Fur can be Fair

I wrote about the fur industry a few months ago in this blog post, but I’ve recently done some more in-depth research into the Canadian fur industry. Thanks to the Fur Council of Canada, I have learnt a lot about how the fur trade works in Canada, and the impact it has on Canadian business.

Now, I am sure some of my readers don’t like fur. In fact, many people find the idea of wearing fur clothing repulsive. I understand that there are many people who choose not to consume animal products, and if that is your choice, I respect it. But I also feel that the fur industry has a very bad rep, much worse than it deserves. I think organizations like PETA, who have a lot of money and celebrities on side, have disproportionally victimized the fur industry.

Workers in the fur industry. Photo by Claire Beaugrand-Champagne.

I’ve compiled a few statistics about the fur industry in Canada, to help you all understand a bit more about what it is about. Remember that the fur industry in Canada is just that, in Canada, so I’m not telling you about what happens in the fur farming industry in China, or any other country. I think the fur industry in Canada is important, our country was founded on it, and I think it needs to have a stronger voice. So here are a few reasons why we should support, or at least respect, the fur industry in Canada.

  1. (Ok, I’m starting with one global statistic, to set the tone…) The fur industry represents less than one quarter of 1 percent of animals killed for human consumption. That’s very little. The meat and leather industries represent many, many more animals: some 200 million cows and several BILLION chickens plus millions of pigs, sheep, goats, etc., in North America alone — compared with about 6 million farmed and wild fur animals.) So it is strange that the fur industry seems to get so much criticism, when it is such a small business.
  2. Even though it is small, the fur industry is a business that accounts for some $800 million dollars a year in Canada (including more than $350 million in exports) . That is money earned by thousands of aboriginal and other trappers living in some of the most remote regions of the country, by fur farming families, living in rural areas where employment opportunities are limited, and by processors and artisans working in small companies and family businesses, almost all of them in companies employing less than 20 people. These are not mega-corporations like meat and dairy, they are individuals who would be out of a job if we were to stop buying fur. Everyone seems to want to buy locally these days, and what is more local than buying a fur coat made from a wild animal caught in Canada, whose fur was prepared in Canada, and that was crafted, by hand, by a Canadian in Canada?
  3. One third of fur in Canada comes from wild animals. The trapping skills used are regulated from the government, and are as humane as possible. That means that a good percentage of Canadian furs come from animals who have lived happy and free in the wild. (The ultimate in “free-range” and “organic” clothing!)

    Beavers are one of the most common animals used for fur in Canada. Photo by Luc Farrell.

  4. The fur industry helps regulate the populations of wild animals. Beavers and muskrat are the main wild animals caught for fur in Canada, accounting for more than one-half the total. Beavers are animals that can cause a lot of destruction in the wild; due to the way they build their dams and forage for food. Beavers also reproduce very quickly, and when populations become too big, the beavers can seriously damage the environment, putting other wildlife at risk. If it weren’t for the fur industry, that provides an financial incentive for trappers to take a regulated number of beavers every year, the Canadian and provincial governments would have to have the animals culled in order to protect roads, fields, private property and vital wildlife habitat. (By the way, there are just as many beavers in the wild as there were 400 years ago. And no endangered or at risk animals may be killed for fur.)
  5. The business generated by the fur industry in Canada helps to ensure that the natural habitats where the animals are caught are protected. A lot of the land where the trapping takes place would be more vulnerable to “development” (shopping centres, housing tracts, etc), were it not that the land produces revenue from hunters, trappers and others. If we didn’t have a profitable fur industry, a lot of this natural habitat could be lost to agriculture or other industries.
  6. Animals farmed for fur are not treated any worse than animals farmed for meat. In fact, in some ways they are better off. Farmed mink need excellent nutrition and care or their fur will not be good enough for the very competitive international market. (Anyone with a dog or cat knows that a sick or unhappy animal has dull, unhealthy fur.) Another advantage is that, because they are not raised to feed humans, they can be euthanized quickly, in the same barn where they are raised. Food animals must be herded into trucks and transported long distances – which is even more stressful that the actual slaughtering. Hopefully I’ll have more to say on this subject when I get the chance to visit a local mink farm, sometime in the next few months.

