Maybe this is a rant, I hope not...
I just got a fundraising email from Project AWARE which said, quote,
"Last year, our supporters helped Project AWARE win international protections for 21 vulnerable shark and ray species."
OK, PA is well known to take credit for the work of others, (They "motivate" the work...) and everyone pumps up their cred sometimes, but this seemed kinda cheeky. So I looked at the PA website and found these statements:
"At the last meeting held in 2010, eight worthy and more heavily fished shark species were denied listing. More than 130,000 of us have voiced our disappointment..."
&
"Since 2010, when eight shark species were declined CITES listing..."
I have studied CITES and its operations, and it doesn't really work that way. I also have an extremely high regard for CITES, as it has been a phenomenal success, especially if you consider what it takes to get 178 nations to agree to stop trading in a species, and also to enforce these bans with their own police forces and judiciaries. These statements, and their context, are implying that CITES failed and turned their backs on shark protection until Project Aware came to the rescue and forced them to reconsider.
This is going beyond 'enhancing' their own role in these matters - this involves insulting and demeaning the work of others who have given their lives over to a monumentally difficult and yet successful mission. And it also does this by going beyond fibbing - It is an outright distortion of reality, and is extremely inappropriate, in my estimation.
I decided to look into the issue...
FYI CITES has been working to protect sharks for at least 15 years. It is not just a matter of "declining" or "choosing" to list a species, CITES has to be certain that member nations will enforce these rules. It starts with getting everyone to do research and submit data, which is costly and requires organization and participation world-wide. This data must be analyzed and then CITES must find a rational, convincing, science-based reason to list a species and thereby require nations to act and enforce these decisions.
It is a long process, but only in this way will the listings be taken seriously and enforced. You can't just list a critter because people in one nation or in one industry or who enjoy one activity want it listed. That would undermine the validity of the process and undermine the equal status of member nations.
*****CITES never declined to list these sharks, they never denied protections. The process just had not come to fruition in 2010. They passed a resolution to continue the collection of scientific findings and re-visit the matter at the next meeting in 2013.*****
As it turns out, it was in late 2010-2011 that Project AWARE decided to focus on shark preservation. They had never before attended or supported this process. They had no interaction with CITES until 2013, when they sent 3 people to a conference attended by 1900 people, many of whom, like the WWF and Pew conservation (and dozens upon dozens more), had been attending meetings for decades and sending dozens of highly active delegates.
But it was, apparently, a losing battle until Project AWARE stepped in, with 3 delegates who had no previous experience, and armed with a petition, they "won" the battle at long last!!
Ok, I want feel-good stories on conservation, they are great. But there is a difference between cheering the success of a process/project, and cheering for yourself. especially if you are cheering and aggrandizing yourself while diminishing and insulting the community of activists who did the real work.
I am forced to wonder if PA intentionally chose shark preservation as their cause De Luxe precisely because they knew that CITES was finalizing the process after 2010. That would be beyond cheeky - that would be horribly cynical and dishonest.
I asked PA's outreach director for more info, and have not been acknowledged. I do not think I can continue to help this organization or support it at all, or ask my customers to do so. I think I will do more research and see if there is more, or less to this. I wonder what else they have 'enhanced" their role in that I am not "aware" of???
I just got a fundraising email from Project AWARE which said, quote,
"Last year, our supporters helped Project AWARE win international protections for 21 vulnerable shark and ray species."
OK, PA is well known to take credit for the work of others, (They "motivate" the work...) and everyone pumps up their cred sometimes, but this seemed kinda cheeky. So I looked at the PA website and found these statements:
"At the last meeting held in 2010, eight worthy and more heavily fished shark species were denied listing. More than 130,000 of us have voiced our disappointment..."
&
"Since 2010, when eight shark species were declined CITES listing..."
I have studied CITES and its operations, and it doesn't really work that way. I also have an extremely high regard for CITES, as it has been a phenomenal success, especially if you consider what it takes to get 178 nations to agree to stop trading in a species, and also to enforce these bans with their own police forces and judiciaries. These statements, and their context, are implying that CITES failed and turned their backs on shark protection until Project Aware came to the rescue and forced them to reconsider.
This is going beyond 'enhancing' their own role in these matters - this involves insulting and demeaning the work of others who have given their lives over to a monumentally difficult and yet successful mission. And it also does this by going beyond fibbing - It is an outright distortion of reality, and is extremely inappropriate, in my estimation.
I decided to look into the issue...
FYI CITES has been working to protect sharks for at least 15 years. It is not just a matter of "declining" or "choosing" to list a species, CITES has to be certain that member nations will enforce these rules. It starts with getting everyone to do research and submit data, which is costly and requires organization and participation world-wide. This data must be analyzed and then CITES must find a rational, convincing, science-based reason to list a species and thereby require nations to act and enforce these decisions.
It is a long process, but only in this way will the listings be taken seriously and enforced. You can't just list a critter because people in one nation or in one industry or who enjoy one activity want it listed. That would undermine the validity of the process and undermine the equal status of member nations.
*****CITES never declined to list these sharks, they never denied protections. The process just had not come to fruition in 2010. They passed a resolution to continue the collection of scientific findings and re-visit the matter at the next meeting in 2013.*****
As it turns out, it was in late 2010-2011 that Project AWARE decided to focus on shark preservation. They had never before attended or supported this process. They had no interaction with CITES until 2013, when they sent 3 people to a conference attended by 1900 people, many of whom, like the WWF and Pew conservation (and dozens upon dozens more), had been attending meetings for decades and sending dozens of highly active delegates.
But it was, apparently, a losing battle until Project AWARE stepped in, with 3 delegates who had no previous experience, and armed with a petition, they "won" the battle at long last!!
Ok, I want feel-good stories on conservation, they are great. But there is a difference between cheering the success of a process/project, and cheering for yourself. especially if you are cheering and aggrandizing yourself while diminishing and insulting the community of activists who did the real work.
I am forced to wonder if PA intentionally chose shark preservation as their cause De Luxe precisely because they knew that CITES was finalizing the process after 2010. That would be beyond cheeky - that would be horribly cynical and dishonest.
I asked PA's outreach director for more info, and have not been acknowledged. I do not think I can continue to help this organization or support it at all, or ask my customers to do so. I think I will do more research and see if there is more, or less to this. I wonder what else they have 'enhanced" their role in that I am not "aware" of???
Last edited:
