Prince Philip and conservation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Onychorhynchus coronatus

Onychorhynchus coronatus

Well-Known Member
-- Moderator note: topic split from this thread: ZSL London Zoo News 2021 [ZSL London Zoo] --



Worth mentioning that a year after becoming the president of the Zoological Society of London and in the same year as becoming president of the WWF Philip controversially shot a Bengal tiger (against the advice of conservationists) during a trip to India.

Then for good measure he shot another one in Nepal later.

No offence to the Zoochatter Royalists out there but I just thought I'd add that for nuance on this now deceased character.

Prince Philip: Three royal visits to India and a tiger controversy - Times of India

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FBBird said:
Shot a Rhino as well. However, he certainly did more good than harm over the years.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was going to mention the Indian rhino, lol.

This quote was apparently his response pre-tiger hunt to reporters who told him of the protests in India and the UK when people discovered through a leak that he had specifically organized / planned a tiger hunt during his trip :

“Of course I plan to shoot a tiger if possible, why not?”

I think it speaks volumes about his attitude and empty platitudes over the years about wildlife conservation, "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind as does "one rule for me and one rule for the rest of you".

That said, his daughter is apparently a big supporter of Jersey zoo so Kudos to her. Even so, it doesn't change the revolting behaviour of her father though nor my dislike for monarchies.
 
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes, I was going to mention the Indian rhino, lol.

This quote was apparently his response pre-tiger hunt to reporters who told him of the protests in India and the UK when people discovered through a leak that he had specifically organized / planned a tiger hunt during his trip :

“Of course I plan to shoot a tiger if possible, why not?”

I think it speaks volumes about his attitude and empty platitudes over the years about wildlife conservation, "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind as does "one rule for me and one rule for the rest of you".

That said, his daughter is apparently a big supporter of Jersey zoo so Kudos to her. Even so, it doesn't change the revolting behaviour of her father though nor my dislike for monarchies.
Click to expand...
His behaviour may have been a holdover from traditional attitudes. He certainly took a lot of stick at the time, and maybe made up for it subsequently.
 
FBBird said:
His behaviour may have been a holdover from traditional attitudes. He certainly took a lot of stick at the time, and maybe made up for it subsequently.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course it was a holdover of colonialism and aristocratic arrogance.

However, lets bear in mind that this wasn't Wilfred Thesiger hunting lions in the Sudan in the 1930's prior to conservation even being in popular discourse but a monarch who actively went ahead with hunting tigers and rhinoceros despite enormous protests against this in both India and the UK during the 1960s when conservation was very much ascendent and knowledge of the endangerment of the tiger common.

Furthermore, he did not see any contradiction between being a president of an international wildlife conservation organization and the head of a zoological society at the time of doing this and seemingly wasn't capable of even seeing why people found this abhorent which is a staggering level of hypocrisy and narcissism IMO.

I'm not the world's biggest fan of WWF and I don't personally think anything he did after those hunts absolves him but whatever he's shuffled off his mortal coil so this is all just history.
 
Last edited:
GiraffeJack10 said:
I understand that some of us might disagree with things that he did, me included, but he has just died. Could you please try to show a bit of respect or at least keep your negative feelings about him to yourself.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sorry that some people find my mentioning of the tiger shooting somewhat... triggering (pun intended)... but I'm just stating a fact that relates to both wildlife conservation / biodiversity which is ostensibly one of the topics of this forum, isn't it ?

I know he just died but so have other world leaders or public figures like the president of Tanzania, a rapper called DMX, a theologian called Hans Kung, a pioneering epidemiologist called Dr Dilip Banerjee and the middleweight boxer Marvin Hagler and that doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing them or their legacies / lives, right ?

Why make exceptions for Royalty and particularly on a topic that is relevant to wildlife conservation ?

Feelings have nothing to do with what I've written (but probably do with some of the posts that have been replies to mine), I'm just stating what is historical fact.
 
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Well I'm sorry that some people find my mentioning of the tiger shooting somewhat triggering (pun intended) but I'm just stating a fact that relates to both wildlife conservation / biodiversity which is ostensibly one of the topics of this forum, isn't it ?

