British wildlife charity, Network for Animals, has been rebuked by the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) for publishing misleading information on their website and fundraising campaign which could undermine a major elephant cruelty prosecution and have also been accused of trying to raise funds with claims of involvement in the case when they have played no role in the prosecution. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) have been in contact with the Network for Animals previously in order to get the information corrected but no action has been taken to correct the information. In order to correct the situation the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has now published an open letter to the Campaign Director of Network for Animals in South Africa to try and get the information corrected. The false information came to light at the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) after they were contacted by British media after a fundraising campaign was launched in the UK highlighting the elephant cruelty at Elephants for Eden The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) claim that fundraising literature being sent out by Network for Animals were incorrect and aimed to raise funds on the back of the actions taken by National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA). Because Network for Animals have not taken action to correct their claims the following open letter has been published to try to correct the information: Dear Mr Barritt, REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE AMMENDMENT OF NETWORK FOR ANIMALS PUBLIC INFORMATION AND FUNDING REQUESTS. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) requests the immediate amendment of the inaccurate information being portrayed by Network for Animals with regards to the elephant cases currently being dealt with by this office. Inspector Wendy Willson has communicated with you directly in this regard with no action taken to date. The information provided by Network for Animals is flawed in the following areas; “Our South African office were recently made aware of a series of photographs taken during 2008, depicting extreme brutality during elephant training in South Africa. Our team were surprised to learn that no legal action had been taken until this year. NFA have stepped in to provide the SPCA with assistance, and to increase political pressure.” The NSPCA finds this statement to be extremely offensive as well as being untrue. Whilst the footage of the abuse of the elephants was taken in 2008, the NSPCA only received the footage this year. As soon as we received the footage we took legal action and a docket was compiled laying charges under the Animals Protection Act No.71 of 1962 for the purpose of criminal prosecution. Network for Animals only became aware of the photographs as a result of our media releases posted AFTER we took legal action against the accused and without any assistance from Network for Animals. There are TWO separate cases relating to TWO separate groups of elephants that the NSPCA is currently dealing with. The case pertaining to the four illegally transported calves is a completely separate case involving different animals to the ones depicted in the cruelty footage taken in 2008. This case addresses the contraventions of the Norms and Standards for the Management of Elephants. The case involving the elephants depicted in the 2008 footage is a criminal case that involves a group of different elephants. The NSPCA have instigated the legal action on both cases with no assistance from Network for Animals in this regard. The facility Elephants of Eden (EOE) does not offer elephant back safaris itself, it was the sister organisation to Knysna Elephant Park who does. EOE was masquerading as a rehabilitation centre and sanctuary for elephants and since its exposure by the NSPCA has been shut down and sold. The funding request sent out by a Mr Brian Davies on behalf of Network for Animals states that Network for Animals was responsible for locating a safe haven for the calves that survived the illegal elephant cull and will be creating a transport plan and hiring a senior council to mount legal action. Again, this statement is untrue as it was the NSPCA who researched all the available options open to these animals and secured the consent of the proposed final destination, and, in the event that the calves are released into the NSPCAs ownership as a result of the NSPCAs legal action, the NSPCA would create their ultimate transport plan. Not only are the above claims by Network for Animals false but they are also detrimental and undermining to our current legal counsel. Furthermore, the information provided on your petition site is completely inaccurate and confused and could lead to legal consequences that not only jeopardise the cases but compromise the integrity of the National Council of SPCAs. The National Council of SPCAs appreciates Network for Animals interest in these cases but cannot allow the work of the NSPCA to be undermined nor the cases to be jeopardised by inaccurate dissemination of information. This is simply an attempt to secure yourselves funding. We require that your office set this matter right as a matter of urgency. Failure to do so will result in the NSPCA being forced to take the matter further and address these shortcomings in a more formal forum. Kind regards, Marcelle Meredith Executive Director National Council of SPCAs This would not be the first time that Network for Animals ( who have a trust registered with the charity commission) have used questionable information in their fund-raising campaigns. In December 2012 the Network for Animals were banned from using fundraising material by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). In that fundraising campaign the Network for Animals claimed that they saved and rescued thousands of dogs from slaughterhouses in the Philippines but they failed to mention that most of the dogs saved or rescued were euthanized. The ASA ruled that by omitting this important information using the terms saved and rescued could be misunderstood as meaning the dogs were saved from death and rehomed.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:25:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015