How effective is the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) at saving animals and wildlife?

It's interesting you say "real use" - how do you define it? Conserving the natural world isn't just about driving around jungles and the Serengeti helping individual animals. It's critical to tackle the root pressures on the species and the habitats they need to survive as well. Sometimes this work can seem terribly tangential to the public expectation of the conservation movement. Their corporate partnerships are about far more than donations, for example, Coke are one of the largest consumers of fresh water and sugar cane around the world - by helping them become more sustainable the potential benefits to the environment are huge. It's also worth mentioning that CharityNavigator are only commenting on WWF-US. WWF is a global network of offices, of which the US is but one. See http://wwf.org for the list of countries it works in. Disclaimer: I work for WWF and these are my own words, not an official statement, but I'm incredibly proud of the work we do and would financially support WWF even if I wasn't an employee.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund) is really working efficiently for wildlife conservation. It does not only work for developed or rich countries but for poor countries as well. It works to prevent nature's beauty, wildlife and to make efficient use of natural resources. It is working for various countries such as China, India, Thailand etc. It has also began a campaign to save the tigers.. As a result of it' efforts Ranthambore National Park from Asia has voted among the top 10 destination in the world by the readers of USA today

I don’t know much about it and haven’t done really much, if any, research but I have come across some suggestions that WWF is just a front for a land grab by corporate powers.Here’s an article that might shed some light on the issue:http://www.naturalnews.com/047517_World_Wildlife_Fund_corporate_practices_PandaLeaks.html#