Animal Charities

[crazylegs]

I overheard an interesting discussion today.

A chap was talking to one of his friends and he said that charities that support animals (IE WWF, Greenpeace, RSPCA) shouldn't receive any money from the public as people charities (Amnesty International, Liberty, NSPCC) should take precedence. He went on to say that if people put in as much time and money into people charities as they do running donkey sanctuaries and ape rescue centres in Wales then we could sort out the worlds probles a lot more quickly and effectivly.

Thoughts ladies and gents please.

[the_std]

That's an interesting thought, but what if I happen to like animals more than I like people? What if I feel no obligation whatsoever to my fellow man, but am fiercely devoted to the animal kingdom? Why should I support the ones responsible for hurting these animals? Yes, this is a broad view to take, but there are many who take it. Some people just feel zero affiliation, devotion, connection or brother/sistership with their homo sapiens sapiens family

[BlaqueKatt]

That's an interesting thought, but what if I happen to like animals more than I like people? What if I feel no obligation whatsoever to my fellow man, but am fiercely devoted to the animal kingdom? Why should I support the ones responsible for hurting these animals?

the main issues the animal charities deal with are:

Animals orphaned by poachers
you can donate money to help the orphaned animals or donate money to educate humans about the dangers of poaching, hopefully to prevent it, or to educate them so they can get a job that supports them as well as poaching would. Which actually "helps"? Taking care of the results/aftermath or preventing the poaching in the first place?

Animals who lose habitat to deforestation
you again can donate to help the animals or donate to educate the humans against deforestation, or a skill so they don't have to clear cut rain forests to raise crops/cattle. Which actually "helps"? Taking care of the results/aftermath or preventing the deforestation in the first place?


Animal abuse
again donate to help the animals, or donate to programs designed to prevent abuse, educate humans, and rehabilitate abusers. Which actually "helps"? Taking care of the results/aftermath or preventing the abuse in the first place?


donating to "help the animals" does nothing to help the animals in the long run, only by working on the causes of animal suffering(human issues) can you really help the animals. It's like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. And people not caring about their fellow human animal(yes humans are animals) is partially the cause of this in the first place.

In some areas your only choice to ensure your own survival is to clear-cut or slash and burn rainforest to raise cattle to sell. So animals are without homes, people feel sorry for the animals and donate money for the sanctuaries, but will donate nothing to assist the people who had little choice but to cut down the trees to support their families by crop/cattle farming. If the money would have been given to the humans in the first place the animals would be fine.

[DesignFox]

In some areas your only choice to ensure your own survival is to clear-cut or slash and burn rainforest to raise cattle to sell. So animals are without homes, people feel sorry for the animals and donate money for the sanctuaries, but will donate nothing to assist the people who had little choice but to cut down the trees to support their families by crop/cattle farming. If the money would have been given to the humans in the first place the animals would be fine.

Lots to respond to there, but I'm just going to pick out this one.

A lot of the issues you are referring to do have educational programs in place.

Some foundations go into the forrested areas and teach farmers to profit from the forest by means other than slashing and burning it. (i.e. raising fruits and nuts, and harvesting from the forest itself).

I wish I could remember the name of the charity, but they basically sell items made by the farmers, or allow you to donate tangible things like animals, plants and plots of land to be given to the farmers (along with an education) so that they may profit in ways that are not destructive to the environment they live in.

So, not all of these animal charities deal directly with the aftermath. In many cases that is only part of their function.

Example 1:
I know the Best Friends Animal Society not only operates a large rescue ranch for unwanted/abused animals, but they also sponsor spay/neuter programs, educational programs, and rescue efforts throughout the country.


Any animal shelter I've ever visited has educational materials available or newsletters with details on how the sponsors can get involved to help prevent the problem in the first place.

Example 2:
In New Jersey there is an animal rescue called the Popcorn Park Zoo which is affiliated with the SPCA. Also, the local SPCA newsletter is the Humane News which always has articles about work done with schools, scout troops, police officers, who to petition to change legislation, information on illegal breeders or puppy mills....etc. etc.

As a supporter of any organization it is up to us to decide which foundations are more deserving of our hard earned dollars and what causes are important to us.

I don't care if someone wants to have an ape rescue center. Good for them. If you're doing something positive and not harmful to your fellow creatures, do whatever the fuck you want with your money. Sometimes, we need people to take the short road, to get everyone else on the path to the long one...

[anriana]

I think we should stop treating cancer victims and put all the money we're wasting on them into cancer research - curing the disease is a better and long-term solution.

[AFPheonix]

People can do as they please with their money. Who am I to say what they can and cannot donate to?

As long as a 501(c) is well run and most of the money goes towards whatever the charity is helping, it's all good to me, animal or human. Besides, some charities are able to help both at the same time.

[Boozy]

I think we should stop treating cancer victims and put all the money we're wasting on them into cancer research - curing the disease is a better and long-term solution.

That's a dead-on comparison, in my opinion.

I don't think the man crazylegs overheard in the OP understands exactly what organizations like the WWF and Greenpeace do. Yes, many of their actions are focused primarily on saving wildlife. But humans can't live in a bubble, unaffected by everything else around them. Both of these charities aim to educate humans on what the destruction of the environment is doing, not just to animals, but to themselves.

Besides, there are far dumber charities. How about the non-profit "neighbourhood beautification" group in my town? These people plant flowers. That's it. In an already wealthy, well-landscaped neighbourhood. And people give money to these ridiculous human beings, because these rich fucks like lots of flowers lining their sidewalks. So they donate $20, get a tax receipt, and someone plants a few petunias.

You can't tell me that $20 wouldn't have been put to better use if they'd given it to the local animal shelter.

[Saydrah]

I think giving to charity is a personal choice and that if the person overheard doesn't think animal charities are worth donating to, he shouldn't make a donation to them.

For myself, I prefer to help charities that help animals, because the ones I choose use their funding wisely to attack both the symptoms and the root causes of problems involving conflicts between animals and humans. For example, some anti-poaching charities hire native individuals who know the area well and train them to patrol and guard the animals from poachers. This not only helps to prevent poaching, it also employs a person in an impoverished area who might otherwise have turned to poaching to feed his family, and motivates others who might use their knowledge of the area and the animals for poaching instead to apply to become a wildlife ranger.

Or, another example: Some charities that protect endangered species do so in part by promoting ecotourism (travel to see things like rare animals or pristine wilderness areas), which generates revenue for local businesses and individuals who work as tour guides, sell food or goods to tourists, and work in the hospitality industry. The local governments then see the value of preserving endangered species so as not to lose tourism dollars, and everybody wins-- at least, that's the idea.

I think the wisest choice is to carefully research any charity before giving money and ensure that you approve of the work toward which your donation will be used. My choice tends to be to give to animal-related charities, with the exception of Friendship Bridge, which uses microloans to enable women in third-world countries to start businesses.