October 15, 1996
to all IUCN members,
First World Conservation Congress

Dear IUCN members:

It has recently come to the attention of our respective organisations, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, that the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has applied for membership with the IUCN.

We would like to urge you to whithold your support by voting against their application when it comes to the floor of th Congress later this week.

Our organisation represents the interests of Inuit in the circumpolar regions and throughout Canada, respectively. We are members in good standing of the IUCN, and ascribe to the principles of sustainable use which are required for IUCN membership. Beyond that, we have translated these principles into reality through resource management structures under our land claims agreements with various national governments.

IFAW has based its application to the IUCN on its committment to the principles of sustainable use through various conservation programs it has undertaken. We submit that the IFAW's actions have played a major role in the devastation of Inuit communities through the destruction of one of the few environmentally and ecnomically sustainable options Inuit have in the Arctic - the harvesting of seals.

Despite an exemption being made for Iniut, after the importation of seal products was banned by the EU in 1983, the entire seal market collapsed. After the collapse of the seal market, suicide rates in Inuit communities increased by an average of 400 %.

IFAW has responded to the devastation brought upon our communities by playing a key role in the impending European import ban on certain wildlife from entering the European Union, which may take effect early this year. This would cause further undeniable damage to our communities.

Attatched is a document and brief which outline reasons why IFAW should be denied IUCN membership. Our organisations strongly endorse these documents and hope you will consider their contents in your deliberations on IFAW's application for membership, which will come before the Congress early next week.

Sincerely,

Mary Sillett,
President,
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada

Why the International Fund for Animal Welfare does not meet the Requirements for Membership of the IUCN

These arguments focussed on IFAW campaigns to halt sustainable hunting, trapping and harvesting activities, irrespective of the implications to both conservation and rural communities. These campaigns, it was asserted, were incompatible with IUCN's conservation objectives. These arguments, presented here in revised form, continue to hold true in the event that IFAW should renew its bid for IUCN membership.

Background
According to founder and director Brian Davies, IFAW "exists to make sure cruelty to animals does not go unchallenged" and is "entirely dedicated to animal welfare" (Davies 1996) while the IUCN's mission is conservation. IFAW, however, will no doubt argue that its objective is not solely animal welfare but that it also contributes towards conservation. In a briefing document it has published in connection with its appeal against the dismissal of the organisation's previous application for membership of the IUCN, IFAW points to several conservation projects it has initiated around the world. Organisations applying for membership of the IUCN are obliged to confirm that they endorse the principles of conservation as set out in the statutes of the IUCN, and in the documents "Caring for the Earth", "World Conservation Strategy" and the "World Charter for Nature". This paper will conclude that IFAW's version of animal welfare, highly influenced as it is by animal rights philosophy, is irreconcilable with these principles. It will also assert that the means employed by IFAW in its campaigns, are unethical and demagogic, even including threats to lobby for the withdrawal of foreign aid to a developing country.

The Animal Rights Concept
Animal welfare and conservation, are manifestly different concepts that need to be kept apart because in some cases, conflicts between animal welfare concerns and ecological concerns might occur. Examples of such potential conflicts are keening felt in the culling of introduced animal species. While conflicts between animal welfare and conservation might be solved by compromise, the conflict between animal rights and conservation is inextricable. (Blichfeldt 1996)

In the aforementioned IUCN/WWF/UNEP document "Caring for the Earth" (IUCN 1991) conservation is defined as "The management of human use of organisms or ecosystems to ensure that such use is sustainable". Sustainable use is defined as: "Use of an ecosystem or other renewable resources at a rate within it's capacity for renewal". The document also asserts that "we have a right to the benefits of nature but these will not be available unless we care for the system that provides them". Furthermore, it points out that "the renewable resources are the base of all economies: people can't live without them. They include soil, water, products we harvest from the wild such as timber, nuts, medicinal plants, fish, and the meat and skins of wild animals; domesticated species raised by agriculture..... "

According to the animal rights concept, however, mankind's access to the benefits of nature is restricted to plants and minerals. The animal rights philosophy (Reagan and Singer 1989, J.M. Jasper/D. Nelkin 1992, K. Tester 1991) does not allow for human beings to exploit animals - or to kill them - whatever the purpose might be. This philosophy is based on the idea that animals have "inherent value" as the "experiencing subject of life" and that all who have inherent value, have it equally - whether they be "human animals" or not (Reagan and Singer, ed, 1989).

