Animal rights NGOs are currently exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic to close down animal farms and prohibit all trade in wildlife. I am on the frontline of that battle. From 1982 to 1990, I headed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Today I speak as a founder and coordinator of the Sustainable Use Alliance, which seeks to represent the interests of countries, wildlife farmers, fisherfolk, traders, hunters, trappers and others who support the wise use of flora and fauna. So, here comes our beef.

I’ve been associated with CITES for around 45 years. In that time, I have witnessed a paradigm shift. Unlike when I was in charge, in the 21st century a CITES Conference of the Parties, or CoP, resembles a religious festival. The activists that attend in great numbers are immune to rational argument because they are on a mission to save nature from humanity. During debates, especially when they win the vote, activists stamp their feet, wave banners, clap and cheer, while sometimes dressed in animal costumes - synthetic, of course. They arrive at CITES CoPs with fixed agendas, secure in the knowledge that they have predetermined most of the outcomes.

How this transformation occurred takes some explaining, so let’s start at the beginning.

Mission Creep

In the early 1970s, as a representative of the Canadian government, I played a small part in the creation of CITES, and I was proud to have been given that opportunity. Then almost ten years later, I was prouder still to be made its secretary-general. Back then I thought, as I still do, that CITES was a much-needed intergovernmental institution, which implemented improvements to the regulatory status of flora and fauna that were being endangered by international trade.

But over the decades, external meddlers took control of CITES' affairs and mission creep set in.

Species that CITES was never meant or equipped to list have been listed regardless of the consequences.

Today, numerous species that are not endangered by trade, and some of which are barely traded, have been added to the three CITES Appendices - lists of species afforded different levels or types of protection from over-exploitation.

Species such as most marine fish, that CITES was never meant or equipped to list, have been listed regardless of the consequences. Often CITES lacks the ability to implement listings effectively, or the listings undermine other more appropriate regulatory regimes. For land-based species, the consequences include depriving nations of the financial means and/or incentives to conserve species, such as elephants, rhino, giraffes and big cats.

This corrosion of CITES’s core purpose and integrity was instigated and led by NGOs.

SEE ALSO: Animal rights lies hurting African wildlife management. By Ron Thomson for Truth About Fur.

Virtue Signalling and Protectionism

There’s no doubt that CITES has been the victim of pork-barrel politics, much as was seen at FIFA, the international governing body of football. This includes vote buying, orchestrated by third parties which have taken advantage of the plight of the often chaotic decision-making processes in some developing countries. But there were two more important developments that handed the NGOs their "license" to deracinate CITES. 

First, in the late 20th century, Western powers began to feel the urge to virtue signal. Actually, this represented little more than a modern makeover of their discredited 19th-century colonial outlook. Its main purpose was to demonstrate the "moral superiority" of the old powers over "lesser" countries, located mostly in Africa and Asia. This trend later became entwined with a second key ingredient that helped empower NGOs, which was the re-emergence of protectionism. Protectionism in its original pre-1945 incarnation, of course, had long been discredited, so the modern version came wrapped in the deceitful language of conservation or public health protection.

It was the popularization of these two trendy but disingenuous mantras that opened the space for mega-rich NGOs, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Pew Charitable Trusts, to capture CITES. This was something they were itching do anyway because they oppose international trade in wildlife as a matter of principle, and not for scientific reasons. They are driven by emotions - the same emotions that have them ranting and raving about the "immorality" of alligator handbags and shoes, or garments made from fur.

SEE ALSO: The ethics of fur. Truth About Fur.

Founding Principles Perverted

So today, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that the founding principles of CITES have been perverted. An example of this was the listing of the mako shark in Appendix II at CoP-18, in August 2019. More than 20 million makos are neither endangered nor threatened by international trade - of which there is very little. Actually, with some worrying exceptions, most mako populations are stable or growing. But CoP-18 saw fit to ignore the compelling scientific evidence that was put before it. And this was not an isolated incident.

On 11 separate occasions, COP-18 adopted proposals for listing species in CITES Appendices against the recommendations of the CITES Secretariat. Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that the CITES Secretariat is infallible. But I have to say that at CoP-18, its recommendations mostly reflected those of the established experts.

The reality is that well-resourced NGOs, staffed by sharp-suited zealots, work behind the scenes to manipulate the agenda-setting process. They spend millions of dollars on propaganda and other initiatives designed to list as many species as possible in CITES Appendices. These NGOs, such WWF, Pew, IFAW and the Humane Society of the US, consistently secure votes in support of their preferred outcomes ahead of debates. They do this vote-acquisition work even before the relevant scientists and authorities have had a chance to make objective assessments of the efficacy of particular proposals for a listing in the CITES Appendices.

Stop Meddling in Domestic Affairs

So, after CoP-18, many Parties and trade representatives from around the world were filled with a fury that I’ve never seen before. They can no longer tolerate or ignore how a body that once concerned itself with international trade has seemingly been completely lost to reason and common sense. They want CITES to stop meddling in their domestic affairs, for instance, by banning ivory markets and/or all trade in rhino and elephant byproducts. So, responding to that welcome mood, I played a leading role in helping to create the Sustainable Use Alliance.