    Muskrat, also frequently used in the fur industry in Canada. Photo by Luc Farrell.

  7. Fur is biodegradable, long lasting, and handmade. You can’t make a fur coat in a giant production line. Each fur coat is individually handcrafted, using special skills and techniques that have been handed down from generation to generation. A fur coat lasts much longer than a synthetic coat (or most other clothing) and can be recycled to make a new fur coat. After many years of service, fur will eventually biodegrade, unlike petroleum-based synthetic fabrics. (Have you seen the mounds of textile waste we have in landfills? Some synthetic fabrics will take thousands of years to decompose.) And a fur coat lasts a long time. It is rare that a consumer will buy a new fur coat every season. They buy one, which will last a very long time, and it will often get handed down.
  8. Nothing is wasted. Some people think that it is ok to kill a cow because we eat the meat and use the leather, but the fur industry is no different. In the fur industry, once the fur is taken, the meat of wild fur animals (like beaver and muskrat) is eaten by humans (in fact, they provide food in remote aboriginal communities where store bought food is extremely expensive to import), or returned to the wild to feed other wild animals during the cold months of winter. There are also other by-products, such as mink oil used for skin care products and professional leather care, organic fertilizers, beaver “castors” (scent glands) for use in perfumes, etc…
  9. It’s a business with a lot of tradition. Canada was founded on the fur industry. The skills are generally passed down from generation to generation, and many communities still depend on the fur industry for food and income. Eliminating this would not only end this important part of our heritage, but also destroy a large number of jobs. And why, since fur is a natural product that is produced sustainably and responsibly?

Fur homewares. I'd love these in front of my fireplace. Photo by Bill Abercrombie.

I’ve always been a big fan of fur, it is warm, beautiful to the touch, and natural. And it is a great relief to learn that the fur industry is far from evil and exploitative. I explained all of the above to my friend Maria, who dislikes fur and rarely eats meat, and she agreed that the above arguments have certainly swayed her perception of the fur industry. But her argument was “I don’t want this to mean that suddenly everyone thinks it is ok to cage animals in horrible conditions and kill them for their pelts.” I agree with her completely, and I believe that the approach consumers take to the fur industry needs to be the same as the approach they take to buying meat, chocolate, coffee, etc… I won’t buy a battery chicken, I’ll only buy fairtrade coffee, and I won’t buy fur farmed in countries where there is no regulation or standards for the treatment of animals. But that doesn’t mean I won’t buy any more chicken, coffee or fur; I am simply learning to be smarter about my decisions. I hope some of the above facts will help you to make smarter decisions too.

All images, unless otherwise noted, are courtesy of the Fur Council of Canada.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
This entry was posted in Canadian Style, The Fashion Industry and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • kazoo

    Great post. While it is very important to regulate fur trapping or farming to ensure that it does not endanger local ecosystems or cause unnecessary pain to animals, I can't see any difference between the consumption of fur products and meat or leather products. We should move away from the over-zealous protection of 'cute' or charismatic animals, and consider more deeply how our consumption as a society affects entire living systems, regardless of how fluffy and adorable particular living species are.

    However – one slight concern. Increased demand for fur products (thanks to articles like yours) might enventually lead to industrial production of fur, and the destruction of the small traditional industry you describe. It will be like battery hens all over again…

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Great points. And I agree about the risk of industrial production, which is why we need to buy smart and local, from the right companies.

  • http://www.air-jordan-17.com air jordan 17

    The lifestyle what thread said is really very nice , we know a new method about household. In fact there are so much knowledge about household life in this forum, I often come and learned much new knowledge which I never known before, another I got some other excellent websites about fashion and newest trend!Amare Stoudemire shoes

  • Zee

    Very enlightening and smart article Alex!

  • Yuli

    Hello, interesting post. However, much of your information (if I am not mistaken) has been taken from the Fur Council of Canada, the very same organization that launched a campaign called <<Fur is Green>> As you may or may not know, fur is one of the least environmentally friendly productions of clothing. In fact, synthetic fur which may seem quite harmful to the planet is 7 times less harmful than real fur for the following reason: fur is made up of animal skins that have to be exposed and drenched in highly toxic chemicals that will prevent the animal flesh from rotting and decomposing. These highly toxic chemicals escape from fur factories and leak into our water systems, and pollute our argiculture and food.

