The IUCN - the World Conservation Union - has 68 nations, 99 government agencies and 600 non-
governmental organisations as members.
According to the IUCN newsletter (News from Gland, 1/95), IFAW’s application was dealt with for the first time
at the IUCN Council meeting in May 1994, but was deferred because of lack of information . At the December
meeting, the IUCN Membership Committee had to return the issue to the full Council without a recommendation.
At the end of the day the deciding factor was whether the militant organisation for animal rights was in conflict
with the mission of the Union (IUCN), the IUCN newsletter reports.
Collision Course
Members of the IUCN Council told the High North News that IFAW’s working methods also played an
important part in the decision. Amongst other things, IFAW’s threats of starting a campaign to shut off all foreign
aid to Namibia if the country did not stop its seal hunt, was heavily criticised. The recent case where IFAW
offered Russian marine mammal researchers money if they signed contracts putting them under an obligation
to refrain from using seals killed for scientific research purposes or seals from the commercial seal hunt, was also
considered.
The IUCN has devoted itself to the concept of sustainable development , and recognises the sustainable use of
wildlife as part of a conservation strategy. On this point it is on collision course with the animal welfare group
IFAW, that often flirts with the animal rights concept, particularly when it comes down to charismatic a species
such a s seals, whales, elephants and kangaroos. In a recent IFAW brochure, the founder of IFAW, Brian Davis,
is quoted as saying, The question the seal hunt posed was not just how seals were killed, but whether they
should be killed at all. An IFAW advertisement also proclaims that they say that they will go after the older
seals - and they’ll shoot them - as if that somehow makes the harvest more acceptable.