Formed in Geneva in February 2020, the Sustainable Use Alliance brings together a diverse group of representatives of countries (10 so far) and trade bodies from around the world. The SUA is not a tight-knit organisation, but a loose grouping that is open to debate and disagreement. What unites the SUA’s ranks is a shared commitment to the founding principles of CITES, with the goal of restoring its integrity.

It will take a major, well-planned endeavour to ensure that the animal rights NGOs do not win this war of opinions and consequences.

And thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic, the need for our initiative is now more important than ever. It doesn’t take a genius to predict that in the next few years, the fear of zoonoses - diseases or infections that are transmissible to humans from other vertebrates - will feature prominently in the debates within the fora of CITES and elsewhere in society, as a fierce spotlight is shone on all trade in wildlife.

It will take a major, well-planned endeavour to ensure that the animal rights NGOs do not win this war of opinions and consequences. Because, make no mistake, the utopian view of the world pushed by animal rightists threatens more than international trade in wildlife, and the vital incentives this brings for science-based conservation. It also endangers every aspect of humanity’s relationship with nature, and the many benefits that the wise use of wildlife delivers - including my leather shoes and fur hat.

***

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.

Of all conflicts between advocates of sustainable use of wildlife and advocates of animal rights, none has been more enduring than the sealing issue. For more than 50 years, sealers have been on the front line in a war to decide how we manage our wildlife – so long, in fact, that there is a danger their supporters will lose interest. To everyone who recognises the importance of keeping this traditional harvest alive, I say, renew your support for sealing. It's needed now as much as ever.

Sealing was not always the cause célèbre of the animal rights movement. Back in the 1960s, when the anti-sealing campaign began, the prime target was whaling. Despite the little-known fact that the whaling industry had already halted the excesses of its past, animal rightists (and not a few conservationists) were determined to shut it down completely. And they nearly succeeded.

This cleared the way for the anti-sealing campaign to grab the headlines – something it has been doing ever since. Half a century on, the beleaguered sealers are still fighting, with the current battleground being the EU.

SEE ALSO: CANADA CELEBRATES ITS FIRST NATIONAL SEAL PRODUCTS DAY

What makes the sealing story so remarkable is that it has lasted this long. Most of the credit belongs to the sealers themselves – both indigenous communities of the High North, and the descendants of settlers – for their refusal to die. Thanks also must go to a handful of governments for their unflinching support.

The sealers, of course, are fighting for the future of their cultures and one of the few livelihoods available to them. Anyone who has visited the northern reaches of the world will understand why. We are struck by the natural beauty of the rugged landscape, the purity of the air, and the abundance of life in the oceans. This beauty continues to exist because people maintain traditional ways of life, and central to this is utilizing local natural resources, including seals. Fishermen and hunters tackle the seas and the ice to bring home their catch, and what they don’t consume, they sell.

This beauty continues to exist because people maintain traditional ways of life, and central to this is utilizing local natural resources, including seals.

Governments, meanwhile, have supported the sealers for a variety of reasons. They recognise their right to self-determination, they want to keep people “on the land” (not flooding into overcrowded cities), and they recognise the role played by wildlife use in ecosystem management. Because seals consume commercial fish and forage species, and sustain others such as sharks and orcas, governments are increasingly focusing their research on the impact of seals and seal harvesting on the ecosystem as a whole.

This approach reflects a need to ensure that seal populations will continue to thrive. It also ensures that we live up to a moral responsibility to understand the impacts of harvesting choices on other species. This can mean limiting seal harvesting or encouraging it, depending on particular regional circumstances.

Finding the right balance between prey and predators makes the marine ecosystem more productive and preserves its biodiversity.

Veterinarians, too, have supported sealers by denouncing the message of animal rights groups that sealing is inhumane. The most common method for harvesting seals is using a rifle, while use of the "hakapik", a traditional harvesting tool, is increasingly rare today. Veterinarians consider both to be humane because they consistently cause instant unconsciousness before death.

The sealers have also received broad support from advocates of sustainable use with no direct interest in sealing. Croc farmers, kangaroo meat harvesters, you name it; across the globe, wildlife users have thrown their support behind the sealers. Meanwhile major conservation groups such as the IUCN and WWF have acknowledged that sealing does not pose any conservation issues.

Yet despite the perseverance of the sealers themselves and the breadth of support for sealing, all is not well in paradise. The relentless attacks from groups with seemingly inexhaustible funds have tested our support to the limit and found it wanting. Proof of this is the fact that sealers are still losing ground with the recent closure of the EU market (except for that reviled exemption for products from indigenous communities). The enormous potential US market, meanwhile, is just as far off as ever. The US has banned all marine mammal products since 1972, and no one, not even the governments of sealing nations, is willing to mount a serious challenge to this ban.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

So to any wildife user wavering in their support for sealing, I recite the classic poem of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

As advocates of sustainable use, we should be enormously thankful that, against all odds, the sealers have survived the last 50 years. But we must not take their survival for granted. They are under constant threat and cannot be allowed to disappear, if for no other reason than that we may be next.

FROM OUR WEBSITE: IS IT ETHICAL TO PRODUCE, BUY OR WEAR FUR?