Hi Tsering, as the author of this piece I can say that you’ve misunderstood it. Back when I considered myself an animal activist, the people I ran with were motivated by a confused mixture of animal welfare and conservation. I never even heard animal rights discussed. As the picture fell into place for me, I realised that conservation was my prime concern. Animal rights activism has only become a popular cause in the last 20 years or so, and I feel sure that if I had been exposed to it at an early age, I would have rejected it. So I really don’t think I’ve done a 180 at all. What is unfortunate, I think, is that the term “animal activist” has now become synonymous with “animal rights activist”. I hope today’s youth can understand that you don’t need to believe in animal rights to fight for animal welfare and conservation.

Maybe he had some heart initially to defend animal rights but too bad his heart wasn’t strong enough to endure people challenging his beliefs. He was indeed gullible and lost the essence of animal rights activism; freeing animals from suffering and death at the hands of people. No animal wants to die so there is no such thing as a “humane” death. He never really had heart to begin with so his complete 180 doesn’t surprise me.

OK, let’s wrap this up now. You think my blog post was unadulterated crap. I get it.

No links to the study for the critical reader? What was the peer-review outcome?

Also, by “consumptive wildlife use lobbies,” I was referring more specifically to groups like the Africa Resources Trust, which you seem to have been a part of judging by your CV.

As you point out, I described a “personal journey”. As such, it is not intended to appeal to “scientific-minded readers”. Clearly it is not of interest to you, so I don’t understand why you are interested in criticising it.

I really don’t want to get into this. But during my time in Zimbabwe, consumptive use of trophies from rogue elephants was supported by IUCN and WWF-Zimbabwe, and my work was funded by USAID. They were the “consumptive wildlife use lobbies”, so there was nothing for me to disclose.

Oh, and if you do have that citation, did you make sure to disclose to the publishers any potential bias or conflicts of interest due to your role as a PR specialist for various consumptive wildlife use lobbies?

No, you don’t know me. But why should a “personal journey” convince anyone of anything? You state that your friend’s assumptions were not based in fact, yet when the debate becomes factual, you don’t care for that and want to return to a purely personal narrative that is meaningless to the scientific-minded reader.

I wasn’t teaching you about the status of whale populations so much as I was informing the other people who may stumble on this post, but you seem terribly embarrassed. And if you really have been published, citations would be interesting to see.

I really don’t need you to teach me about the status of whale populations. And as for the IUCN, I’ve actually been published by them on the role of Zimbabwean communities in elephant management. Since my blog post was a personal one, based on actual experiences, I don’t feel the need to debate the facts with you. I am, however, very curious why you are so angry at me. Is this personal? Do I know you?

With a strong knowledge of zoology, I’ve read a hell of a lot. I’m assuming you’re too intimidated to hear about the rest of the sources I’ve studied. And it must make you nervous that I quoted independent mainstream publications rather than individuals who might be considered fringe.

Why not start with the IUCN Red List, if you’d like to tell your readers more about whales? You seem fond of using the occasional quote from their group to back yourself up. So why not tell people that many of the whale species on the list are either “data deficient,” meaning that no one can say for sure whether their populations are stable or unstable, and that the next most common listing is “endangered,” and that this listing includes the blue, sei, fin, and not just one but both species of right whales? It’s a publicly accessible database and a highly valuable resource. And since you freely admit that the IUCN is fond of sustainable use, there’s little to no chance of a strong animal-rights influence.

And I noticed that you couldn’t address the NatGeo piece on the ivory-genocide connection. That’s interesting.