WWF has been known to be a staunch anti-hunting body. I was suprised to read this excerp from their annual report. Times are changing?? The following text has been taken verbatim from the 2005 Annual Report “Working Together” of WWF.

WWF Annual Review 2005
http://assets.wwf.ch/downloads/wwfannualreport.pdf

At first glance, trophy hunting may seem a controversial way to achieve conservation, and one that goes against the instincts of some conservationists. However, the revenues generated from selling hunting rights can provide strong incentives for local communities to reduce poaching and conserve their wildlife.
This is particularly the case in Africa, where people have not been allowed to benefit from the sometimes dangerous species they are forced to coexist with. As a consequence, poaching is rife and wildlife habitat is frequently replaced with livestock and cropland. WWF recognizes that communities will not conserve their wildlife unless they can benefit from its presence. Therefore, under appropriate conditions, the organization supports properly-managed hunting programs. Since 1998, trophy hunting has formed part of the overall effort by WWF in Namibia to help local communities improve their living standards.
Through the income generated by hunting concessions, schools have been upgraded and teachers paid, grinding mills and water pumps acquired, and food and employment secured. The whole program is owned and run by the communities, who keep the meat from the hunt for their own use Very conservative quotas – ranging from 0.5 to 2 per cent of the game populations – are established by government scientists and other conservation experts and are controlled by strong regulations. But in practice the numbers removed are lower and, as a result, there is no biological impact on resident wildlife.
In Namibia, the income provided by the small number of trophies taken has helped to create an incentive for community members to maintain wildlife in their area. More than 150,000 community members are now participating and game numbers are increasing at unprecedented rates

Bwanamich,

WWF has acted in a very suspicious way many times in the recent years.

Personally I doubt that they have seriously learned about the value of hunting or that they changed their opinion in this matter. I rather believe that they have become corrupt or a marionette of their sponsors.

An example I have mentioned in another post:
In Germany bears have been extinct for 170 years!! Last year a single bear made her way across the alps and decided to settle down in the German woods. Every now and then she burgled bee-heaps and killed the sheep. She often came close to humans but never attacked anybody. The German Government decided that she was a threat to humans and asked WWF to catch her alive. WWF was given 6 weeks during which they hired professional bear hunters with traps, dogs equipped with GPS, helicopter etc.. WWF spent thousands of euros trying to catch the bear, but without success. After the 6 weeks passed, the local district ordered a hunting association to kill the bear. Within 12 hours the bear was shot.

To me this is a clear sign that WWF was involved to make the population believe that everything was done to try and catch the bear alive before shooting it.

If the hunters were able to shoot the bear within 12 hours, how come WWF didn't manage to shoot him with tranquilizers/narcotics within 6 weeks

Just one of many examples that WWF is not a trustworthy organization.

Another clear sign for me is that WWF cooperates with global players in industry. Partners of pharmaceutical industry, computer industry, fishing industry, shopping malls etc must lead to a conflict. In comparison, Greenpeace does not accept a single cent from any company to avoid such conflict.

carsten..i couldn't agree more! the same with CITES! both puppets on strings of strong pro-hunting bodies.
i have started reading a book "the green macho connection". regrettably it's in german. jan would have loved it! excellent read! all these pro-hunting arguments are just striped naked.......

Carsten,
You state that WWF have become a marrionette of their sponsors? Well pls note that the vast majority of their sponsors/donors areand were from the bunny-huggers side of the fence. So how do you explain their 180 degree change in policy?

Your example of the bear proves absolutely nothing about WWF's policy or agenda. All it proves is the human inefficiency of those WWF employees that were involved in that exercise. Expecting a global organisation to not cooperate with industry players that could be of benefit to the charter of the organisation is, sincerely, radical. Do you not agree that ALL STAKEHOLDERS need to have their chair at the decision making table? You cannot win the nature conservation war by ommiting everyone who is not on your side.