    In fact, the fur industry is a very large business. Over 50 million animals are killed for their pelts every year, whether in the wild or in a mass-farming factory. It is actually a business just as big as veal and dairy. Where did you get your information that it was otherwise? I am just asking because there is cause for concern if this misinformation is fooling many Canadians (and other people worldwide) about the realities of the fur industry.

    And to respond to your argument about fur creating jobs and money for aboriginals and other people living in remote areas of the country, I would just like to point out that the invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring and job retraining. Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress—not a reason to deter it.

    Can you please tell me where you got “the beavers can seriously damage the environment, putting other wildlife at risk.” fact? I would like to know what kinds of scientific and biological studies have been made to prove this. The government has been using that very same argument to justify the seal hunt, which apparently would eat all the fish. (No scientific research has ever, not even to date, been able to prove that this would happen. In fact, a researcher from the University of Illinois said that if there is a surplus of seals, sharks coming from the pacific will “move” to those regions of Canada and hunt seals).

    Although some fur trappers (only some) will murder the animals in a quick and painless death, actually 25 % of all animals trapped in barbaric leg hold traps will chew off their own limbs in order to escape from the trap. These animals will later die of secondary infections or starve to death (because they cannot catch their preys with a missing limb).

    Actually, animals raised on fur farms can live their lives in worsened conditions than animals raised for food on factory farms. Animals on fur farms are cramped in cages that are so small they can barely move, they get stepped on, and the cages are stacked one on top of the other so that the feces from the top cage leaks down onto all the animals on the bottom cages. Rarely do these animals ever see daylight.

    It must be understood that animals, whether raised for food or for fur, represent commodities to the people who profit off of them, like an inanimate object. Thus, when money and profit is a top priority, and animals have the misfortune of being a part of that system, cruelty cases are bound to take place within such factory farms.

    Sorry if I am jumping all over the place and there is no flow between my thoughts. I was trying to respond individually to each argument as I read your post….
    I see you ae a fan of fur, and that is your perogative. My argument is that nowadays, with an abundance of synthetic winter coats, such a gore tex and many other highly resistant synthetic winter fabircs, there is no longer a need to endorse cruelty inflicted onto helpless animals and onto the people working the toxic chemicals in the fur farms.

    All of my stats and facts were taken from the following websites:
    http://www.humanesociety.com/
    http://www.peta.org/
    http://blog.mattandnat.com/?tag=against-fur-cou…
    http://www.furisdead.com/
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7011318…

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Hi Yuli,
    Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately I don’t have time to address all of your points in detail at this stage, but I’d like to comment quickly on your points.
    Yes, I got a lot of my information from the Fur Council of Canada. Your statistics about synthetic fur being seven times less harmful that normal fur are not correct in all instances. Perhaps with some types of synthetic fur, but most synthetics are made from petroleum based fibres, and there are far more environmental issues, direct and indirect, associated with petroleum products, the oil spill in the Gulf being only one small example. Also, the toxic chemicals you are referring to are used on leather, not furs. You can’t drench fur in anything, especially a toxic chemical, because the pelt will be completely ruined.
    Your figure of 50 million animals is very different from mine. I trust my sources, you trust yours, so my best suggestion is to agree to disagree. I am, however, planning on doing more research into this subject to see if I can find more statistics to back this up. In the meantime, we can certainly agree that this is far less than the meat and dairy industry.
    Your point about social progress is very interesting, and I agree to a certain extent, but I also think that abolishing the fur trade would be a terrible loss to our heritage and the aboriginal culture. Just because we are progressing, does not mean we should abandon tradition. I think this comment shows a degree of callousness towards the traditions of the aboriginal people; they should abandon fur in order to satisfy the desires of animal rights activists? Shall we also demand that people stop eating farmed meat, battery chickens, etc…?
    I will also work on getting some more substantial research about the beavers and the environmental damage they cause when their population gets too big. But I think it says a lot about the wildlife management regulations when we know that there are just as many wild beavers today as there were 400 years ago.
    I’ll agree that some of the trapping techniques may cause some stress to animals, but this is nothing compared to stress that farmed animals suffer when being transported to abattoirs. And you are seriously mistaken about the conditions about the animals farmed for fur in Canada (remember, I am not referring to other countries’ fur trade.) Perhaps you need to recheck your facts, or find some referring to the Canadian fur industry.
    I can understand that people are against the consumption of animals and their by-products, and I respect their decision to do this, but I feel that it is pointless to argue that consumption of all animal and by-product goods should be put to a stop, as this is clearly unrealistic. It will take a lot for people to stop wearing leather and stop eating meat, and therefore it is not fair to victimize the tiny fur industry. What I am asking is that people respect that the fur industry has a place in this world, and that consumers should have access to the right information so if they choose to buy fur, they make the right decisions. Lumping Canada’s small traditional fur trade in same category as the barely regulated farmed fur industry in China is like comparing battery chickens to a farmers who eats and sells his free range, organic fed chickens, or an organic, Canadian made t-shirt in the same category as a Walmart t-shirt made in a sweatshop. A differentiation must be made.

