This study is an attempt to gain a beginning understanding of the reasons why Environmental Pressure Groups (EPGs) tend to conflict with each other. I present first a hypothesis on how different EPGs focusing on different or identical species of animals or geographical regions can lead to conflicts. I then examine different directions in environmental ethics, and suggest as a second hypothesis how animal rights views, animal liberation views, conservationist views and preservationist views of EPGs can cause conflicts between them. As the third and final hypothesis I present some different work methods and organizational structures of EPGs, and suggest how differences in these can be the reasons for conflicts. I then conduct a study of four quite different conflicts between EPGs as they appear on the Internet, and try to find the underlying reasons for each of these conflicts both in relation to my hypotheses and in relation to possible reasons for the conflicts that I haven’t covered in the hypotheses. The end result is a qualitative study of these four conflicts, leading to a thorough discussion about possible motives, methods and views of environmental organizations in general, and about how conflicts can take many different forms. I discuss how conflicts might or might not be solved, what solving a conflict means and if solving a conflict is even always in the best interests of the EPGs involved in them.