Goallover.org has closely followed the recent debate surrounding the partnership between rhino conservation agency Save the Rhino and commercial hunting organisation Safari Club International.

The original article that appeared in the Sunday Times questioned the ethics of a wildlife conservation group partnering up with a group that advocates, and even promotes hunting of the species that is being conserved. Save the Rhino responded by explaining the extensive consultation process that the organisation went through, the conclusion of which was that the promotion of sustainable hunting practices would have an ultimately beneficial effect rather than ignoring the trophy hunting industry completely.

Simon Barnes is a patron of Save the Rhino and writes a weekly wildlife column for the Sunday Times. On Sunday he gave his own take on this highly contentious issue.

Saving the rhinos

Barnes is a supporter of the rhino charity and is first and foremost appreciative of the good work that Save the Rhino does for the world’s five surviving rhino species, supporting projects across the planet with limited resources.

He asks a number of valid questions that all conservation charities should ask themselves. Does the acceptance of £33,631 since 2006 from the trophy hunting organisation alter the fact that good work has been done? And is it really a wildlife charities responsibility to attempt to alter morally questionable human actions when benefits are to be had for the wildlife as a result?

Saving species not individuals

Barnes points out that Save the Rhino is working to save a species and not individuals. The work that they do is a conservation effort whose focus is preservation of biodiversity and an entire ecosystem and not individual animal’s welfare. He explains that emotional backlashes and the subsequent problems for charities arise when we as individuals confuse these two ideas.

“Many individuals who give to charities do so on an emotional basis. It is much easier to tug the heart-strings with, say, a cute picture of an orphaned orang-utan in a nappy than with a complex pitch about saving the forests the orangs live in. We prefer simplicity to complexity when it comes to giving. But it’s the forests that matter if orangs are to survive.”

It is a reality that welfare organisations capture the public’s conscience more readiliy than conservation charities. Barnes provides the statistics that demonstrate this fact – the Donkey Charity received £22,554,000 in the last financial year, where as the Gorilla Organization was donated a fraction of this amount £1,268,834.

Hardline Conservation

Save the Rhino are unapologetic of their hard-line approach to conservation – accepting that culling can be an important conservation tool. They also make clear that they have never attempted to hide their relationship with Safari Club International.  The charity has supported the “sustainable use” of rhino since it was formed in 1994 and avoids a sentimental approach to an unfortunately brutally realistic situation.

Barnes believes the Save the Rhinos partnership with Safari Club International therefore to be a “logical and tenable position”, to espouse the sustainable use of the species and then reject money offered in good faith by the hunters would be completely hypocritical.

Reluctant acceptance

As a patron of Save the Rhino Barnes grudgingly accepts the “reluctant role” he will play in standing alongside trophy hunters as supporters of the rhino charity. However, he does not pull any punches in saying that his personal choice would have been to avoid working with Safari Club International:

“I would also have resisted working with Safari Club International on personal grounds. I have met a good few hunters in my travels across Africa and they have all been — how shall I put this politely? What’s the mot juste? Arseholes. I thinks that’s about as polite as I can get. They have all been arseholes.”

Barnes also warns of the inherent dangers of partnering with organisations that may be seen as morally questionable by the public:

“A good organisation gets bad publicity because a comparatively small donor attracts a very strong and negative emotional response from the public.”

But Barnes is a realist, and he clearly understands that the situation is bigger than individual moral quandaries and personal opinions.

“I’m ultimately on the side of the rhinos myself, so I shall continue to support Save The Rhino. I believe the world is a better place with rhinos than without them. I accept the logic behind the stance taken by Save The Rhino, and applaud its consistency in taking it. But I do so with the most colossal reluctance.”

Ultimately for Barnes rhinos as a species are deserving of his money and support, despite his misgivings about the actions of a select group of donors he accepts that as a wildlife charity Save the Rhino is not responsible for human morality and must focus on the bigger picture of saving an endangered species from extinction. If this means that a number of individuals much be sacrificed for the good of the whole then he is reluctantly prepared to accept this as the reality of a difficult situation.