ANIMAL FORUM

>
>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 mans 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 planets
>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 RSPBs work, the overall picture could be very
>different with its 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 RSPBs 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 doesnt 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 youre not
>concerned about game birds being abused, provided they dont 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 its 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 wont 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 doesnt really
>care.
>
>
>You said yesterday that the RSPB do a lot of good work and that we
>are on the same side. I dont deny the former and Im on record of
>saying so, but were 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 well be on the same side - and you can send
>me a membership form.
>
>Until then