IWC-53

 Page 1  |  Page 2     Page 3   

IWMC - World Conservation Trust
MAINPAGE

SUSTAINABLE USE

ELEPHANTS
FISH
MAMMALS
REPTILES
SEALS
SEA TURTLES
SHARKS
WHALES
24 July 2001

ABOUT IWMC

CENSORED

CONTACT IWMC

eNEWSLETTERS
EVENTS CALENDAR
MEDIA RELEASES

SEARCH

WEB LINKS

Special Report

IWMC
World Conservation Trust

Dilemma of Truthful Presentation
of the Whaling Issue

SOME EXAMPLES:

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).