https://sway.com/Qyi8HZfnWPepnpPe



Scroll down to the end of his news letter and have a look.

The man wants to , and is doing something constructive about the dire position that hunting and associated conservation is in.

I think he merits some support.

A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
The TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE
(TGA)

On 27th February, 2016, a new South African NGO was born: THE TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE (TGA). A board of directors was created and an interim president and CEO were appointed. A more permanent structure will be established later in the year.

It is the TGA’s primary purpose to discredit the doctrine of animal rightsism within the governments and parliaments of southern Africa, and within the public domain.

VISION
To create a southern African (ultimately global) society that is properly informed with regard to the principles and practices of wildlife management; that understands the wisdom of, and necessity for, the sustainable utilisation of living resources (both wild and domestic) for the benefit of mankind; and that rejects the animal rights doctrine.
MISSION
• To educate society with regard to all aspects of the TGA vision.
• To field a fully trained, responsible and passionate team of TGA experts that will constantly and actively counteract animal rights propaganda; reverse pro-animal rights perceptions within southern African societies and governments; and that will purge society of the pernicious scourge of animal rights activism.
• To create a strong, broad-based, credible and respected alliance of individuals, businesses, other NGO organisations and organs of government, that are involved with the management of living resources; and that, collectively, will constantly strive to achieve the TGA’s vision.
The TGA has been endorsed by the leading members of South Africa’s wildlife industry: WRSA (Wildlife Ranching South Africa); SAHGCA (The South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association); PHASA (The Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa); CHASA (The Confederation of Hunting Associations of South Africa); and PROA (The Private Rhino Owners Association). Others to follow! It can be said, therefore, that the TGA is already truly representative of South Africa’s wildlife industry in its battle to wrestle free from the destructive and irrational tentacles of the international animal rights brigade and its local camp followers.

The TGA and the ANIMAL RIGHTS DOCTRINE
The TGA believes that only through the application of honest science will mankind fully understand the natural world; and how to develop rational and effective techniques to manage its living resources.
There is a range of individual philosophies within the realm of ‘animal rights’ but most adherents hold similar foundational beliefs:
• That each individual animal should be afforded the same basic rights as humans;
• That every animal should live free from human-induced pain and suffering;
• That animals should not be exploited for any human purpose;
• That every individual animal has equal status, regardless of commonality or rarity; or whether or not the species is native, exotic, invasive or feral; and
• That it is wrong for man to take a sentient animal’s life.
It is the animal rightists’ purpose to ABOLISH all animal uses (both domestic and wild) by man; and to force mankind to subsist on a vegetable diet alone.
The only way the animal rightists can achieve these goals is by radically changing the established lifestyles of human societies; and thereby violating a great many legitimate human rights. All things considered, therefore, the TGA believes there is no place in responsible and civilised society for the animal rights doctrine.
TGA recognises that there are profound differences between animal “rights” and animal “welfare”; and it is aware that many members of society, unfortunately, believe they are one and the same thing. TGA will strive to correct this misconception.
In contrast with the animal rights doctrine, the true animal welfare philosophy accepts that animals provide many benefits to mankind; and that civilisation would not survive if man was denied the right to use them. The welfarists’ only proviso is that when man uses or kills an animal to obtain benefits, such practices are conducted humanely.
The animal rightists believe that animal welfare organisations represent the greatest impediment to the achievement of their prohibition objectives because, they complain, the welfarists inculcate in society’s mind, the notion that man’s use of animals is acceptable.
The animal rights philosophy, therefore, is totally incompatible with science-based wildlife management.
Regrettably, throughout the last 40 years - during the South African wildlife industry’s developmental phase - whilst acknowledging the animal rightists’ existence, everyone failed to recognise the danger they represented. Hunters and game ranchers, alike, tended to believe that the “greenies” were merely a bunch of fools; and that they would eventually disappear if they were ignored.
Leaving the animal rightists alone, however, provided these nefarious people with an open playing field - without any opposition - on which they have, with ever growing success, been winning over the hearts and minds of southern African society.
Nevertheless, as a result of the furore created by the legitimate hunting of a single black rhino bull in Namibia; the ‘Cecil the Lion’ incident; several other lesser skirmishes; and the ban imposed by major international airlines on the transportation of African hunting trophies, the danger posed by these pernicious people has now, at last, been realised. There is no longer any doubt that all facets of Africa’s wildlife industries have become major animal rightist targets.
The TGA is now girding its loins, therefore, to become the opposing team - representing the interests of South Africa’s wildlife industry, and all responsible organisations and intelligent nature loving people in southern Africa - that will challenge animal rightist activities at every turn. The TGA will win - because it has justice, truth, integrity and common sense on its side... but only if everybody continues to stand together; and only if the wildlife industry and southern African society, continue to support it. The TGA cannot fight this battle alone!
The TGA, therefore, invites everybody to join it: everybody who cares about the success of our wildlife industry; and everybody who cares about the future of Africa, of Africa’s people and of its wildlife. If you would like to receive the TGA news and information bulletins - free from any obligation - kindly register your name and contact details with the admin. officer Dave McRae, by email, to: daveandco@mweb.co.za
In due course formal membership invitations will be issued. Any enquiries from interested parties in the First World are more than welcome!

