The HSUS was found to have made unfounded allegations to the UK Sunday Times
regarding allegedly illegal sales of ivory between African nations and China.
Extensive investigations by the CITES Secretariat, ICPO-Interpol, the World
Customs organization, and the management authorities of the countries involved,
all failed to substantiate these HSUS claims in any way. The Secretary General
of CITES has written to the HSUS, expressing his concern that the allegations
were allowed to become public before their veracity had been properly examined
by an official enforcement or investigation organization. The CITES Secretariat
regarded the allegations "unfounded". (See CITES Secretariat
Notification 200/060)
Press should be wary of claims made by HSUS. Cross check with the nations
involved in any HSUS allegations, and with the authorities within the
International Whaling Commission.
The IFAW produced a 23-minute videotape on Canadian sealing that was deemed
unsuitable as evidence against Canadian sealers, and tossed out of court by
Provincial Judge Robert Fowler, who labeled the IFAW camera man as "a
sophisticated con man" and cited 77 gaps within the tape and a 10-month
delay by IFAW before delivering it to Canadian authorities. Judge Fowler
believed that the purported documentary was deliberately manipulated, and did
not represent a truthful depiction of action by the sealers involved.
The British Advertising Standards Authority found an IFAW advertisement
purporting to show cruel practices against foxes and hounds, lacking in evidence
and misleading. The IFAW ad claimed a film clip shown, represented
current practices by fox hunters. The clip was thirty years old.
Greenpeace currently claims that Japan’s scientific whaling is illegal.
Press might ask Greenpeace officials how they might resolve the discrepancies
between that claim and the information available to the public on the
International Whaling Commission web site.
In 1989 the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) made unfounded
allegations against the CITES Secretariat on the issue of the African elephant.
When requested by UNEP to provide evidence to support such accusations, EIA
simply ignored the request. Investigations by UNEP and the CITES Standing
Committee found all of those accusations totally unfounded, and their bases
non-existent. Subsequently, in 1995, a donation by EIA was rejected by
the Standing Committee, because it was agreed that EIA had brought the CITES
Secretariat (UNEP) into disrepute. The then Secretary General was instructed by
the Committee to return a check of $5,000 USD to EIA. (Pages 25 and 26 of the
Minutes of the 35th CITES Standing Committee meeting, March, 1995).