That’s what we need – NGOs with campaigning zeal!

The state-sanctioned snaring of Scotland’s mountain hares appears to be over after a wildlife quango suggested there will be a clampdown on permits to kill the iconic species.‘ says The Sunday Times today.

The charity OneKind has been at the forefront of this campaign and they deserve a lot of credit for this decision being made.  See what they say here.

I just became a member.

7 Comments

  1. Alan Parfitt says:

    This is a magnificent effort by OneKind to achieve this result. You are quite right Mark about NGOs needing to step up much more with campaigning zeal. With the present very right wing governments in power in both Westminster and Washington all conservation NGOs must expect to campaign vigorously in the next few years to defend nature which will come under a lot of threat on both sides of the Atlantic.
    For example I understand Defra is in a state of “melt down” hardly able to respond to any thing and certainly not prepared, able, or interested in defending nature in any way.

  2. Alister J Clunas says:

    Well done One Kind. The charity is also campaigning to end the culling of mountain hares in the Cairngorms National Park. Sign the postcard to the Park here

    http://onekind.scot/campaigns/protect_mountain_hares_in_cairngorms_national_park/

  3. Les Wallace says:

    It looks like Onekind are going to be up there with the League Against Cruel Sports in terms of their effectiveness. I was very impressed by them at the demo at the Scottish parliament last November where they spoke against the mountain hare cull. I think quite a few MSPs were too. If only the mainstream conservation and environmental organisations could show more backbone and go on the offensive more. There’s more in the pipeline from Onekind I’m sure.

  4. Bob Morris says:

    Grouse moor management. Killing virtually every living thing within a given area by shooting, burning, trapping or poisoning, so that one species can proliferate. Then killing the one species that is left. I’m finding it difficult to fit that into my definition of conservation. But that is how they prefer to describe it. I’m confused.

  5. Jackie White says:

    The small charities are often the best, despite that they don’t have the funds of the big guns. One of the well known charities I support (a life member….so I can’t unsubscribe ) seems more interested in what sort of play equipment to buy ! Maybe I need to reconsider some of my membership subs and support the little guys, who are getting things done for the animals and the environment.

  6. Nimby says:

    “Bang for buck” it does tend to be the small to medium charities, the ‘big guys’ have sadly become too dependent on financial crumbs and cosy relationships? Recruiting to stand still and reliant upon projects to support core etc.? Not listening or communicating effectively to members can also alienate?

    Could you imagine the impact if all conservation charities irrespective of size were to work together – what an awesome prospect? That would have the establishment bad guys and their parliamentary pals worried?

    So, well done One Kind and well done SNH – but please, don’t buckle to pressure and do a U-turn because I want to be able to visit a Scotland rich in a diverse assemblage of wildlife and a natural landscape (ok, as near as we have left).

    I do so find the term Animal Rights Activist irritating, are we not all ‘conservationists’ who see the case for natural ecological balance?

    Congratulations Scotland, especially One Kind. Here’s to England following suit with hares, badgers, otters, hen harriers etc.

  7. AlanTwo says:

    Not only is this a success for a relatively small charity, but it is also a success for the ‘animal welfare’ argument.
    The reason given for the ban is reduce unnecessary suffering, and the review is not couched in conservation terms at all.
    If we are serious about curtailing the unpleasant activities of the shooting brigade (many of which do have conservation implications) we are simply nuts if we don’t use animal welfare arguments where appropriate and support others who advance them. Most of those involved with animal welfare issues are not animal rights extremists – they’re just ordinary, law-abiding people who find the abuse of animals revolting.
    And there are lots of them.

Leave Your Comment

Your email will not be published or shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*