Ron Thomson.
The TRUE GREEN ALLIANCE

Thanks for sharing this Jan. Thompson's style is (perhaps necessarily) radical, but I think this organisation is a good idea. I'll certainly be joining, because sustainable-use is the best chance Africa's wildlife has.

quote:

kindly register your name and contact details with the admin. officer Dave McRae, by email, to: daveandco@gmail.com I

ATTENTION....
hi all please note the email here

"kindly register your name and contact details with the admin. officer Dave McRae, by email, to: daveandco@gmail.com "

has been changed to

daveandco@mweb.co.za

email and get on the membership list. cheers mike

Pity that groups like the USFWS do not pay more attention to folks like Ron, who I would venture knows more about elephant conservation than all the so-called experts at the USFWS combined.

quote:

That each individual animal should be afforded the same basic rights as humans;

That is the part which i do not like!

Isn't this what is causing all the hassle in the world today?

Giving animals HUMAN RIGHTS!??

How many humans are bred to be killed and fed to humanity??

Hats off to him for doing this, but I think we should not go off on a tangent right from the start.

I'm not getting you Saeed.

As I understand it he is outlining the animal rights doctrine, not condoning it?

Are hunters to some extent not also putting animal's lives ahead of humans'? Particularly in the case of elephants that share space with villagers. Hunter $ contribute to the elephants staying, while the villager on the ground would perhaps prefer they went extinct so that he can farm in peace?

quote:

Originally posted by Black Lechwe:
I'm not getting you Saeed.

As I understand it he is outlining the animal rights doctrine, not condoning it?

Are hunters to some extent not also putting animal's lives ahead of humans'? Particularly in the case of elephants that share space with villagers. Hunter $ contribute to the elephants staying, while the villager on the ground would perhaps prefer they went extinct so that he can farm in peace?

Thank you, you are right.

I just looked at the headings and saw that, which got me on the wrong track.

Ron Thomson is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable authorities there is, and nothe only does he know of what he speaks this type of NGO is a brilliant concept. Now comes the crunch: will it receive the support it deserves and needs from the other stakeholders or will they just keep doing their own thing with their heads buried in the sand?

quote:

Originally posted by Barry Groulx:
Ron Thomson is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable authorities there is, and nothe only does he know of what he speaks this type of NGO is a brilliant concept. Now comes the crunch: will it receive the support it deserves and needs from the other stakeholders or will they just keep doing their own thing with their heads buried in the sand?

Right Barry. It will be interesting. Everyone is moaning and bitching about how bad and ridiculous the anti hunting onslaught is. Then support someone who is prepared to take the fight to them. SCI and DSC might want to look into giving them their support. Work together. Maybe they are already. No one can do it alone.

