• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Conservation and Wildlife (Almost $100 already donated)

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
I find it particularly depressing that when we had a sister thread going "Hey, don't donate to these people because they're anti-LGBTQ+ and fund shit like conversion therapy", the reply was "Well I never had a problem with them and their bell-ringer seemed nice!", but now when talking about donating to various environmental protection / conservation / restoration groups we have multiple people come in trying to warn us against it because "It's all totally corrupt" and "Billionaires already have funding under control" and "You're just doing this to virtue signal". Curious that when it comes to conservation and climate change we get people crawling out of the woodworks to proclaim responsibility in one's donations and thorough vetting (to the point of suggesting not donating anything until 100% certain!), but when it comes to human rights "You're just exaggerating" (admittedly I'm pretty sure that's going to be the next step when people are eventually bothered enough to dig up documents to show they're donating to trustworthy causes: "Oh it's not as bad as people say", we already had that happen with the whole insect ecosystem going tits up. Something I'm sure is entirely unrelated to a lot of problems being faced by our feathered friends).

Like, this shit is getting pretty dire. And is often not being helped by official policy. Birds very much need our support, so while I do recommend people take time and look carefully... it's chiefly to see which ecosystems they think their money can most immediately help. Because trust me: We will notice when the birds are gone.
 

Ovidia Dragoness

Udder Derg
Banned
I find it particularly depressing that when we had a sister thread going "Hey, don't donate to these people because they're anti-LGBTQ+ and fund shit like conversion therapy", the reply was "Well I never had a problem with them and their bell-ringer seemed nice!", but now when talking about donating to various environmental protection / conservation / restoration groups we have multiple people come in trying to warn us against it because "It's all totally corrupt" and "Billionaires already have funding under control" and "You're just doing this to virtue signal". Curious that when it comes to conservation and climate change we get people crawling out of the woodworks to proclaim responsibility in one's donations and thorough vetting (to the point of suggesting not donating anything until 100% certain!), but when it comes to human rights "You're just exaggerating" (admittedly I'm pretty sure that's going to be the next step when people are eventually bothered enough to dig up documents to show they're donating to trustworthy causes: "Oh it's not as bad as people say", we already had that happen with the whole insect ecosystem going tits up. Something I'm sure is entirely unrelated to a lot of problems being faced by our feathered friends).

Like, this shit is getting pretty dire. And is often not being helped by official policy. Birds very much need our support, so while I do recommend people take time and look carefully... it's chiefly to see which ecosystems they think their money can most immediately help. Because trust me: We will notice when the birds are gone.
I'm just doing my best whenever I can. I know there are probably more dire situations that need my attention but I just did what felt right.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!

Guifrog

Blue Frog | Avatar by Lenago
@Infrarednexus +1 post:
GuSlavz.gif


Noticed the party parrot SVG's file is CC-SA so I thought I'd give my input ^w^
 

Anthrasmagoria

Space Cadet
This thread probably isn't the place to begin discussing the nuances of this subject; there is not room to address whether trophy hunting changes the genetic resilience of populations by selectively killing the largest males, whether quotas for a safe number of a threatened species that can be killed are generated in a trustworthy way (for example quotas are issued for the number of African leopards that can be killed in spite of nobody really being sure how many African leopards exist in the wild or whether investment from trophy hunting is even benefiting them anyway), or whether an economic model for conservation that requires African communities to be economically reliant on North American and European 1-percenters is really sustainable. What happens if it becomes clear trophy hunting has become unsustainable for a species, but an African community has become economically reliant on continuing the practice?

Long essays could be written on any of these subjects.

Agreed. But long story short, I don't think the wildlife has the time. Humans are the current mass extinction event for most large mammal species on earth and there probably won't be any sustainable populations of them 50 years hence if there's only talk and study and no on-the-ground action to preserve them ASAP. I mean I do think we're in last resort territory with many species now. The human population is going to increase in these areas and the situation is likely to continue to get worse.
 
Last edited:

Attaman

"I say we forget this business and run."
Regrettably, we're already experiencing a number of ecosystem collapses (I've mentioned birds and insects above, but a lot of tropical waters are also under dire threat due to changes in temperature and / or acidity: While not necessarily tropic, one prominent example of this is the waters around Tasmania and the nigh-extinction of their giant kelp beds / the effect that's been had on its oyster farming).

This is a large part of why it's so important to start on this today (or, ideally, yesterday) instead of waiting until it's unignorable: Because we're already in the "ignorable" stage, and said stage is already far too late to recover the ecosystems in question during our lifetimes. If we're lucky, we might be able to at least stabilize them and see the start of a bounce back within that period (or, most probably, a far less rapid death / adjustment). If we're unlucky (or, more likely, don't even bother), we're very likely to enter an era wherein the ecosystems of our grandchildren will look utterly distinct / unrecognizable from the ones we inherited from our grandparents. "I remember when cod was not a luxury food", for example, or "I use to wake up to the song of several birds that you can now only find inside a zoo."
 
Top