There is substantial evidence to support the view that IFAW policy and campaigns are heavily influenced by animal rights philosophy, although the organisation has not clearly outlined the principles and philosophy behind its activities. It would also seem that IFAW only applies the animal rights philosophy on a selective basis, i.e. only to certain species.

The Seal Campaign
Brian Davies started IFAW back in 1969 "to put an end to the brutal clubbing to death of white coat seals (harp seal pups) on the ice floes off the east coast of Canada" (Davies 1996). But when the market for white coat seals collapsed in 1983 as result of the anti-sealing campaigns, IFAW responded: "they say they'll go after older seals - and they'll shoot them - as though that somehow makes the slaughter more acceptable" ...... "the cruel massacre continues. Loveable and intelligent Canadian seals of 4 weeks and older will be Clubbed - Drowned - Shot, for money" .... "IFAW are now on the ice-floes of the east coast of Canada to fight as hard for these older seals AS THEY DID TO SAVE THE SEAL PUPS" (IFAW advert 1983) In 1987, the hunt of "white coat seals" was finally stopped by the Canadian government. But the IFAW campaign carried on ...

Today, it is even clearer than in 1983 and 1987 that the Canadian harp seal hunt is sustainable and that the harp seal stock in the Northwest Atlantic is not in any way endangered, numbering as it does close to 5 million seals. "As an abundant renewable resource, seals represent an unparalleled opportunity for the development of industries in the Arctic, based on the principle of sustainable utilization, which underpins the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS)", concludes a retrospective analysis of the sealing industry by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference undertaken on behalf of the AEPS Task Force on Sustainable Development and Utilization. (ICC 1995)

Still, even today you will find that part of the mission statement on the IFAW Web Site, which consists of two paragraphs, involves "ensuring that the offshore Canadian and Norwegian hunt for harp and hooded seals in the Northwest Atlantic is brought to an end". These hunts are the only ones singled out. Even from an animal welfare perspective, it is difficult to understand why. The Norwegian hunt is monitored by a government inspector on every boat. Nor is there any indication that the killing methods employed in the Canadian hunt are less humane than in other hunts around the world.

A quote by Brian Davies, reproduced in several IFAW brochures, indicates that neither animal welfare concerns nor ecological concerns are the motivation behind the IFAW seal campaigns: "The question the seal hunt posed was not just how seals were killed, but whether they should be killed at all". As early as 1969, he stated that: ".... those of us who work for .... and support this particular cause would like to see all harp seals spared wherever they may be because of a philosophical point of view that we have ... " (Henke 1985) Wenzel (1991) notes that once it became clear that the issue of sealing was no longer one of conservation, IFAW "withdrew from a losing battle on the ecological dangers of continued sealing to concentrate on the animal rights message".

Lynge (1992) has called attention to the strong financial incentive for the continuation of the seal campaign: "IFAW made more than $6 million on its seal hunting campaign". The Anti-fur Campaign At their Web Site, under the heading of "the fur trade," IFAW announces that "Fur is dead. Now we must bury it." They claim that the current fur-industry is based on "vanity and greed". An IFAW advertisement in Italian newspapers (1996) features a full frontal nude woman. The caption proclaims: "The only skin I am not ashamed to wear".

IFAW is one of the major players - if not the major player - behind the EU directive which forbids the use of leghold traps within the EU and the import of fur from countries that still use leghold traps. Bearing in mind that their final aim is to bury the fur trade as a whole, IFAW's campaign singling out the jaw-type leghold trap seems like a purely tactical manoeuvre. This impression is corroborated in as much as IFAW recommends snares in the EU as a humane alternative to the jaw-type leghold traps (Press conference, Monday, July 17, 1995, Brussels), whereas in Britain the organisation characterises snares as "belonging to the Stone Age". This was done in a campaign to support the McFall bill, which in its original form would have forbidden both fox hunting and trapping. In an IFAW advertisement (IFAW Advert, 1995) we find the following description of how snares work: "Animals snared around the waist are slowly disembowelled, left alive with intestines hanging out for days. Caught by the leg they sometimes tear it off to crawl away and die later. Around the neck they are slowly strangled and almost decapitated."