  • http://twitter.com/Mtl_Fashionista Mtl_fashionista

    Alexandra, thank you for this post! I am a big fan of fur and I proudly wear a Canadian-made sheared beaver vest. It's the warmest thing that I owe and I wear it from October to early May. I even sleep with it and my cat loves it too!
    I also read Yuli's comment and I would like to quickly address a few points.
    - Fur pelts are usually dressed with natural ingredients (salt, cornstarch, soda ash…) because strong chemicals would damage the pelts. I can't help but think about the jean industry, which is one of the biggest industry in the fashion world. Jeans are available in all kind of “washes”, a procedure that use TONS of chemicals and water. Nobody seems to care about that, but yet, lots of people will want to boycott a tiny industry that is very well regulated. So I think that this post makes a very good point: people unfairly criticize a tiny local industry but still buy jeans and fast-fashion clothing imported from China (carbon footprint!!)
    - I live in Quebec and yes, beavers can be problematic. Just 2 weeks ago, I heard this report on CBS radio: http://www.cbc.ca/video/news/audioplayer.html?c….
    - Yuli, I am curious about where you got the statistics that “only some” fur trappers will murder animals quickly (actually, murder is a term that should be used for humans, not animals. Interesting choice of words). I know some trappers – not uncommon when you live in QC — and one fact that you should really check is -the governmental regulations for trapping. You might be surprised!

    I agree with you Alexandra, people can be unfair with the fur industry. I am so happy it's a growing trend, I hope that fashionistas out there realize that they can make a smart decision when buying fur! Buy Canadian!

  • http://twitter.com/Mtl_Fashionista Mtl_fashionista

    ** oups! warmest thing a OWN not OWE!! *** Correcting myself! ;0)

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    To Yuli, and anyone else interested, here is an excellent article about how beavers are causing havoc in Quebec.

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/Beavers+gnawing+…

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Fur can be Fair at Searching for Style -- Topsy.com

  • Yuli

    Hello Mtl Fashionista,

    First off, thank you for this interesting conversation. I strive on hearing counter arguments to my statement, and it is interesting to hear some pro fur arguments as well.

    “Fur processing involves an array of chemicals from soaking and degreasing agents, to enzymes, oils and greases, bleaches, dyes, reinforcing agents, toners, tanning and finishing chemicals. Workers exposed to dust created during fur processing have been shown to have reduced pulmonary function in direct proportion to their length of exposure.”

    As an animal rights activist living in Qc, you can surely bet that I have met many fur trappers, hunters, breeders, etc. in my life and all of whom i've met have publicly confirmed to me that their use of nocif chemicals is (as they put it) “necessary and crucial in preventing the pelt to decompose and smell”.

    IFAW has conducted an outstanding amount of investigations on fur trapping in Canada. The reality is much crueller than you think. You might be surprised to know that governmental regulations for trapping, and all other governmental regulations, are in fact quite rarely “regulated”. In fact, IFAW claims that Canada has an “abysmal record of enforcement” of anti-cruelty laws surrounding the hunt although a Canadian government survey indicated that two thirds of Canadians supported the hunting of seals if the regulations under Canadian law are enforced.