I know he just died but so have other world leaders or public figures like the president of Tanzania, a rapper called DMX, a theologian called Hans Kung, a pioneering epidemiologist called Dr Dilip Banerjee and the middleweight boxer Marvin Hagler and that doesn't and shouldn't stop us discussing them or their legacies / lives, right ?

Why make exceptions for Royalty and particularly on a topic that is relevant to wildlife conservation ?
Click to expand...
It's less of a discussion and more of a grilling. I'm not a big fan of the royal family and I don't talk about them any differently to the way I would talk about anyone else. There are people who have done far worse than Prince Philip so why people are being so negative and critical about a dead man is beyond me. He wasn't perfect but nobody is, let's not forget about the good things he did for wildlife conservation too. It's perfectly fine to feel like this about someone, I also disagree with many things he did, but to be spreading hate and negativity about someone who has just died, royalty or not, is rude, disrespectful and IMO straight up wrong.
 
GiraffeJack10 said:
It's less of a discussion and more of a grilling. I'm not a big fan of the royal family and I don't talk about them any differently to the way I would talk about anyone else. There are people who have done far worse than Prince Philip so why people are being so negative and critical about a dead man is beyond me. He wasn't perfect but nobody is, let's not forget about the good things he did for wildlife conservation too. It's perfectly fine to feel like this about someone, I also disagree with many things he did, but to be spreading hate and negativity about someone who has just died, royalty or not, is rude, disrespectful and IMO straight up wrong.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a grilling, it is very much a nuanced discussion with a bit of irony and critique thrown in, basically freedom of speech.

I'm not spreading hate either so I'd rather you didn't imply that as I was just stating the facts.

Whatsmore, these are facts and cannot be said to be anything other and it is irrelevant to me whether he opened a tiger enclosure at ZSL or not or whether people are offended or triggered.

The fact remains that he still shot two tigers and a rhinoceros in India while he was head of WWF and the Zoological Society of London and was totally nonchalant about this despite all of the platitudes towards conservation for his entire life.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
I wouldn't call it a grilling, it is very much a nuanced discussion with a bit of irony and critique thrown in.

I'm not spreading hate either so I'd rather you didn't imply that as I was just stating the facts which are facts.
Click to expand...
I understand that they're facts but do you think that this is really the time to be talking about them. These things happened a long time ago and he received a fair amount of criticism for each of the things that he did.
 
GiraffeJack10 said:
I understand that they're facts but do you think that this is really the time to be talking about them. These things happened a long time ago and he received a fair amount of criticism for each of the things that he did.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, no time like the present.

They are facts and I am not going to apologize for stating them as I'm not too fond of snowflakery.

Here is a lovely platitude of his from 1962 (a year after he shot the two tigers and the rhinoceros in India):

"For conservation to be successful it is necessary to take into consideration that it is a characteristic of man that he can only be relied upon to do anything consistently which is in his own interest. He may have occasional fits of conscience and moral rectitude but otherwise his actions are governed by self-interest. It follows then that whatever the moral reasons for conservation it will only be achieved by the inducement of profit or pleasure."

I wonder if he felt any of those stirring sentiments as he was staring down the sights / barrell of his rifle ? It evidently induced some pleasure though.
 
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Absolutely, no time like the present.

They are facts and I am not going to apologize for stating them as I'm not too fond of snowflakery.

Here is a lovely platitude of his from 1962 (a year after he shot the two tigers and the rhinoceros in India):

"For conservation to be successful it is necessary to take into consideration that it is a characteristic of man that he can only be relied upon to do anything consistently which is in his own interest. He may have occasional fits of conscience and moral rectitude but otherwise his actions are governed by self-interest. It follows then that whatever the moral reasons for conservation it will only be achieved by the inducement of profit or pleasure."

I wonder if he felt any of those
Click to expand...
Snowflakery, huh? All I'm saying is that a bit of respect for the dead wouldn't go a miss. You must be a barrel of laughs at a funeral.
 
GiraffeJack10 said:
Snowflakery, huh? All I'm saying is that a bit of respect for the dead wouldn't go a miss. You must be a barrel of laughs at a funeral.
Click to expand...