The EU directive explicitly exempts snares from the prohibition measures imposed on jaw-type leghold traps. The scope of the regulation is, according to EU officials, not based on a comprehensive evaluation of the humaneness of different types of traps, but on public demand. This demand is in turn based on campaigns by animal welfare organisations singling out the jaw-type leghold trap.

Canada is the country that will be hit hardest by an EU import ban on furs. There is no doubt whatsoever that Canadian management of trapping is sustainable. And furthermore, Canadian regulations designed to ensure that traps are humane, are far more detailed and comprehensive than those of the EU - which have no rules except the ban on leghold traps.

Elephants: The No-kill Clause
In 1996, IFAW made a financial donation to the South African National Parks Board towards the expansion of their national elephant habitat. But the donation was not made unconditionally: No elephants were to be killed on the land bought with the donated money. The original draft proposal from IFAW would also have prohibited the hunt or culling of any other species of game.

This proviso was, however, not accepted by the National Parks Board and neither was the condition that the board should commit itself "to not submit a proposal to resume international trade in elephant products at the next COP meeting, scheduled for 1997." (IFAW Draft Proposal,) 1996) The National Parks Board has an elephant management programme that includes culling because there are more elephants in the national parks than the land can provide for, and the overpopulation of elephants leads to habitat degradation. The products from the hunt, the hide and the meat, are used locally.

In an IFAW press release published in conjunction with the announcement of the donation, David Barritt, IFAW's Africa Director, declared that "IFAW has never accepted that the so-called sustainable utilisation of animals - in effect farming them for human benefit - is without serious flaws. Our view is that culling, whether it be of seal pups or elephants, is cruel and inhumane and unnecessary." He went on to say, "Our solution is to give elephants more land ... this donation is the very beginning of what we intend to be a much larger programme of land expansion for animals". Obviously, there will be a limit as to how much land one can give animals in South Africa without coming into conflict with the interests of the poor rural population and their need for land for agricultural purposes.

Preventing the impoverished population from enjoying the benefits of the large supply of game that could be used for food on a sustainable basis, is also a questionable measure.

The Social and Economic Effects of IFAW Campaigns
The IFAW seal campaigns also hit the Inuit hunting communities of Canada and Greenland, although they were allegedly not intended to do so. The campaigns resulted in a total breakdown of the sealskin market, affecting indigenous and non-indigenous sealers alike. In the light of their statement that "fur is dead - now we must bury it", this development would hardly have been unwelcome in the IFAW camp. Anyway, IFAW certainly likes to take the credit for the job, and several authors share their assessment (Lynge 1992, Henke 1985, Herscovici 1985, Wentzel 1991), pointing them out as one of the two major players in the anti-sealing campaign. The other was Greenpeace, that have now left this battlefield.

Brian Davies claims that "the wreckage of the sealing industry represents .... the most important animal welfare success of modern times". According to the aforementioned study published by the ICC (ICC 1995), it had a devastating impact on the economic, nutritional, socio-cultural and psychological well-being of the Inuit of Greenland and Canada. Prior to the demise of the sealskin market, sealskins were the single largest source of cash income for many Canadian and Greenland Inuit households. In addition to this, the meat was (and still is) very important for subsistence purposes.

The Greenland government has chosen to subsidise the sealskin trade by about $6 million a year, in order to support the hunting communities that have no alternative to the seal hunt. The subsidy comprises 90 percent of what the hunters earn. Even though seal hunters have very low incomes in relation to the average wage earner in Greenland, this is a hard strain on the economy of a nation with a population of only 55 000. The Canadian government has chosen not to subsidise the seal trade. Consequently, the economic and social impact on the traditional Inuit sealing communities is more severe than in Greenland. Between 1983 and 1986 the value of sealskins sold in the Canadian North West Territories was $ 889,996 (Canadian dollars). Three years later it was reduced to less than a tenth of this amount.