Jan,

I agree 100%.

I had a chat with Ron and I believe this is the right NGO to support as its an holistic approach and not only focusing on one subject or species.

I have seen their mission statement and goals. It looks great to me.

Maybe Ron will come on here and let us know more.

Lets hope Ron can bring us all together , there are so many groups and individuals working in isolation that progress is slow.

At the AWCF it was discussed at length the need for a body to take the lead , John Jackson was of the opinion that it could be funded , with a backup of academics / experts on retainers to be called on at short notice to react at short notice, it was also suggested that a proactive stand be taken by securing a PR company to publicize all the positive stories.

Looks like Ron Thompson has already started his expose on the anti hunting rhetoric

RN...



The Conservation Imperative.
June 4 at 1:09pm ·


Interesting article by Ron Thomson about Kenya’s Ivory Burn 2016
History repeating itself?

Kenya’s disgraceful burning of 105 tonnes of elephant ivory and 1 350 kg of rhino horn, on 30 April 2016, was history repeating itself.

In 1992, The South African Guardian and Weekly Newspaper invited me to share a public platform at Wits University with Kenya’s sycophantic animal rightist, Richard Leaky - who was, at that time, still the Director of the Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS). We debated the elephant management controversy.

Kenya’s controversial burning of 12 tonnes of ivory in 1989 was, then, still a very hot topic.

During the intermission - whilst Leaky and I were having a quiet cup of tea together - I asked him outright: “How can you justify burning US$ 3 million worth of ivory on a continent which is crying out for international aid, and where poverty faces many human communities?”

“Hah!” he retorted with delight. “You obviously don’t know the full story. You see...” he explained, “The American government approached me and asked me what the value of Kenya’s stockpile of ivory was. I already knew the answer so I told them – US$ 3 million”. (The price of ivory is much higher today!)

“ ‘Would you be prepared to publicly burn it?’ they asked me.”
“ ‘And why should I do that?’ I asked them.”

“ ‘Because we believe that you support the proposed CITES ivory trade ban’ they said. ‘And because we believe that, if the proposal is to succeed, it will be necessary to create a huge spectacle - one extravagant enough to catch the imagination of world society. A huge pile of burning elephant tusks will do just that,’ they replied.”

“ ‘And what will Kenya get out of it?’ I asked them.” Leaky smiled at me then: “That is how it started,” he asserted.
“And, in the end, what DID Kenya get out of it?” I asked Leaky.
“We were given an outright grant of US$ 150 million to restructure Kenya’s tourism industry,” Leaky grinned smugly. “And that was followed by another US$ 150 million which is being spread over the next ten years. This latter amount is being used to reinforce the tourism enterprises that we set up with the original grant. The second 150 million dollars is a soft, low interest loan. And we are in the middle of spending that money right now,” he beamed.

“So you burned the ivory!”

“So we burned US$ 3 million worth of ivory,” Leaky agreed, “and in return the Americans gave us US$ 300 million for doing so.” He grinned then like a Cheshire cat. “So, at a cost of US$ 3 million, Kenya gained US$ 300 million. That, to my way of thinking, is a pretty good bargain.... don’t you think?”

Two most important messages emanate from this tale:

(1). The burning of the ivory was not Kenya’s idea - although the 1989 ivory bonfire was hailed by the international press as giving a clear message to the world that “AFRICA” was not prepared to tolerate the alleged continued commercial poaching of its elephants by the much vaunted Chinese ‘mafia’.

(2). The American administration was working “in cahoots” with the accredited animal rights NGOs at CITES - who, that year, had proposed and unanimously endorsed the ivory trade ban. There is no doubt at all, however, that the American administration also wanted the ivory trade ban established; and there is no doubt at all that their connivance with Leakey over the bonfire was to reinforce what the animal rightist NGOs had planned and were doing at CITES.

