IWMC World Conservation Trust

"Any radical notion that vastly inflates the concept of rights and requires a lot more litigation is apt to take root in the law schools. Some lawyers say they are in the field to advance their ideology, but some not that it is an area of legal practice that could be profitable," writes John Leo in U.S. News & World Report ("Another Monkey Trial," September 20, 1999).

Compassion for animals and respecting their intrinsic rights to live (and die) according to the laws of nature is one thing. Investing them with the human construct of legal rights, which require at least a basic grasp of ethics and morality, is quite another.  At the core of the push by animal rights zealots like Singer and Francione is an unshakable desire to end the absolutely essential and vital role of animals in medical research, as part of the world nutrition resource, and any other "use" or even management of animal resources by humankind. In one sense, such an ideology denies the place of humans within nature's scheme of things.  In another, it begs the question of who is more compassionate and who is to judge what is "right" or "wrong" for animals? 

Vegetarianism and an aversion to hunting is not the measure. Hitler was both and he killed six million Jews and an equal number of others he felt were alien to his "ideology."  Perhaps the answer lies in Dr. Albert Schweitzer's admonition that we increase our compassion for those closest to us - our fellow humans - and from that will flow the way we treat the world.�
  

Even if that tribute paid French sportsmen was a political move designed to secure the hunter/fisherman vote for domestic elections, it's significant because any official acknowledgment of their electoral clout means sustainable use forces have finally caught the ear of French environmental policy makers.

Traditionally, France has been a strong anti-use force at international environmental policy venues such as CITES.  On protection of species such as African elephants, France has always voted with protectionist NGOs.  France refused to honor a European Union agreement to allow importation of ivory souvenirs from Zimbabwe for non-commercial, personal use by tourist.  Sustainable use eyes will be on France at the next Conference of the Parties to CITES in Nairobi, Kenya in April, 2000.�
  

Touted as wildlife and habitat friendly as well as non-consumptive, eco-tourism was touted as a way to provide economic benefit to local cultures and protect the planet’s resources.  National and international conservation agencies, tourism organizations and governments themselves promoted guidelines for “sustainable eco-tourism.” 

Unfortunately, few of these well-intentioned measures were based on scientific research.  Virtually none sought compatibility with the cultures and traditions of each locale’s indigenous people.  Recently, however, international agencies such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) addressed fears that the impact of eco-tourism on cultures and the resources themselves has been anything but “environmentally friendly.” 

CITES Resolution 10.6 raised concerns about the effect of the tourist trade on populations of endangered animal and plant species.  The “Berlin Declaration,” developed at the international conference of ministers of biological diversity and tourism meeting in Berlin, March 1997, recommended guidelines bringing conservation, sustainable use and tourism in line with the principles of the CBD. 

Recognizing the opening these works and other opportunities tore in eco-tourism’s anti-criticism shield of political correctness, scientists began to voice their reservations.  Among the threats posed to wild resources in crisis are:

• Land demands for airports, roads, parking lots, hotels, etc.  Such potentially lucrative infrastructure development increases land prices for local people threatening available housing, farming and other traditional uses.
• Increased tourist traffic can quickly exceed the biological and social carry capacity of the land.  Noise pollution increases.  The need to provide food, water, tourist housing, sewage facilities, souvenirs etc. drives up costs again pricing them out of the reach of local people.
• The role of local cultures as conservators of the resource as well as the primacy of conservation itself becomes trivialized in favor of catering to the tourist trade. 
• Potential profits from the tourist trade transform local priorities from preservation of biological diversity to pursuit of tourist dollars.  This is particularly true in those places, like small island nations, with the most vulnerable natural environments.

However, policy makers and the public must not be allowed to continue to embrace so-called eco-tourism without adherence to the preservation of local cultures, traditions, and biological diversity.  Eco-tourism allowed to grow without such a course correction will result in a legacy of ravaged resources and cultures similar to that left by the “visitors” to South Pacific island and North American native cultures during the 18th and 19th Centuries.�
  

According to news reports from Reykjavik, the campaign to return the 22-year-old orca to its native Icelandic waters is a multi-million dollar flop.  “His re-adaptation to natural, or wild sea life is a total failure,” said Hallur Hallson, spokesman for the organization overseeing and feeding Keiko. 