Over the same period the number of Inuit hunters in the NW Territories fell from 1286 to 562. Correspondingly, social security payments in traditional Inuit sealing communities increased by amounts ranging from 176 % to 445 %. (ICC 1995) "A lot of our people, out of necessity have become dependent upon hunting and trapping. And when the bottom fell out (of the seal skin market) many people in the smaller communities had nothing to do. The whole economy collapsed and the suicide rate went through the roof". (Canadian Inuit hunter, BBC 1994)

"While it is difficult to conclusively demonstrate that increases in Inuit suicide and other social problems are the direct results of the anti-sealing campaigns and the collapse of the sealskin market, the evidence is compelling", states the ICC report. Inuit suicides in Greenland and the NW Territories remained below national averages until the 1970's when they jumped by several orders of magnitude in a matter of a few years. The number of attempted suicides also increased dramatically, as did violent deaths and accidents.

The majority of Inuit suicides in Greenland and Canada involved young males, but in the NW Territories, an alarming increase in suicides among men over 50 was also registered - corresponding with the first crash in the seal market in 1979. When sealskin prices rose for a short period in early 1980, suicides among Inuit men in both age groups fell dramatically.

IFAW has done nothing to repair the damage done to the Inuit communities. If a written statement in a letter from Stephen Best, IFAW's Canadian coordinator in 1983, to the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, (Herscovici 1985) is to be taken as a valid expression of the attitudes of the organisation, they don't really care. The Native Brotherhood, an Indian association, protested that the salmon fishermen on the west coast were suffering from the IFAW boycott of Canadian salmon in Britain in 1983. The aim of the boycott, however, had nothing to do with them. They were innocent victims. The boycott was intended to hit the Canadian economy in order to force the government to stop the harp seal hunt - on the east coast. Best's response to the Native Brotherhood's protest was that the IFAW fish boycott was "intended to cause as much serious and economic hardship on the numerous families dependent on the BC salmon industry as possible ...that is why economic boycotts are called".

Although he felt that IFAW was justified in launching a campaign against an industry that supported thousands of people living in areas where there was no possibility of alternative employment, Best took offence when victims protested: "... I am deeply angered by your reference to the 'genocide' of your people by organizations and individuals who are trying to change the policies of the (Canadian) Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They are not only uncalled for perversion but also a sickeningly demeaning insult to the integrity of your own people .... "

Today, IFAW is heavily involved in the campaign to close the EU market for countries that still use leghold traps. Again, this trade barrier will impose hardship on indigenous peoples. The lesson learnt from the EU ban on the import of white coat sealskins demonstrates that making exceptions for products from indigenous people does not work.

IFAW's Measures
"We will carry the battle to the European Community, where the Namibians get foreign aid, and ask European leaders if they want to continue supporting a government that engages in such cruelty", wrote Brian Davies in April 1993 in a fund-raising letter. This example shows what lengths IFAW is willing to go to in order to achieve its goals - in this case to stop the Namibian seal hunt - and the organisation's lack of ethical consideration of the means it employs to do so. If Davies' threats were put into effect, they could deprive an impoverished nation of desperately needed development aid currently being provided by the EU.

Also quite unacceptable is IFAW's attempt to use it's financial contribution towards the expansion of elephant habitat in South Africa (see above) to try and dictate the policy of the country in question in an international body like CITES.

In Russia, too, IFAW has started a campaign designed to put a stop to sealing. One of the measures employed here involves offering contracts to Russian scientists. One of the scientists who was to have received such an offer is professor Vladimir Potelov, director of the Archangel Department of the Russian Institute of Marine Research (PINRO). He reveals that scientists have been offered 300 US dollars a month to commit themselves to refraining from using seals killed for research purposes or seals from the commercial seal hunt. (from the newspapers "Nordlys" Nov 28, 1994 and "Fiskaren", Oct 17, 95). "300 US dollars is a fabulous salary for a Russian researcher. As employees of PINRO we are given far less, and we are not even guaranteed that our wages will be paid at all. I find it extremely disturbing that rich organisations in the West can operate in such a way. This can hit both our research, and a hunt that people in Northern Russia are totally dependent on. Should IFAW succeed in such procurement, the foundations on which we base our advice on how to manage harp seals will be taken away", says Potelov ("Nordlys" Nov 28, 1994).

