Interesting given recent press that the RSPB allow shooting on it's reserves. 2003 Links between con

A letter I certainly agree with and in future shall be questioning
which charities I give money to. If I give money to a charity to
protect wildlife, I don't expect them to also be earning money selling
licence's to shoot wildlife!

ax
Links between conservation charities and hunting

http://www.liberation-mag.org.uk/conservation.htm
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
Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk

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.
A holding page is currently on www.con-servation.org.uk

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

 

<snip>

I bet you can clear a room quicker than an eggy fart.

--
Dan L

Too much time to think, too little to do.


http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11