Not All Conservation Charities Are Transparent
Don’t fall for the “conservationist” phrase when you support charities.
We all have different ideas about how we would like our money to be spent when it comes to supporting animal charities or donating to them. It could be on conservation, animal welfare, rehoming, animal rights, helping animals overseas or saving endangered species. If you want to make sure that your money is used to help all animals, without harming others, it can be difficult. Many charities kill or harm animals under the guise of conservation.
Animal rights activists, animal welfare advocates and animal lovers are often in disagreement with the aims and principles adopted by animal conservation charities. Some conservationists do not believe that animals or animal groups have the right to survive, if they feel it is incompatible with the preservation of other species and habitats.
What is conservation?
It is important to note that the meaning of “Conservation” can vary depending on context. It could refer to preserving cultural sites, artifacts and resources, but it’s most commonly associated with wildlife and habitat. Many charities, regardless of the true intention of their charity, try to include conservation in their titles or literature because we associate it with good ideas.
It is easy to be drawn towards those who use the term conservation, as it gives us the assurance that money will be spent in the best interests of animals and habitats. We should be careful that their ” Conservation ” activities are not based on selfish motives such as sport and commerce.
The cost per duck is 800 PS.
Conservation organisations often believe that certain animals are of greater importance than others, and can therefore be eliminated if needed for the good of all or to conserve others. This is a sensitive issue that most people seem to ignore. This attitude has been criticised by the Royal Society for Protection of Birds, a well-known charity in the UK.
They are not there to protect birds. This is a mistake that many of us make. In 2014, they supported the culling all Ruddy ducks throughout the UK despite their stated ethos of discouraging the ‘wanton slaughter of birds.’ This caused outrage. The Ruddy Ducks were seen as a invasive species that interfered with the native ducks through mating. Marksmen from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency killed thousands of ducks at a cost to PS5 million, or PS800 each. Graham Madge, RSPB’s Graham Madge commented:
“It was a difficult debate for RSPB, and a dark day when the cull became the only option. It is not about being brutal, it’s about being cautious. This is not cause for celebration. It’s a relief. It is a relief.
The RSPB appears to be in favor of pheasant shooting.
The RSPB was again in trouble after they appeared to promote pheasant-and-partridge shoots, even though 60% (21 million birds) died before they had a chance to shot. Martin Harper, their conservation director, stated on their site that shoots provide “beneficial habitat management” and increase the number of certain species.
The industry itself states that each year, 40 million inexperienced and hapless pheasants, are released. Of these, 37.5% of them are shot, while 46.5% perish before the season begins due to predators, road accidents, or illnesses. This leaves only 16% who survive to see the season through and a fate unknown.
Recent protests were raised over the Society’s use of Larsen Traps for catching magpies and culling them. This involved placing a living bird in a cage unattended in all weathers as a lure. It was raised concerns about the well-being of the bird caged, especially the stress it would experience trying to escape.
It was a bizarre situation, when online forum posted posts by people who thought the traps are illegal. They were told to contact the RSPB for an investigation! Strangely, none of this stops us from donating PS140,000,000 to them each year.
The word “conservation”, however, can be misinterpreted.
The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust could be seen as an example of using Conservation in order to confuse the issue as they describe themselves a “leading UK charity that conducts conservation sciences to enhance the British landscape for the public’s benefit by promoting wildlife and game management as an important part of nature preservation“.
This may sound like a good idea, but it requires certain actions that animal lovers will find objectionable. The real goal is to ensure a steady supply of game animals, both for hunting and shooting, by eliminating nuisance predators. The definition of a nuisance predator is any wild animal or birds that can’t be shot or hunted profitably or that eat animals that are huntable. They believe that wildlife and game management is at the core of conservation, and that targeted and humane predator control is a vital part of wildlife conservation.
There is also a government funded organisation, Natural England that deals with the conservation of habitats and wildlife in England. However, according to some activists they issue licenses for killing 70,000 wild birds and animals. 65 species, including barn owls, swallows and other species are affected. This is a shared responsibility as our taxes fund this organization. Read more.
The conservation fraternity is a popular one among zoos and game ranches. In Africa and other places, game ranches breed animals under the pretense of conserving habitat but make money charging for hunting big game. Zoos, despite their claims of being the ‘ark of the future’ and breeding endangered species, have failed miserably in this endeavor. The majority of animals in zoos are not endangered and successful reintroductions into the wild are rare.
It would appear that we cannot preserve animals without causing thousands of deaths as a collateral damage. It is up to each individual to decide whether the cost of the carnage is worth it. However, those who don’t want their money to be spent this way should check out the charities’ true goals and policies. The best charities for conservation are those who are animal welfare-oriented and care about saving animals not just for our sake but also the animals.