Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

AN THE ivory trade. Ban the fur trade. Ban the seal culling. Are we
talking conservation or animal welfare? Is there a difference, and does
it matter anyway? Yes there is, and yes it does, says David Jones, director
of London Zoo. He believes that the public is being misled by a barrage
of animal welfare appeals, disguised as conservation campaigns.

Jones is a vet, so he knows about animal welfare. He is also a trustee
of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and chairman of the Flora and Fauna
Preservation Society (FFPS), so he knows about conservation. London Zoo,
as part of the Zoological Society of London, works with both animal welfare
and conservation groups.

The source of confusion, he says, is the growing number of animal welfare
groups leaping onto the conservation bandwagon. In today’s enlightened world,
the very word ‘conservation’ lends weight to any animal cause, and is easily
hijacked. ‘Serious conservation groups would not call themselves animal
welfare organisations, whereas welfare groups do call themselves conservation
groups and have a rather muddled view of conservation.’

This, warns Jones, is one of the biggest threats to mainstream conservation
organisations, such as WWF and FFPS. Their ‘sensible priorities’ and long-term
plans could be undermined by high-profile, but ill-considered and short-term
animal welfare projects. ‘Take groups such as Elefriends, the International
Fund for Animal Welfare and Lynx: all these are trying to call themselves
conservation groups. The problem is that most of them have little understanding
of what real conservation needs are.’

The animal welfarists, he claims, have a ‘hands-off’ approach to protecting
wildlife, with their campaigns often focused on a single group of animals.
In essence their message is: ‘We hate humans doing anything to elephants
or seals or whatever.’ They are appealing to public sympathy for funds to
help them prevent any more of these animals being killed. This, he says,
‘is a very attractive message to the population at large, because 90 per
cent of them think this is what conservation is all about’.

But conservation, in Jones’s view, is a question of managing natural
resources for the mutual benefit of humans and wildlife. While wildlife
products may play a vital part in local economies, animals and people may
be competing for food and space. The hands-off approach to wildlife ignores
basic human needs, he says: ‘There are the questions of human relations
with wildlife resources; the need to be self-supporting, whole issues of
human development in the Third World.’

Conservation is not going to happen at all unless local governments
and local attitudes change, he says, and that won’t happen if foreign protesters
secure a ban on the very products which form the traditional basis of lifestyle
and economy. ‘We are talking about resources for poor people. Yes, there
is a welfare problem in the trapping of wild animals, but it is separate
to the conservation issue.’

Jones believes that the WWF and similar organisations must take the
initiative to explain to the public that conservation means more than pinning
‘Do not touch’ signs on wildlife. If they don’t, the animal welfarists will
imprint their own misleading definition of conservation on the public.

The animal welfare groups are indignant at Jones’s accusations. ‘That’s
monumental hypocrisy,’ says Stefan Ormrod, scientific director of Lynx.
‘Bosh!’ replies Ian MacPhail, European Animal Welfare Consultant for the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). What sort of conservation
message does the public get from zoos, anyway, they ask? According to Ormrod,
Lynx doesn’t consider itself as either a conservation or an animal welfare
organisation: ‘Our main thrust is animal rights.’ Lynx’s aim is to ban trade
in all furs, be they from endangered species or not. Conservation is not
the motive, but Ormrod accepts it can be a consequence of their action:
‘Our target is the consumer. If we can make the product unacceptable, it
is a better way of protecting the animal in the long term.’

Ormrod is sceptical of Jones’s philosophy of conservation, which revolves
around the sustainable use of wildlife resources, with wildlife having to
pay its way. It doesn’t work, he says – at least, not for the fur trade.
In reality, if an animal has value in the marketplace, it will be exploited.
As long as the market remains, the exploitation will continue, leading eventually
to illegal trade in what becomes a new endangered species.

Besides, he adds, it is all too convenient to use the traditional lifestyles
of, say, the Inuit people as a reason to endorse hunting and trapping. But
most Inuit now live surrounded by the colour TVs and videos of 20th-century
lifestyles. They are no longer dependent on trapping for food and clothing;
they are merely additional suppliers to the international market.

MacPhail agrees that conservation and animal welfare are separate issues,
but says they can, and do, overlap. IFAW was founded to fight for the end
of inhumane practices in seal culling in Canada – a campaign which MacPhail
says was never billed as a conservation issue; it was pure anti-cruelty.
With that battle now won, IFAW has turned to other issues. Some encompass
conservation. Lobbying to ban the practice in the Philippines of trussing
up live dogs, destined for dinner tables, has nothing to do with conservation.
Successfully lobbying in Britain to ban lead from fishing weights because
the lead was poisoning swans was both a conservation and a welfare issue.
IFAW explains the reasons for individual campaigns to its members in newsletters.

Elefriends’ director, Will Travers, refutes the charge that his campaign
to protect the African elephant is short term and ill considered. Set up
last year to lobby for an all-out ban on ivory trade at the CITES conference
in Lausanne, Elefriends has since developed into what Travers describes
as a ‘one-stop shop’ for elephant protection. Based in the UK, the group
provides information, support for conservation and raises public awareness.

Travers does not distinguish between animal welfare and conservation.
‘You can’t judge conservation success and failure only by statistics,’ he
says. He cites the Daphne Sheldrick elephant orphanage in Kenya, where young
elephants, whose parents have been gunned down by poachers, are raised.
An expensive way to keep a few elephants alive, says Travers, but in terms
of the public involvement and popular interest it generates, it is a valuable
introduction to the wider issues of poaching and conservation.

Travers says there will always be different views about conservation
priorities. Talking about the one species that concerns him most, he says:
‘We may not all agree about how we are going about it, but we must surely
all agree that the end result should be saving the elephants.’

The same conclusion must surely apply to all species whose futures lie
in the hands of conservationists and welfarists.

Debbie Macklin is a freelance journalist and researcher who specialises
in life sciences and the environment.