    Usually, when the end goal is profit and economic gain, cruelty is bound to take place simply because money speaks louder than morals and ethics (for many people).

    I think my choice of words were right on. I believe that “murder” is a correct term that can be applied to the slaughter of animals, even though our dictionnaries would claim otherwise, and our judicial system wouldn't consider the killing of an animal by a human as “murder”. However, it is important to understand that legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and who doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinions of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are unfortunately not as arbitrary.

    I believe that humans and animals are equals, each put together in nature to test our morals. Just because I can physically overpower an animal and cause him severe harm doesn't mean that I should.

    To believe that animals are beneath us because they are not capable of rational thought is a case of speciesism, a modern-day synonym of racism.

    “The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they talk?” but rather, “Can they suffer?” – Jeremy Bentham

  • Frank

    Fur is for the morally bankrupt. People can sugar coat and justify their use of fur all they want, but the truth is that it is a cruel industry. We should all feel comfortable in our skin in order to not feel the need to wear someone else's skin.

    “If you don’t want to be beaten, imprisoned, mutilated, killed or tortured then you shouldn’t condone such behavior towards anyone, be they human or not.” -Moby

  • Yuli

    Hello Alexandra,

    Thank you for getting back to me.

    Actually it is interesting that you say “Shall we also demand that people stop eating farmed meat, wearing leather shoes, etc…?” … actually… yes! haha, that is my aim in life.

    As for fur being engrained in tradition and how banning it would strip away jobs and traditions from Native Americans I would just like to state that the invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring and job retraining. Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress—not a reason to deter it.

    My point as why fur is so not eco-friendly is not only the use of chemicals, but the overwhelming amount of CO2 that is released in the air due to the decomposing flesh of the animal (which is pretty much left to rot after the skin, its only marketable value, has been stripped off of the animal).

    Finally, i would also like to state that just because meat and dairy might appear to be industries that are far crueller or far larger than the fur industry does not mean that we should not protest against it. We should protest all forms of cruelty whether big or small, at least that is my belief.

    And finally, I would just like to state that Canada is currently the only country in the world to engage in a fur trade with China. So while you might think that deplorable cruelties in the fur industry do not exist in Canada, you might want to take note of the fact that Canada has no problem in supporting this cruel treatment of animals elsewhere in the world.

    Thank you for unfolding this interesting debate in a respectful manner.

  • Daria

    To alexandra, mtl_fashionista, and all other little Cruella Devils out there… if you wish to get rid of the blood off of your hands, visit : http://www.furisdead.com/

  • Yuli

    (no problem about the “edited” i think the core of my arguments are still there so no worries! ps: i posted a link to your blog on my facebook to see what people think about the issue and where they stand on the debate. this explains why you are getting a gagillion comments all at the same time)

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Hi Yuli,

    Thanks for the interesting points. I am in the process of learning more about the fur industry and both sides of the debate, so it helps to hear your arguments, as I intend on looking into them.

    I respect that you believe people should not consumer meat, leather, and any other by-products, and if that is what you want to promote, I wish you the best of luck. In the meantime, I'd just like to say (and I sincerely hope that you can somewhat agree on this) that it is quite unlikely that the world will stop consuming these things, no matter what the argument. However, a difference can be made in educating people to make the right choices, so that the animals they are consuming are the ones who have been treated the best, with the least negative impact to the environment and in a fair way for the people involved in the trade. That is what I would like to promote, and I was hoping some of my arguments would shed some light onto the other side of the argument. There appears to be some gaps, but I intend on researching this further.

    Alexandra

  • Jared

    So …. Frank….you're calling the majority of northern and subarctic aboriginal people morally bankrupt? Seems like you may be a holier-than-though sort of person ….you are coming from a western ideology that is implicating the traditions and lifestyle of a people that have been living on this continent for a lot longer than your people. Aboriginal people have been wearing fur and skins for thousands of years and continue to do so…but you in your infinite wisdom have caste them as immoral because of it. Nice. Think twice before you throw stones as you and your polyester and faux leather are doing far worse damage to our Mother Earth than fur ever will.