I am not disrespecting a dead man by mentioning something that he actually did during his life which are facts and critiquing this.

I suppose I am in someways actually as I've always rather liked the idea of the Irish wake.
 
Last edited:
Anyway guys, I'll leave it at that.

But I'll just inject some realism before I move on to another thread and take the opportunity to point out that here are the obituaries of some true conservationists (no platitudes, no hypocrisy , no life in luxurious palaces) who died or were murdered this year and last year :

A conservationist who saved 2 species — a parrot and a rare palm tree — was murdered by gangs in Colombia

Notable deaths in conservation in 2020

Colombian environmental official assassinated in southern Meta department

South African environmental activist shot dead in her home

Sadness And Worry After 2 Men Connected To Butterfly Sanctuary Are Found Dead

South African rhino investigator and conservationist, Leroy Brewer murdered - Ventures Africa

A death in Amazonia highlights the death of a global dream of conservation

Calls for justice after latest murder of indigenous Guajajara leader in Brazil

Well, toodle pip and all that !
 
Last edited:
More nuance on Phil's rather controversial relationship and legacy with conservation :

Tigers, elephants ask: what have royals ever done for us?

Prince Philip shocked the nation with huge hunting kill in India – what happened?

WWF International accused of 'selling its soul' to corporations

Why the WWF’s ‘Fortress Conservation’ model is ethically wrong

Medium

Local communities feared repression from WWF, investigation finds

Report: WWF knew about rights abuses by park rangers, but didn’t respond effectively

WWF scandal (part 3): Embezzlement and evictions in Tanzania | REDD-Monitor

The Prince of Wales, the rhino leg waste-paper basket, and the Museums Association’s Disposal Toolkit

WWF Executives Were Warned Of Widespread Atrocities By Anti-Poaching Rangers The Charity Funded

Sign the Petition



 
Last edited:
birdsandbats said:
While @Onychorhynchus coronatus could have had a some better choices of word I have trouble seeing why this offensive. Maybe I'm missing something here.
Click to expand...

I suppose I could have had a bit more tact with my wording but then I am not a royalist and I don't feel the need to bend the knee to any monarch dead or living, either figuratively or in my speech / writing, thats just how I am.

Thank you for saying so @birdsandbats , very much appreciated, I don't see why this is offensive either (apart from a few things I said tongue in cheek and even then it was very tame stuff and nothing to get teary eyed about).

Generally speaking when someone in the public eye / a public figure dies there is usually an appraisal / critique of their life, right ? so why not ?

Moreover, there is quite a lot to critique with regards to Prince Philip and his role in conservation and I would have thought that others would perhaps have seen the value in discussing it considering that this is essentially a forum about wildlife / conservation but apparently not...oh well... nevermind..:rolleyes:
 
FBBird said:
His behaviour may have been a holdover from traditional attitudes. He certainly took a lot of stick at the time, and maybe made up for it subsequently.
Click to expand...

Actually thats an interesting point but just for the sake of debate, even if it was a holdover from traditional attitudes it could be said that it was a rather antiquiated one.

If you look at the actions of shooting large endangered mammals like tigers and rhinoceros whilst also claiming to be a conservationist this most closely resembles the conduct of the "early conservationists" or as they were known sarcastically the "penitent butchers".

The "penitent butchers" big game hunter movement which coined the term "preservationists" (later to become "conservationists") and that lobbied the government of the British empire for legislation to regulate the hunting of African and Indian game animals (that they themselves shot and wanted to keep on shooting) were basically Victorians / Edwardians around at the turn of the 20th century in the 1890's, 1900's and 1910's.

It follows then that it might therefore be said in a very unflattering way that Phillip with these actions in the 1960s was totally a throwback / anachronistic figure with a mentality and lifestyle (and dare I say title ?) behind the times and more appropriate to the Victorian age ?

*I suppose you could say that Peter Scott was a "penitent butcher" in some ways but he wasn't behind the times but very much in sync with them and certainly did far more on a personal / individual level as a conservationist than Philip ever did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top