Furthermore, although the proposal for the CITES ivory trade ban in 1989 was signed by the Tanzanian president, it was Britain’s Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) (A radical animal rightist NGO) that compiled and wrote the protocol; and it was they who orchestrated the entire charade. Without their intervention, planning and the execution of their plan, there would have been no ivory trade ban proposal in 1989.
So the1989 CITES trade ban proposal was not an African initiative at all. Nor was the proposal made by an official CITES delegate. It was contrived and executed entirely by a British animal rights NGO.

And now we have a repeat performance in 2016. Just prior to this year’s CITES convention in Johannesburg, we have had an ivory bonfire in Kenya that is 10 times bigger than the one in 1989; and what do we have on the forthcoming CITES agenda? An animal rights’ orchestrated proposal to place a complete ban on the entire wildlife trade worldwide!

I wonder who paid who (in Kenya) this time round? Someone, or some organisation, must have greased at least one very important Kenyan palm to get the country to agree to such an expensive bonfire(?) - which, this year, sent over US$ 200 million worth of ivory and rhino horn up in smoke.

The irony of this whole debacle is that when the fires were roaring, Uhuru Kenyatta - Kenya’s current president - proudly proclaimed: “Ivory is worthless unless it is on elephants”.
I don’t think Uhuru’s mother, ‘Mamma Ngina’ - currently considered to be the richest woman in Africa - will agree with him!

Ngina Kenyatta is reputed to have been ‘the chief butcher’ in the continuous commercial poaching events that took place in Kenya in the 1970s and 1980s. During that period - as First Lady of the Land - it is alleged that she promised immunity from arrest to her army of village poachers who systematically reduced Kenya’s elephant population from an estimated 270 000 to 20 000 in less than 20 years – during which time she also ordered the killing of 10 000 black rhinos for their horns.
Between 1977 and 1993 Tanzania’s elephants were said to have been reduced from 365 000 to 53 000 in a similar, but separate, exercise.

The so-called ‘Chinese mafia’ and East Africa’s ‘greedy peasants’ - whom the animal rightist NGOs accused jointly of being the people behind these wildlife crimes - were not the real culprits at all. Those who orchestrated the poaching events were Kenya’s and Tanzania’s political and social elite!

Nevertheless, a mass of poverty-stricken and unemployed rural peasants were guilty of pulling many of the triggers. They acted, however, (according to the media and others) under instructions from ‘the highest authorities in the land.’

The poached ivory (and rhino horn) was periodically containerised and shipped out to the Far Eastern markets, without CITES export permits (but with presidential approvals), from East Africa’s own Indian Ocean seaports. The raping of East Africa’s elephants and rhinos in the 1970s and 1980s, therefore, happened within what amounted to national, institutional and industrial business phenomena.

The 1989 CITES ivory trade ban - ostensibly instituted to ‘save’ the African elephant from extinction - therefore, was a complete farce.

Now we have the same cycle - almost act for act - repeating itself. The animal rightists’ objective, this time round, is the total destruction of the wildlife trade. And when you add up all the markers, the current American administration is, once again, deeply embedded in the conspiracy.

The tragedy is that, if the current American administration and its animal rightist NGO surrogates succeed, wildlife throughout Africa will be doomed. And South Africa’s commercial wildlife industry will be destroyed.

Don’t anybody think otherwise than that the current American administration is working hand-in-glove with the animal rights brigade (again) with regard to their joint onslaught in Africa at this time! Neither of them, therefore, can be called a friend of Africa; of Africa’s people; or of Africa’s wildlife.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sun Tzu. The Art of War.

There is a lot at stake here, and the people of southern Africa should not be in any way complacent about all the animal rights propaganda that is being constantly forced down their throats.

Ron Thomson.

excellent article

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:
http://www.mahohboh.org/2017/0...-in-serious-trouble/

Can someone reassure me that this is a worthwhile organization to join and donate to?

Since most safari hunters (and therefore revenue) are American, it would make great sense if a 501(c)3 non-profit organization was establisher in the U.S. to facilitate donations here. That would encourage fund raising and provide a base for educating the American public about the science of wildlife management.

I hope Ron Thomson can export his ideas to the U.S.