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Great point Jared. And another reason why we need to find a way to identify and define acceptable ways for the fur industry to exist, rather than focus on attempting to abolish it.

  • FUR IS DEAD

    I can't believe that you are comparing wearing fur as a means of sustenance by Aboriginal people, with the vain and cruel wearing of fur by little fashionistas like you and alexandra.
    Aboriginal people who wear fur do so because it is how they survive the cold weather. If you have access to a shopping mall, but decide to wear real fur instead of synthetic materials like gore-tex (because it's luxurious, it's soft, etc..) then YOU sir are morally bankrupt.

    Stop hiding behind Aboriginal people who wear fur for survival.

    Anyone who sells fur for the profitable aspect is morally bankrupt. And anyone who wears fur for the style or look of it is morally bankrupt as well!

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Are people who eat meat and wear leather morally bankrupt as well?

  • lisa

    why don't we actually hear an indigenous perspective since we love to use “them” to justify this cruel practice…if this blog is really about the “truth” about the industry this link will not be taken off

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikm0xEzq2vE

  • real friend of fur

    1. just because there are industries that exploit larger numbers of animals does not negate the damage caused by the fur industry.
    2. the trappers is not where the money is but the middle men. If you want to help trappers, farmers and their families it would be better to train them in more lucrative industries/skills.
    3.”Humane as possible does not mean it is humane given that you are killing animals, humane is a relative term that means little for the dead animals.

    4. Food regulates most species with predation helping keeping them healthy starvation is the indicator that there are more animals than a habitat will support and that is the unfortunate natural balance not human industry.
    5. Habitat can be protected without an exploitive industry. Just because land uses is limited does not mean protected and is not a viable argument. The animals trapped as well as the predators that depend on them for their own survival would not find this protection adequate.
    6. Factory farming like fur farming is a horrendous practice which balances suffering ona profit scale so the animals always lose. The methods used to kill furbearers to keep their fur marketable like elctrecution are horrible
    7. So are clothing made of fibres such as hemp, bamboo and the like and no animals have to die.
    8. Life is wasted. In addition the full “use” of an animal varies like in all industries as not all are so “thoughtful” as it is not so profitable to do so at times.
    9. Traditions come and go, we no longer do much of what our ancesters did because we grow beyond them. It is not a matter of simply ending the trade but replacing it with more sustainable industries.

    I highly sugest that instead of parroting the ideas of others that you truly investigate the subjects for your writing and look beyond the industry hype.

  • Lisa Diana

    Hi there.

    I used to wear fur when i was in my twenties (19-22), untill i came home one night to find my mother crying her eyes out holding our cat. She had just watched a show which would have been the fall of 1983 or 1984, that in detail shows how the fur gets to the customer.

    Since both her and i recieved these coats and one valued over 40,000 from my father, we were literally sick to our stomachs and have not worn fur since that time. Her 40,000 dollare coat still sits in the closet and will since selling it is still promoting it even though she will not wear it herself.

    At the same time I became a hairstylist and animal acitivist which is now 27 years ago, which was also the time that we found out cosmetics were tested on animals and the industry changed due to customer demand. It is still not a perfect industry but on its way to being a 100% very soon.

    My father grew cows, pigs and chickens at the farms he had down in the valley but we lived more in the city but since would not allow any on the property since she could not eat what she loved and named (go figure) we continued to eat fleash since our animals were not “treated like that”, and i continued to eat meat up untill 12-13 years ago since again our animals were treated like house pets (loved, burshed,talked too, never dirty and alwawys got good organic foods and played with foods), untill it finally clicked that they experienced horrible fear and breech of trust in order to be eaten. Was i a hyprocrite, god yes. Morally corrupted well maybe but in my time (I was born in 1963) we did not have any info at all about how our food got to the plate and i only at our animals so……

    I have seen onsite killings for fur within fur farms, suffering trapped animals still in the traps, been in 9 slaughterhouses within the US and Canada (i live in Nova Scotia, Canada), and onsite killing for farmed animals.