According to IFAW itself, 28 Russian scientists have accepted their offer of personal "grants" as part of what they call their "programme for assistance to researchers". (IFAW Opening Statement to the IWC, 1995) "I can easily understand them, the Russian economic situation being as it is, but as scientists we cannot waive the right to use the scientific data necessary to provide the best possible advice on how to manage sealing", comments Potelov. There is every reason to question the legality, as well as the morality, of the IFAW "programme for assistance to researchers". Several of the researchers involved are employed by the Russian state. IFAW's personal "grants" constitute an attempt at motivating them to set aside the interests of their employer in favour of those of IFAW.

IFAW Advertisements
IFAW's campaign advertisements can in no way be said to contribute to a serious debate on conservation and management. On the contrary, the ads make use of shock effects and often provide an extremely biassed, vulgar and offensive account of the subject at hand. Here, suffice to mention the full-page article in the New Statesman on September 1, which features "the medical photograph of John Bobbit's severed penis" with a knife beside it. The copy says that, "When it happened to John Wayne Bobbit it got worldwide exposure, when it happens to 10 000 seals it gets slightly less coverage". The anti-fur advertisement presenting a full frontal nude woman, has already been mentioned.

The British Advertising Standards Authority upheld in October 95 complaints against an IFAW advert which "linked opponents of legislation protecting wild mammals with the American mass murderer Jeffery Dahmer." (Published in The Guardian, Oct 4, 95) The authorities declared that the use of Dahmer was shocking and offensive.

Damage to Cooperation and Mutual Respect
The underlying philosophy of the work of the IUCN is to try to build bridges between voluntary organisations involved in environmental issues, and the users of natural resources. IUCN's objective is best served through increased communication and cooperation between the two groups. But this process has to be based on mutual respect. IFAW literature demonstrates a remarkable lack of respect for those people who are targeted by their campaigns. Again, we have room for only a few examples:

Brian Davies on Faroes Pilot Whaling:
".... The Faroese say: "It is our tradition. Who are you to interfere or to tell us how to run ourlives". How many times have I heard this before? It is the stock excuse of those who hunt for fun and casual profit rather than survival .... killers without thought for the victim"
............
"..... Just as in other harvest festivals, the children join in. It is what they have learned to accept as 'the right way' from their mothers and fathers. Instead of carrying corn and fruit to the altar dedicated to compassion .... they join in a bloody rite of suffering and carnage. In all, about 3,000 gentle pilot whales are slaughtered every year in this evil ritual".
IFAW Fund-raising letter signed by Brian Davies, October 1985 Brian Davies on Canadian sealing:
"... our boycott of Canadian fish products must continue and intensify until these 'men of violence' ply their cruel trade no more " IFAW Fund-raising letter signed Davies, May 1994

Brian Davies on sealing in Namibia and Canada:
".... just as barbaric is the shooting of seals, some only a month or two old, by the hunters from Canada and Namibia .... I will not rest until this heartless killing is ended." IFAW Fund-raising letter signed by Davies, April 1993

Conclusion
To IFAW, the "vested interest" of hunters, trappers, industries and governments "in exploiting our wildlife friends" is parallelled by the suffering of dogs and cats "at the hands of those who have no conscience and no compassion." "Your good name and generosity have helped the animals in the past. WILL YOU MAKE A SPECIAL GIFT TO SAVE ANIMALS. So many hunters, trappers, industries and governments have vested interests in exploiting our wildlife friends. And dogs and cats suffer immeasurably at the hands of those who have no conscience and no compassion". IFAW-fund-raising letter, signed by Brian Davies, May 1996

It is quite clear that IFAW does not in any way conform to the underlying philosophy of the IUCN regarding the sustainable utilization of natural resources and community-based conservation. The IUCN is strongly committed to the concept of sustainable use which, in Revised Motion 19.93 adopted at the triennial meeting, was confirmed as being part of the Mission of the Union.

