Note: Through this blog post, I am merely supporting WWF-UK, and I am not a ‘voice’ of theirs in any way. I am merely aware that culling has been defined by them in the past as a last resort measure, and hunting, or ‘exploitation of the species’, can only be considered at sustainable population levels. WWF has not advocated this blog post prior to its publication.
In Dispatches: Conservation’s Dirty Little Secrets, the presenter examined how the overpopulation of elephants in Africa have led to the destruction of crops and of human-animal relations in Kenya. Despite finding out such facts, Steeds was gleefully shocked to find that, upon questioning WWF-UK on their process in such a situation, it was admitted that culling is sometimes the only solution. I’ve noticed a small uproar kicking up here and there on the internet. “CULLING??? What?? And WWF are supposed to be a conservation charity??! Well, as of this day I will withdraw all my support from conservation organisations! How can they be so hypocritcal?”
Stop a moment. Let’s look at WWF – its main goals are Sustainibility, Climate Change, and Conservation. All of these must work in a biocentric balance, working with both people and nature to improve conditions on our planet. So yes, I’m sorry, but sometimes, that does mean culling.
We have protected elephants for a long time. They’re no longer endangered, correct, but that doesn’t mean they’re out of the woods and that we can kill them off left right and center. The danger is that, if one elephant ruins crops in Kenya, the locals will be obviously angered, and a widescale hunting of elephants and backlash of conservation efforts will take place. But if there are too many elephants in that area, and one is culled to save human-animal relations, then this entire situation can be avoided.
WWF is NOT an animal rights group, fighting for the lives of every chicken and goat and, yes, even elephant out there. WWF is a conservation charity, which works to improve human and animal relations. If there are too many elephants in one part of Africa, and it’s threatening the entire biosystem as well as human relations with conservation, then culling is inevitable.
Example number 1: I was incredibly lucky this April to work with WWF Russia in their Moscow office, and edit this document for them ready for publishing: Trophy hunting of species inhabiting Russia as listed in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation.
It’s a bit of a mouthful, but it goes into more details on this procedure in Russia. Let’s look at the most important paragraph:
The position of WWF-Russia has always been and continues to remain unchanged. We are against commercial trophy hunting of rare species listed in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation, as such hunting contradicts the current legislation. At present, all of the species listed in theRed Data Book of the Russian Federation have been derived from trade (with some reservations). Should the population return to sustainable levels as a result of conservation efforts and natural restoration, the species can be removed from the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation. Only after that can consideration of the species’ exploitation, including trophy hunting, take place.
Basically: WWF does NOT support hunting of endangered animals under any circumstances. BUT, if said animals are returned to completely sustainable levels, then only then can their exploitation be discussed.
Example number 2: Whilst in Vladivostok last year with the Youth Tiger Summit team, visiting an area of conservation which has about six Siberian tigers on their territory, we were a little disconcerted to be told that the park’s main area of income was through hunting. They allow a few licenses per year, for hunting of such-and-such amount of deer, and perhaps one or two bears. On further consideration, however, this made perfect sense. Conservation needs its income, and this is found through the usage of large amounts of a certain animal for the benefit of others. Plus, in some situations, there cannot be too many of a certain type of animal, such as deer or – as we’ve learnt from Dispatches – elephants. It disrupts the ecosystem, as well as human-animal relations.
In a world where humans are essentially the guardians of nature, if we want to keep our planet sustainable then we need to keep the balance. Sometimes this means some tough decisions. I don’t support the death of an elephant or of a few deer in East Russia, but if it means that we have more elephants and lions and rhinos as a result, or one more tiger living on the brinks of Siberia, then sustainable conservation has been truly achieved.