    No matter how you want to slice it or dice it (parden the experssion) it is horrible to treat other livings thing like this for non other than profit and that is it regardless if it is for food or clothing in this day and age, for the majoriety of the population.

    So to finish this off, yes at this point if anyone has the knowledge how animals are treated for our useage and continues to do so for their own selfish pleasures such as taste and fashion it is (morally corrupted might be a strong word but it does ge the point across), needless within a society that now offers tons of alternatives.

    I am only using myself as an example….I had the trickle down effect. First fur and then cosmetics, then food, but of course food was the last to go because it meant family get togethers ( i am from and Italaian background – dad, Mom is part Native and German), barbeques, parties etc and i LOVE (and still do but don't eat it, meat and cheese) I wanted to believe that these animals did not mind getting slaugherted but it is just plain not true. The fear in there eyes is something any intelligent person cannot miss even if they try.

    This is not about people who require these things for substance, it is a moral and eithical issue that faces others and we have control over these autrosities every time we make a decisiion to buy fur and eat corpses.

    All i can hope for is that some others will have a trickle down attitude and yes it is rediculous to condem fur while eating meat and wearing leather (leather is not a buy product indusrty in North America as some assume, we get 80% or more from India and those aniamls are dragged to death, and ripped open and skinned alive – the goverment turns a blind eye for the money), but it is a begininning.

    None of us are perfect, but if it takes one step at a time than lets do it for the long run.

    Your health ( I am a patholoy student of humans via Harvard on-line for now) the animals and the enviroment.

    Have a good day everyone, Lisa (peta, nova scotia, canada).

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Hi Lisa,

    Thanks for your insightful comment. I respect that there are people who wish to abolish all consumption of animals and their by-products, but I feel it is a tough battle to fight. It is going to be very ahrd to convince the world to stop eating meat and wearing leather. I believe that there needs to be a distinction between “good” fur (where the animals have been well-treated and killed as humanely as possible) and “bad” fur, where the animals spend their lives suffering, just like we do for the meat industry. The campaign against battery chicken has been extremely effective, and although it doesn't mean that less animals are being killed, it certainly means that less animals are being raised and killed under horrific conditions.

    What I am struggling to understand is how so many animal rights activists can take such a harsh view on fur, whereas their view on meat and leather is a lot less critical (some of the emotionally charged comments on this blog post certainly display a real hatred towards fur consumption, yet no mention of meat or leather, which I agree is hypocritical.) I thank you for your points on the meat and leather industries, as they help to strenghthen my argument that they are all as bad as one another, and that the fur industry is unfairly criticized.

  • Lisa Diana

    hello again.

    If i gave the impression that the fur industry is unfailry critize that was not my meaning so i apologize for the misunderstanding.

    As far as the Inuit are concerned perhaps they are being misjudged and dragged ino the argument concerning the commercial fur industry.

    Yes all animals in the industries to supply humans for entertainment, food or fashion is pretty much equal and that of course can based on the numbers, treatment, death inducing methods.

    My whole point was that a trickle down effect can happend when one takes a stand against one of the industries and then slowly sees the others in the same light.

    Again food brings back memories from smell, family gathers etc. We are pombarded with food ads and children see about 45,000 of those ads by the time they are two years old and a few leather ads as well but not as many.

    The brainwashing effect it has is good for their business and just ask McDonald's who they veiw childern and all of the other animal business, view children as thier next generation of corps lovers so they can stay in business.

    We as anaimal rights activist (or at leas the ones that i know) were raised on meat and leather and of course i had fur. So we have moved on from the tradition effectfs of ads and found out that it is a disgusting cruel way to treat anamils for our purposes.

    Ok I live in an area that has very little substitutes for meat products when i first started going vegan so i made alot myself, but now they have all kinds foods to make the transition easier…..cooking food and food from scratch takes time sooooo “oh well i will go vegan tomorrow but tonght it is MacDonalds for supper, i am too tired to try anything new today”

    I see a lot less leather in the stores for living room sets and clothing so it is coming around that if you were fur, leather and wool are the same abusive industries. …..Leather and suede is jsut a term it can range from cow hid to dog and cat skins in Canada and they don't have to lable the origin of the skin here in this country.

