Links between
conservation charities and hunting
Whilst trawling the Internet
for info for the forthcoming CON-servation website which will expose the inextricable
links between conservation charities and hunters, I came across a news release
by the British Association of Shooting and Conservation dated 7 June 2000 that
claimed shooters were "managing" a wildfowl reserve for the RSPB.
I posted a message asking where it was on the UK Environment Conservation Newsgroup,
and lo and behold, within a day or so the webpage had disappeared from the Net.
I decided to phone the
RSPB headquarters for info and they told me that they were not aware of any
reserve being managed by shooters, but would have somebody phone me back. A
couple of days later a chap called Paul Walton from the RSPB Edinburgh office
phoned to say he thought it might be at Langston Harbour but was not sure However,
we had a long civilised chat and agreed that we could not agree on the RSPB's
killing of wildlife and their close association with hunters.
I thought I should follow
our conservation with a letter, so here it is:
I've not had a response
yet.
Regards
25 January
2003
Paul Walton
Esq.
RSPB Scotland Headquarters
25 Ravelston Terrace
Edinburgh
EH4 3TP
Dear Paul
Killing of wild birds and
mammals.
Our telephone chat yesterday
was very interesting and civilised, and although we agreed to disagree, I feel
it necessary to follow up with a letter to clarify some points that we glossed
over in a conversation that moved quickly from one point to another.
Before going on to these,
you will recall that my telephone call to your head office was to enquire about
a British Association of Shooters and Conservation news release I stumbled on,
which claimed that shooters were managing an RSPB wildfowl reserve. It seemed
extremely suspicious that within two days of me highlighting this web page on
the UK Environment Conservation Newsgroup, it was taken off the Net.
You seem to think there
is a possibility that the reserve in question could be Langston Harbour, which
might in part be managed on an exclusivity basis for BASC members, but that
not all of the area might be owned by the RSPB. Since this matter still seems
unclear, I would be very grateful if you would look into this more closely and
perhaps let me know your findings. If the BASC shooters are managing an RSPB
reserve it can mean only one thing; birds are being shot on what should be a
haven. We both know what the euphemism "managing" means.
Our fundamental disagreement
appears to be that the RSPB puts the importance of biodiversity and the population
growth of rare species well ahead of the protection of individual birds and
mammals, whereas, I am absolutely opposed to the killing of any wildlife to
achieve these aims. From what you said, I think you agree that I have a moral
justification for my stance.
It must be recognised that
human activities, both directly and indirectly, are mainly responsible for the
decline in wildlife and its habitats, yet conservation organisations, including
the RSPB, stop at the door of controversy, for political reasons, by ignoring
the human impact - and unbelievably encourage it - whilst at the same time kill
innocent wildlife they consider to be competing with other species they wish
to promote.
This is an injustice that
needs to be addressed, and I do not approach this matter from a position of
"fury" as you suggest but from a determination that the innocent wildlife
should not suffer for man's ever invading selfishness and greed. Wildlife needs
no more than we need for ourselves - a peaceful environment, free from persecution.
We touched on a number
of issues that I would like to clarify:
1. The objectives of the
RSPB which are shown in the Charity Commission website are:
(a) To conserve wild birds
and the wider environment on which wild birds depend, maintaining bird numbers,
diversity and natural geographical distribution.
(b) To conserve natural and semi-natural habitats and to re-create habitats.
(c) To encourage others to practice the conservation of wild birds and habitats.
(d) To promote knowledge of conservation through education and research.
If this is to be interpreted
in plain English, there is no stated provision for the RSPB to be involved in
killing members of one species of wild bird to promote or protect another. They
are all wild birds! Nor is there a provision to enter into trade-offs with those
who wish to kill wild birds for fun and recreation. Indeed, the RSPB should
be actively opposing all those who are killing wild birds as part of its conservation
remit.
Neither is there any stated
proviso for the RSPB to favour bird populations over individual wild birds,
so there can be no justification for killing ANY of them, or supporting and
condoning those who do. If the RSPB is intent on killing wild birds and mammals
to protect others it should say so in its objectives, because such an activity
is well beyond what is currently stated.
2. Conservation: It is
easily seen that in (a) of your objectives, conservation means conserving wild
birds and habitats. However, by the time one reaches (d) there is a change in
the meaning of "conservation" to that of a generality; "wild
birds" has been dropped. Whilst accepting almost anything can be conserved,
the prime meaning of conservation is attributed to conserving the planet's resources
for generations to come. In fact, all nature conservation at a lower level than
that is contributory and conversely dependent on the primary conservation being
sustained. Taking it to extremes, there would be no point in saving a few birds
if there was no future for the planet.
In this respect the RSPB
cannot be regarded as a conservation organisation if it encourages hundreds
of thousands of visitors to reserves and to events such as the Countryside Fair
at Vane Farm. It also openly identifies and promotes itself with tourism, which
is an anathema to conservation. So whilst there may be an element of conservation
in the RSPB's work, the overall picture could be very different with it's very
existence and ethos having a negative impact on the environment. Indeed, that
could very well be the case with a number of conservation groups. That is why
I have christened them the CONservationists on Internet newsgroups and why this
will be part of the theme of the forthcoming con-servation.org.uk website.
3. Hunting: When I use
the word hunting, I use it in the sense that it applies to hunting estates and
their wide range of activities culminating in the injury and death of countless
thousands of creatures, including game birds and wildfowl, for fun, recreation
and profit. BASC members are responsible for much of this carnage. Why an organisation
such as the RSPB, that purports to protect birds, can produce joint reports
with the BASC who tags on the "conservation" label to mask the true
purpose of its existence is beyond me.
The RSPB's excuse seems
to be that it does not concern itself with game birds, and since killing them
is within the law, can do nothing about it. Quite frankly, that is a convenient
get out. To start with, many game birds are wild and because they have the "game"
tag on them doesn't make them less so. Indeed, you are protecting the capercaillie
and to some extent the black grouse, which are both game birds and wild. So
the message coming across here is that you're not concerned about game birds
being abused, provided they don't decline in numbers. Some way of protecting
birds!
There is no reason why
the RSPB could not condemn the injury and slaughter of these birds, whether
or not it's a legal activity. Hunting with hounds was a legal activity until
it was banned due partly to a number of charities persistently condemning it.
So, is there an underlying reason why the RSPB won't condemn the killing? Well,
one only has to look at who your patron is, to understand that there is an inextricable
link with rich and powerful hunting interests that the RSPB might not wish to
upset for fear of losing financial support. But it should be recognised that
it is the birds that are suffering and the RSPB should have the courage and
conviction to speak out against the killing. Not to do so, gives out the message
that game birds are expendable, there to be abused, and the RSPB doesn't really
care.
You said yesterday that
the RSPB do a lot of good work and that "we are on the same side".
I don't deny the former and I'm on record of saying so, but we're definitely
not on the same side when it comes to your organisation killing birds and mammals
that are competing with the species you wish to protect and turning a blind
eye to those who kill birds for fun and recreation.
A couple of years ago I
was told by Dr Gareth Thomas that the RSPB is ultimately working towards a no-kill
policy.
If or when that happens
we'll be on the same side - and you can send me a membership form.
Regards
Yours sincerely
Angus Macmillan