We would like to point out once again that organisations applying for membership are obliged to confirm that they "endorse" the principles laid down in the documents "Caring for the Earth", "The World Conservation Strategy" and the "World Charter for Nature". While concern about the welfare of seals, fur-bearers and other animals is entirely legitimate and appropriate, groups concerned with the prevention of all hunting, trapping and harvesting activities related to marine mammals - irrespective of the implications on both conservation and rural communities - should not expect to be considered for membership of the IUCN.

LITERATURE

BBC 1994. Bishop of the Arctic: British Broadcasting Corporation Video Production
Blichfeldt, George. 1996. In the Name of Conservation. Oryx, Volume 30, Number 2, April 1996
Davies, Brian. 1996. Introduction to IFAW/Fundraising letter addressed to "Dear Friend". ICC - Inuit Circumpolar Conference - 1995. The Arctic Sealing Industry, A Retrospective Analyses of its Collapse and Options for Sustainable Development IFAW Draft Agreement. 1996. Copy available in the archives of the African Resource Trust IFAW Opening Statement to the IWC, 1995.
Henke, Janis. 1985. Seal Wars.
Herscovici, Alan. 1985. Second Nature, The Animal Rights Controversy
IFAW Advert. 1983. Reproduced in The Arctic Sealing Industry, ICC 1995
IFAW Advert. 1995. Published in the Sunday Telegraph, 26 March 1995
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth, A Strategy for Sustainable Living.
Jasper, J.M./Nelkin, D.. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade.
Lynge, Finn. 1992. Arctic Wars: Animal Rights and Endangered Peoples
Regan, T and Singer, P. (eds). 1989. Animal Rights and Human Obligations.
Wenzel, George. 1991. Animal Rights, Human Rights: Ecology, Economy and Ideology in the Canadian Arctict

IFAW's campaigns demonstrate that the organisation is fundamentally opposed to the sustainable use of wildlife:

WILL YOU MAKE A SPECIAL GIFT TO SAVE ANIMALS? So many hunters, trappers, industries and governments have vested interests in exploiting our wildlife friends. And dogs and cats suffer immeasurably at the hands of those who have no conscience and no compassion". (Brian Davies, IFAW founder and director, Fund raising letter, 1996)

"Fur is dead. Now we must bury it". (IFAW Web Site, 1996)

IFAW has also threatened to lobby against the provision of aid to Namibia in its campaign to stop the Nambian hunt of Cape fur seals:

"We will carry the battle to the European Community, where the Namibians get foreign aid, and ask European leaders if they want to continue supporting a government that engages in such cruelty." (Brian Davies, Fund raising letter, 1993).

IFAW's highest priority campaign is - and always has been - to prevent the hunting of seals under any circumstances. In 1995 the organisation spent £ 1,219,200 to this end (IFAW Annual Report, 1995). The seal campaign has nothing to do with conservation, the seal stocks in question are abundant and healthy:

"The question the seal hunt posed was not just how seals were killed, but whether they should be killed at all". (Brian Davies, IFAW information brochure, undated) ".... those of us who work for .... and support this particular cause would like to see all harp seals spared wherever they may be because of a philosophical point of view that we have ... "

(Brian Davies, testimony, 1969) ".... just as barbaric is the shooting of seals .... I will not rest until this heartless killing is ended." (Brian Davies, Fund raising letter, 1987)

IFAW's campaigns led to the collapse of the seal skin market, which had a devastating effect on many Inuit communities whose only ecologically and economically sustainable option was sealing. Between 1983 and 1986 the value of seal skins sold by Northwest Territories hunters fell from nearly $1 million to less than a tenth of that amount. This economic catastrophe was accompanied by a dramatic increase in suicides in Inuit communities. Inuit Tapirisat of Canada - Oct. 1996