“Willy” refuses to leave his ocean-floating pen in the Klettsvik fiord southeast of Reykjavik, to hunt or eat live fish or to consort with other orcas.  Killer whales must travel in packs in order to survive.  Keiko’s care and feeding cost US $1.76 million a year, a bargain, according to NGO-watchers who estimate that the annual donations sent to “Willy” that are split among The Humane Society of the United States and others behind the Free Willy Keiko Foundation is at least three times that amount.�
  

The Cousteau Society denied the allegations and admitted their attempt to film the whales was part of an effort to condemn the Canadian whale watching trade as harmful to the whales.  Canadian television broadcast videotape of the Cousteau crew’s inflatable crafts clearly “climbing on the back of whales.”  Quebec Naturalist, Chantale Sainte-Hilaire was quoted in a Reuters report on the incident as saying “she had seen the whales’ wounds.”  Coincidentally, Jean Michel Cousteau, eldest son of the late Jacques-Yves Cousteau serves as a director of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation.�
  

Jonathan Paul, Jake Conroy, Josh Harper, Allison Lance, Cheryl Seiler, and Lisa Distefano of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society were charged with “reckless endangerment” for piloting three high speed power boats, provided by the Sea Defense Alliance, perilously close to the fragile Makah whaling canoe during the hunt.  Conroy and Harper face Washington State felony charges with penalties up to 10 years in prison.

The anti-whaling protesters see their plight as a plot by the Clinton – Gore administration to deny their right to protest “the killing of whales.”  The accused openly lament the fact that two of their vessels remain in U.S. Coast Guard property.  The Makah will resume hunting Grey whales October-1.�
  

New Zealand conservation officials are opening an investigation into the attempt to remove the whale’s jawbone with a chainsaw.  Under New Zealand’s 1978 Mammal Protection Act, dismembering of “any mammal” can result in fines up to $30,000.  Ironically, the whale carcass will be “left to disintegrate,” according to news reports. 

Under a tradition as old as the Maoris themselves, beached sperm whales were treated as “gifts from the gods” and every part of the whale use either for food or ceremonial artifacts.  Current New Zealand “environmental” policies forbid this ancient practice, insisting the whales rot instead.�
  

Speculation over the motivation behind the SSN protest appeared divided.  Some observers wondered if SSN, a highly organized coalition of animal rights NGOs headed by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) might be planning such abusive attacks on sustainable use Parties to CITES.  Others suggested that if the SSN position reflects their belief in “free speech” as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  If that is true, then SSN should also back the “secret ballot” as it mirrors the sanctity of voter privacy practiced in the U.S.A.�
  

Frederic Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, was paid $237,405 in salary and $29,411 in benefits.  National Resources Defense Council Executive Director John H. Adams received a $188,448 salary with $50,561 in benefits.  North Shore Animal League President J. John Stevenson brought home $275,962 in salary and $19,729 in benefits.  Karthryn S. Fuller, president of the World Wildlife Fund was paid a $214,542 salary with $26,646 in benefits.

According to sources close to HSUS, Irwin will receive two more installments of at least $300,000 until his “retirement package” equals the $1 million “golden parachute” paid his HSUS predecessor John Hoyt.  According to the 1998 “990 report” filed by HSUS with the United States Internal Revenue Service, the animal rights group brought in $81,782,537 in revenues, paid Irwin $570,325, also paid Irwin’s son, Craig, $46,453 but only sought fit to give $38,143 to local US dog and cat “animal” shelters. (Chronicle of Philanthropy, Vol XI, No. 23 - September 23, 1999�
  

IWC was founded in 1984 by current president, Dan Morast, Donna Hart, Stephen Best, and Margaret King, whose previous animal rights credentials included stints with the Sierra Club, the Cousteau Society, the Wild Canid Survival and Research Center, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.  IWC is airing tv ads urging tourists not to cross “the bloody red border".�
  

IWMC will publish this Newsletter on a monthly basis and invites you to share it with other people. We would welcome any short stories you might have and would like to remind you about our website page and email address: