WWF’s Expulsion of Peter Flack
Why would an organisation like the WWF drive a wedge between hunting and conservation when they should be building a bridge?
When confronted by a situation or event that I do not quite understand, or necessarily agree with, I have always found it useful to seek an understanding of the underlying principles and intent of the parties involved. It helps to eliminate emotion and subjectivity, both of which can bedevil an objective assessment of the situation.
So when I heard that the WWF had summarily expelled Peter Flack my brow furrowed. A summary expulsion nogal – no statement, no explanation, no nothing. After 20 years of distinguished membership – vamoose!
Given the absence of any rationale from the WWF, I re- solved that the best way for me to try to understand this harsh decision was to fall back on my tried and tested assessment of principles and intent; which is even more important in this case, given the fact that Peter is a close, lifelong friend and hunting companion. How else to avoid the criticism of being biased or having a vested interest, etc?
So let’s try now to objectively and impartially understand why on earth an organisation, whose mission statement includes “sustainability of the species”, summarily expels from their ranks the author and self-funder of The South African Conservation Success Story. Available for some years now in book and video form, it seeks for the first time to understand the history of wild game in South Africa, from the time of Van Riebeeck to the present. Peter even went so far as to co-opt world-renowned research biologist and conservationist, Shane Mahoney from Canada, to narrate and contribute. Endorsed by SAN Parks and made available free of charge to hundreds of schools, it is a definitive example of putting your money where your mouth is. As they say, actions speak louder than words.
Little wonder then that my brow furrowed on the distressing news, before re-orienting myself around the principles and intent of the two parties. Who knows, perhaps a schism would reveal itself.
THE PRINCIPLES
Regarding the principles, let’s firstly remember that a principle is not a principle until it costs you something, as in time/effort/money, or some combination of these. Here it would seem both the WWF and Peter sing off the same hymn sheet, especially when it comes to the cornerstone principle of sustainability of the species.
What WWF have famously done for the Giant Panda and many others, Peter Flack has helped do for the Cape mountain zebra. His game farm at the time, Bankfontein in the Eastern Cape, was one of the first recipients of a small private breeding herd. Released in 1990 from the Mountain Zebra Park near Cradock, this was part of an initiative to help save the species which at that time was listed as highly endangered, CITES 1. Today the herd numbers in excess of 250 (not counting numerous animals which have been caught and supplied to other ranchers as part of the initiative) on the 35 000ha Agtersneeuberg Nature Conservancy, co-founded by Peter in the late 1980s. The Reserve itself started with around 1 200 animals and today is home to more than 8 000 animals across a variety of some 27 species, including the once endangered bontebok.
This all privately funded – no donations.
As a further example of living by the principle of sustainability, Peter donated his entire collection of hunted species, worth tens of millions of Rands, free of charge to the Iziko Museum of South Africa in Cape Town. A collection of some 300 animals, which represents virtually every huntable species on the entire continent of Africa, free, gratis, for nothing. Simply there for posterity and the enjoyment of all those people who will never have the privilege of seeing all the different sub-species of eland, or kudu, or the shy bongo, the elusive forest sitatunga or fearsome dwarf buffalo, in their natural habitat, all life-size. What better way to ensure a sustainable future for one of Africa’s greatest treasures than to promote an awareness or interest in them, especially among the young people of our country and the world? Our own Smithsonian Institute, donated, right here on our doorstep. Surely another meaningful action.
So with the above in mind I think we can safely say we have ticked the PRINCIPLES box when it comes to sustainability – no obvious schisms there. In fact, plenty for both parties to rightfully be proud of.
THE INTENT
On then to intent. Do both parties have the right and same intent when it comes to “sustainability of the species”? Intent is really all about what you actually do, as opposed to what you just say. It is about the actual outcomes of a stated intent and again without seeking to labour the point I think it is fair to say that there is equanimity on this. Both have the intention of promoting “sustainability of the species” and I cannot find anything to date that negates this. The WWF with their measured stance regarding fracking and Peter’s vociferous criticism of canned lion hunting and aberrant breeding of freakish colour species, being some more recent, well-documented, examples.
Goodness knows there are enough challenges to be faced out there. Why hamstring ourselves when we could be striving for gold – together.
So based on the above it would seem that the two parties are at idem. If so, why then the harshness of summary expulsion? I mean just think back to your school days – you literally had to do something heinous to warrant expulsion – let alone a summary one.
THE REASON
What then did Peter do to warrant his expulsion?
Having gone through the exercise and not finding anything rational or objective in terms of the WWF’s motive, the only conclusion I can come to is that emotion has entered the fray. And nothing stirs emotions and clouds the thinking as much as hunting when it comes to non-hunting conservationists.
Is it perhaps because Peter’s departure point always has been and always will be that hunting, in particular ethical hunting, has a fundamental and proven role to play when it comes to conservation and sustainability of the species?
Is it perhaps the case that the hunting conservationist of today faces the same challenge of being “accepted” by non-hunting conservationists as that which »
» the rich man in the Bible faced in terms of getting through the eye of the proverbial needle to earn a place in conservation heaven?
On the contrary methinks that the real challenge is for non-hunting conservationists to pass through the storm cloud of emotion and to accept the self evident facts that hunting has been fundamental to the success of game conservation both here and worldwide.
Quite why the twain have yet to meet escapes me. Same PRINCIPLES, same INTENT – both with proven track records of success. On the one hand a largely self-funded hunter/conservationists; on the other a nonhunter, donor-dependent, conservationist organisation.
And perhaps that is where the rubber hits the road – follow the money as they say. Could it then be that the possible endorsement of hunting, and in this case a particularly high-profile hunter, represents some kind of threat to WWF’s donor base?
As a consequence could it be that a decision has been made here NOT to be a broad church accommodating all those with shared principles and intent, in pursuit of the same worthwhile objective, albeit by different routes?
Has the choice been made to represent a particular interest group and in so doing deny the fundamental, proven role hunting has played in the growth in game numbers in this country from approximately 550 000 in the mid-1960s to in excess of 18 000 000 today, to appease an armchair donor base? If so, fine – just say so, but then please change your mission statement.
Surely however it need not come to this.
RISE ABOVE
Why can’t the WWF use its prestige and credibility to rise above this seemingly impossible divide and be a reconciler? Instead of potentially driving a wedge between two conservation-minded communities, does the WWF not rather want to become a bridge builder? At present the risk is the alienation of the hunting community which numbers in the tens of thousands and what a loss that would be. Not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of a knowledge base and a willingness to contribute time and resources. A classic lose/lose scenario that will simply serve as an indictment and undermine the worthiness of the “sustainability” endeavour.
With this in mind let me close then with a quote and a specific proposal.
“Hunting is a good way to feel connected to nature. I feel like if you are going to eat meat then you should be a part of getting it, you should know where it comes from. That way you feel more connected to what you are doing and what you are eating.”
This from one of the most influential people in the world today, in particular among the all important young people who will drive the sustainability agenda in the future.
The quote is from Mark Zuckerberg, renowned founder of Facebook, who started hunting some five years ago.
Why exclude him and millions of others around the world like him who have a real interest in and appreciation for nature and its sustainability, as well as a love of ethical hunting. Who knows, he may even welcome an approach to fund a project and in so doing help prove that the twain can in fact not just meet, but do meaningful work together in the interests of sustainability. I think the word his generation uses is “cool”.
I mean how cool would that be, Mark Zuckerberg, with the power of Facebook at his ready disposal, as a member, funder and participant in our joint endeavour?
THE PROPOSAL
So then to the proposal and it is grounded in an expression from my old rugby playing days along the lines of “if you drop the ball (and yes, I was a winger), you can still score a try”.
In this case I would suggest that the WWF might well have dropped a ball (and who knows, so may Peter) by their summary expulsion of Peter Flack. The way to score a try I believe would be for them to host a forum/meeting between the WWF and the recently-formed Fair Chase Guild, co-founded by Peter and Gerhard Verdoorn, the President of SA Hunters. The express intent of this would be the establishment of a sustainable, constructive working relationship, based on mutual respect for the contribution both communities have to make and constructive roles they have to play in ensuring the success of our common endeavour, as it relates to the sustainability of species in their natural environments.
Goodness knows there are enough challenges to be faced out there. Why hamstring ourselves when we could be striving for gold – together. Why not let’s try to give truth to Isaiah’s famous prophecy that the “wolf and lamb can in fact lie down together” – here on earth, in our lifetime. Now wouldn’t that be something. After all, how can we live in harmony with nature if we can’t live in harmony with one another?
The full correspondence between WWF South Africa and Peter Flack can be found on Peter’s website: www.peterflack.co.za