concerned, I will certainly

recommend them to potential donors and I am perfectly fine that they specialize

in domestic animals. More power and strength to them I say and apologies again

to Jigme for causing any offence. It was unintentional and reactionary.

 

 

My bottomline is this : I do not resent criticism of WWF(India and

International both), I would welcome it, but what I do resent is exclusive

criticism of WWF for I think there is a legitimate concern about bias working

there.

 

 

Thank you very much for airing your views on WWF.

 

 

Cheers,