    Those campgains have been very successful in showing peopel that dog and cat skins come so where do we get out leather from in gernal an it stared peopele looking into the abusive ways we got our suede/leahter products in general, hence the reduction is leather supplies.

    All the large manufactors even Harley Davidson now carries a full line of pleather items that are way stronger and don't rip if you take a dumble.

    This is an old corny question but a true one:

    Would treat a human family member as such or your pet?

    If the answer is no then it is time to move on from supporting these industries and if it is no than the suffering will continue. Since suffering and intulect are different parts of the brain, it registere the sames as pain even if the species has less intellience. You can test by the cortasol levels in all speices.

    As far a everyone giving uip meat…no it won't happend but with the enviromental issues and health issues it will have to be cut substancially and then long term there will only be pockets of meat growers.

    It will be like smoking…..it will become rare enought that people might say..”oh you eat meat” like…..”oh you smoke” in a voice you know is condeming without being rude.

    This will be my last post, but i wish you all the best….lisa

    ps….excuse my spelling i am in a hurry to get to work.

  • alexandrasuhnerisenberg

    Yes, I realize that you didn't intend to say that the fur industry is unfairly criticized, however you are the first anti-fur person to admit that the meat and leather industries are the same thing. Your mention of the trickle down theory could potentially make sense, but instead of turning people off meat, what has happened is that the fur industry has been vilified, and there is very little criticism of the meat and leather industries. Why should an industry that accounts for less than 5% of the animal consumption in the world, be the one that gets harshly criticized?

    With regards to your point about smoking, I have to say I despise when people “condemn” smokers. As long as they don't smoke in around others (who don't wish to inhale second hand smoke), it is their decision to smoke, and it shouldn't be criticized by others. If we are to condemn smokers, we should also condemn obese people, and those who drink alcohol. But that is a whole other argument. (By the way, I don't smoke.)

    Anyway, thanks for your interesting points Lisa.

  • Kathrinepaterson

    Hello Alexandra

    I would just like to point out a few areas in your article that you may have overlooked.

    Yes, fur is a natural product and yes it does biodegrade however the reason that fur does last as long as it does is because it is treated by toxic petro- chemicals to preserve the carcass. Have you ever seen a dead squirrel? You know that is starts to rot and smell within days of death. The only reason fur used by the fur industry does not rot like a dead squirrel is because it has been chemically so the idea that fur is green is actually false.

    Also, to use the argument that fur does not end up in landfills like so many synthetic clothes cannot be credited to the fur industry but rather points to the wastefullness of our society.

    In my grade 9 biology class we studied animal populations over seasons and years. As we all learned, Mother Nature does not create an overpopulation. Yes, one year beaver populations are up then the next they may be down but this is due to the constant balancing act of the natural world, a world which we humans continually try to manage and continually fail to do so (reduced fish stocks throughout the world are a good example of how we humans have not been able to manage nature).

    Nature is not stagnant but ever changing. To say that beavers can damage vital wildlife habitat is false. Beavers are wildlife and when they create a pond new life moves in such as fish and reptilian life. New plants and grasses grow upon the shores and the water pond can provide water of other animals The new grasses and trees attract insects and birds. The African Savanna has been created by elephants, the elephants tear down trees and create grassland which provides a home for zebra, elk and other animals. Without the elephant the Savanna would not exist. Is the elephant destructive or is is just part of the circle of life? So is the beaver destructive or just a part of the circle of life?
    The fur industry has done a great marketing campaign to try to sell its products.
    I could name many other inconsistencies in your article but shall leave it to readers to do their own searhing.

    And please, before you call me a hippocrite I will just point out that I am just a vegan, trying to live gently upon this beautiful earth. I am vegan so no one has to work in a slaughterhouse for my food, so that the waterways don't get polluted from the effluent coming from factory farms, so that all creatures, human and non might be able to live a safe and happy life, a life to raise their young to smell fresh air and feel sunshine.

  • Pingback: couro, pele, comida e moda / leather, fur, food and fashion | trendmenu.com.br