IFAW's Eurocentric Conservation

I welcome "Lynn" who comments on my "Wildlife Woes" blog:

'I was surprised to read your misrepresentation of IFAW as an organization of "extremist weirdness." You clearly are unaware of IFAW's unusually moderate approach to issues of wildlife and habitat protection. The truth is that IFAW is NOT against all consumptive use of animals, nor opposed to scientific research. It is IFAW's position on a number of highly complex issues, however, that consumption and science must be sustainable.'

The trouble is, for IFAW consumptive use is always "unsustainable", at least in Africa. For a useful overview of these issues, other scientists have opposing and valid points.

However, "Lynn" has not answered why IFAW continues to block, by any means fair or foul, all attempts to re-introduce limited sports hunting into Kenya? This would benefit marginal wildlife areas that cannot compete for tourist dollars, yet have, as local people see it, a problem with "useless" wild animals that the Kenya government protects by law, but does nothing to protect them from.

It is obscene for foreign conservationists to insist on hugely expensive, Eurocentric conservation programmes like "elephant contraception" and "helicopter herding" of animals, whose budgets run into millions of Kenya shillings, when peasants could build entire primary schools and clinics from the licensed proceeds of a few hundred animals shot on a "Campfires"

IFAW does promote many interesting conservation programmes world-wide,but it's insistance on non-consumption (perhaps not yet of chickens and beef), it's absolute stand against controlled sport-hunting (itself recognised by the WWF and IUCN/WCU as a conservation tool if properly used) certainly qualify it for "weirdness".

As a 3rd generation tourist professional who lives in Africa, I see the dwindling wildlife numbers outside and inside National Parks. I know the attitudes of local tribes to the wildlife they do not own, but the government and conservationists mysteriously do. And I also know that it is common knowledge in Kenya conservation and tourism circles that IFAW spends immense efforts and cash in ensuring any attempts to introduce even the most modest type community sports hunting programme. This would as effectively control animal numbers and profit local people.pilot scheme of sustainable sports hunting are blocked time and again. This is patronizing, racist and arrogant.

For just one example of a World Wildlife Fund successful community hunting programme of immense benefit to local people, "Lynn" should go here.

IFAW opposes sports-hunting and even government culling in Africa. The results are devastating in some areas, for example Kruger National Park in South Africa which has a superbly monitored culling programme = now elephant overpopulation is wrecking Kruger. Contraception for elephants, at perhaps $5000 cost per animal, while next door to the park Africans die of AIDS and poverty, is something IFAW would no doubt support. A humane bullet costs about $1 and better yet, sports-hunting would actually pay African villagers about $5000 per elephant.

Why does one of the largest and most respected conservation bodies , the World Conservation Union (formerly IUCN), deny IFAW membership? I think we know.

Wildlife Woes

More evidence that foreign wildlife extremists completely control Kenya's policies came today as Vice President Moody Awori sang loudly from the International Fund for Animal Welfare song-book. He was inaugurating a wildlife fence partly funded by IFAW in north Kenya.

IFAW, who have not been allowed to join major bodies like the IUCN/World Conservation Union due to their extremist weirdness, are completely against any consumptive use of animals, including scientific culling. The "F" in IFAW stands for "fund", and the huge financial clout of these urban eco-huggers means they can buy their way to influence in many countries. Kenya is the foremost of those and IFAW pays journalists and politicians to support it's ideology,some say.

Thanks to IFAW, elephants are now devastating South Africa's Kruger National Park again. IFAW forced a ban on the successful Kruger culling programme. Bowing to IFAW, Awori announced Kenya will not re-introduce sport hunting. Thus we remain the sole major wildlife destination in Africa without a regulated sport hunting industry.

The reasons Awori gave are pure IFAW-speak. Sport hunting is "elitist" ( yet exclusive luxury tourism in Kenya is not) he said. It cannot "benefit the local community" (dozens of studies in Africa say exactly the opposite). Sport hunting will make controlling "bushmeat trades" more difficult (those wealthy hunters come here to eat mouldy old bull buffalo meat). It would be "difficult to control" (investors earning a good return from sports hunting just can't wait to exterminate all their animal capital). And more.

The oddest idea expressed was when Awori said allowing animals to "regulate themselves" as in former times was the best way and would help the environment in a time of climate change.

Kenya's animals are being "regulated" to alarmingly low levels by unremitting poaching and bushmeat trade , undertaken by those who have zero personal or community incentive to preserve animals on private or communal land. A regulated hunting industry is one of the ways of combating such wildlife attrition. Though IFAW does some useful projects in conservation, their hidden agenda is to stop all consumptive use of animals, regardless of consequences to local people.

Respectable conservationsists know this, but IFAW is more renowned, some say, for buying their way to the top of the policy ladder in traditional African fashion.