And Pippa,
You refer to WWS and CITES as puppets on strings of strong pro-hunting bodies! Can the same not be said about all the Anti-hunting organisations? Puppets on strings of strong anti-hunting donors. As for the book you are reading, don't always believe everythign at face value. For every article against hunting I can show you one for hunting! The problem has been exactly that; there is no line of communication between the two. Everyone is fighting their own war and against each other when they both have a common enemy.

You know what; I give up with you guys. You're mind is made up irrespective of what information others might provide. None of you are even remotely prepared to be open-minded in such discussions. I think some of you refer to it as "brainwashed"?

Bwanamich,
you misunderstood me completely !!

Of course all stakeholders should be at the decision-making table but each one with their own opinion. In fact I believe, this is the ONLY way it will ever work!!

What I criticize is that the organization gets it's money from those that create the damage they are apparently fighting against. How can an organization fight overfishing of the sea if it is sponsored by the fishing industry? How can you fight against pollution if your sponsor is the biggest polluter in the world? If the existance of the organization depends on the money from these companies, they can never be unbiased and they can never fight for changes that would be against their sponsors.

About the bear: WWF employed specialized bear hunters (from Finnland I think) with specialized bear-tracing dogs and traps from America/Canada. The hunters that shot the bear in the end had never even seen a bear before in their lives (unless they have hunted abroad) as they were a local hunting group.

That is what makes the whole thing so suspicuous to me.

I do NOT have a big problem with professional hunters as long as their is a good reason for their action. I have a problem with what you call shooters and even more with organizations that write animal/environmental protection on their flag but in fact they do nothing.

Nobody controls the action of these organizations and so they continue to receive donations from people that believe they are doing something good. They continue to give the world the impression that something is being done to protect these animals or environment, when in fact they do nothing or even worse, make way for industrials under a camoflage coat of fake intentions.

Another example: The African Wildlife Foundation has recently changed their website. On the old website it stated that one of their supporters is Exxon Mobil, one of - if not the biggest polluter in the world
ok, there is no direct conflict between pollution and the protection of wildlife, but still - the contradiction is there. Plus, Exxon Mobil advertises how much they do for our planet by supporting AWF whilst behind the backs of the public they continue to destroy our planet more than any other company in this world.

If that is how things work, we might as well have African Safari Club support Bushdrums

But once more (just to make sure we do not misunderstand each other), this does not mean, that we shouldn't sit down together to discuss the issues we face and work on a solution we can all live with.

Carsten,
Where ever there is strong opposing views, concessions need to be made by both parties. By stakeholders, I don't only mean the Anti's and the Pro groups but also those that are part of the problem; eg Exxon and shell, etc. Organisations such as these cannot be shut down overnight. So long as there is oil in the ground such companies will exists. Oil extraction will always have some aspect that is detrimental to the environment. If their donation is towards research on how to minimize this damage, through an NGO or organisation, i don't see anything particularly wrong, unless one canprove there is a hidden agenda. You probably know more than I on this particular subject and would like to hear/read if you have any accurate info that supports your theory. We as humans, always side with "David" (as in David and goliath) and it is human nature to see companies such as Exxon-Mobil, etc as Giant companies with greedy agendas and no morals versus the small NGO that tries to raise awareness on the damge they cause. If you had to make an un-educated choice on who to side with, then you would naturally side with the weaker (David) and so criticise every move "Goliath" makes.

Any organisation that is fully sponsored by the industry they are trying to regulate is suspect. That is unquestionable to me as well. But WWF is most probably majority sponsored by individuals and corporations that are neutral or on the "Green" side. This would indicate that their campaign should still be Anti-hunting, etc. Or not? At the same time, if a company was going to collaborate with WWF by sponsoring say a research program, etc, they need to be sure the finances given are used for the right purpose and not further smearing campaigns against them or their industry. Such cooperation requires the 2 parties to be very close. Could this be mistaken by hard-liners as a sign of strategic manouvering on the part of the donor company? Perhaps......