Not All Conservation Charities Are Transparent

Be mindful when supporting animal charities: conservation can often cause more harm than good if that is your desired focus. While we all may want our money spent on various causes ranging from conservation of wildlife and welfare of animals to rehoming of animals or helping endangered species – there are an endless array of organizations out there vying for your support, which in some cases cause harm or kill animals under the name of conservation.

Animal conservation charities often stand in opposition to those advocating animal welfare, rights, and love of all creatures alike. Not all conservationists support animal rights or their preservation in favor of other “more important” species and habitat preservation.

What Is Conservation? The meaning of “conservation” depends on its context, from protecting buildings and cultural sites, resources and artefacts, but is most frequently associated with protecting wildlife habitat. As a result, many charities attempt to include some aspect of preservation within their titles or literature as this term often represents general good causes.

People tend to trust those using the term conservation, as this acts as a guarantee that our money is going towards helping animals or habitat in accordance with our wishes. But it’s important that we verify whether any “conservation” activities may actually have ulterior motives such as commerce and sport – such as hunting.

Conservation organizations typically subscribe to a creed that places certain animals above others and advocates that, if necessary, some must be eliminated for the good or conservation of others. Most people seem disinterested in such matters – the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB), for example, has often been criticised for taking such an ardent stance towards protecting birds.

Many of us naively assume the RSPB exists solely to protect all birds; however, this has never been true. In 2014 they supported the culling of all Ruddy ducks in the UK despite their stated philosophy discouraging any unnecessary killing of birds, prompting widespread outrage. Ruddy ducks were perceived as an alien species interfering with native ducks by mating with them; at a cost of PS5 million or PS800 per duck killed by marksmen employed by Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency. Graham Madge from the RSPB commented “Thousands were killed at a cost of PS5 million or PS800 per duck by marksmen of Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency”. Graham Madge from RSPB said “Thousands were killed at cost of PS5 Million or PS800 per duck”.

“For the RSPB, this debate and subsequent day were especially difficult and heart-wrenching; ultimately resulting in our having to acknowledge that a cull was our only course forward. While not intended as being cruel or heartless, it nonetheless felt good when finally accepting this solution as part of our efforts to preserve biodiversity worldwide and sometimes making hard decisions is required to ensure its protection.”