Photos.comIn a move sure to enrage anti-fur groups, the Fur Council of Canada is seeking to sway public opinion by rebranding itself with a new "Vision of Fur for an Eco-Conscious World," summed up in the slogan "Fur is Green." They admit that the new approach is "provocative," and the content at the Fur is Green web site unapologetically boosts fur as a responsible and environmentally sound fashion choice.

The Fur is Green web site defines their position as follows:

We want people to know that fur is an excellent choice if you care about nature -- because fur is a natural, renewable resource. The Canadian fur trade is very well regulated to ensure animal welfare. The furs we use are abundant; never from endangered species. And fur apparel is remarkably long wearing. This is more eco-logical than today’s disturbing trend to “cheap”, disposable fashion – like the tons of unwanted materials (80% non-biodegradable synthetics!) that ends up in landfills. Those who think that synthetics can replace fur should also know that most synthetics are made from petroleum – a non-renewable resource – and their production and disposal can pose environmental problems.

The purpose of the site is to "present another side of the fur story" and correct misconceptions created by "sensationalist and misleading animal rights campaigns."

Model Posing in fur coat. Environmental? Photos.comWhether the Fur Council of Canada would consider the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as "sensationalist and misleading" is not clear, but that organization is clear about where it stands on fur in fashion:

The pitiless fur industry mistreats and kills more than 50 million animals a year. With many warm, chic alternatives available, there’s no reason to wear animal fur. More and more designers and retailers are making compassion their fashion, so check our list before you shop. Avoiding animal fur saves lives and reduces suffering.

The HSUS mission statement is "Celebrating Animals, Confronting Cruelty." Here is part of how the HSUS describes its role:

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization—backed by 11 million Americans, or one in every 28. Established in 1954, The HSUS seeks a humane and sustainable world for all animals—a world that will also benefit people. We are America's mainstream force against cruelty, exploitation and neglect, as well as the most trusted voice extolling the human-animal bond.

The HSUS case against fur, which may be taken as representing a moderate, if unforgiving, view of the issue, is presented with much evidence of animal abuse in foreign countries such as China, where raccoon dogs are reportedly skinned alive, the illegal use of cats and dogs in the fur trim industry, and cruel and abusive conditions in fur farming operations around the world. It is, of course, opposed to the Canadian commercial seal hunt. The basic position is that no matter what the pro-fur side says, cruelty and abuse of animals is endemic and unavoidable in this industry and therefore it cannot be justified.

Although the fur industry does its best to keep the cruelty out of sight, suffering is a common ingredient in all methods of procuring fur, from fur factory farming to trapping . . . On fur farms around the world, millions of raccoon dogs, rabbits, foxes, mink, chinchillas, and other animals spend their lives in wire cages only to die from inhumane neck-breaking or anal electrocution.

The organization has had success in having certain types of fur banned and fur sales in North America and Europe are down. On December 2, department store Lord and Tailor announced that it is banning all raccoon dog fur in its stores after the HSUS brought charges of false advertising against the firm. The Chinese raccoon dog fur was being sold as "faux fur." (China is one of the few markets where fur sales are booming, much of it shipped from Canada.) HSUS is proceeding against Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus and Macy's on similar grounds, stating that they should honour "consumers' strong desire to keep cruel and inhumane products out of their shopping bags this holiday season." 

It is not difficult to find evidence of horrific cruelty to animals all over the world. Some of it is culture-based. In North America the meat packing industry has been exposed again and again for its dreadful indifference to the animals' suffering . Upton Sinclair's classic novel of the Chicago stockyards, The Jungle, published in 1908, was the first to draw the public's attention to the horrors of slaughterhouses and was partly responsible for new regulations to control them. Sinclair was more interested in the plight of the workers, however. Then, as now, most of them were immigrants, forced to work in the appalling conditions because they had no choice.

Still, public awareness of animal abuse, whether in slaughterhouse facilities, research laboratories or factory farms, has grown, and acceptance of such practices has shrunk. Reasonable people deplore cruelty and abuse wherever they see it. Only persons who are psychologically disturbed take pleasure in inflicting or witnessing pain.

If, however, the principal objection to the use of animals for their fur is that there is no humane way to take that fur, the question for reasonable people might be this: given that animals are exploited by humans as sources of food, labour, medical research, tissue harvesting, and entertainment, why should they not be exploited for their fur if this can be done humanely?

Perhaps no other issue, with the exception of abortion, rouses people's emotions to such a frenzy. But emotion is not what's needed. People need to form opinions and make decisions rationally. Yes, there is abuse in the fur business (and in meat packing, dog fighting, horse racing, beekeeping, dairy farming, poultry farming, medical research, and just about anywhere humans and animals come together), but we can agree that the abuse is wrong and must be stopped. Can it be stopped in all cases? No. Should we make greater efforts, including pressuring our governments and supporting organizations that protect animals, to ensure that abuse is eliminated wherever it occurs? Of course.  

Must we take the position that no animal must ever be killed for any reason? There are many possible answers to this, depending on religious beliefs, philosophical positions and psychological factors, but for the majority, those who are reasonable and well-intentioned and respectful of all life, the answer might be something like, "I accept that an animal died to make this meal (or coat, or shoe, or organ transplant) possible, and I will do what I can to make sure that its death, and the deaths of all the others of its kind or other kinds, was not terrible or cruel in any way."

What more can a reasonable person do?

NOTICE - This article is the opinion of the author or reports the news and opinions of others and is NOT INTENDED TO OFFER ADVICE. This story/article/feature may be an opinion piece — and should be treated accordingly — or reporting on the opinions of others, and should never be considered as a sole source of information or as a suggestion, instruction or prescription. For crime stories, always read the word "allegedly" in any story mentioning "suspects" or "persons of interest". For money/trade and exchange stories, this magazine and its writers accept no responsibility for accuracy — always check with other sources for important decisions. In the case of food/health stories, these facts have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Information stated here should be NOT be considered as medical, health, psychological or behavior advice. All information in this story and on this site is provided for educational or entertainment purposes ONLY. Always seek the advice of experts, including doctors for medical opinions. Only a licensed medical doctor can offer medical advice. Legal advice or other expert advice is best referred to experts in their respective fields. The publishers and editors, authors, researchers, employees, heirs and assigns accept no responsibility whatsoever for any advice, facts, opinions in this story, nor for resulting actions of readers of this information. ALL READERS ACCEPT THAT THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED ONLY AS EDUCATION, ENTERTAINMENT OR OPINION/INFORMATION AND AGREE IN READING THIS STORY OR THIS SITE THAT USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE READER. Copyright by the author unless otherwise indicated. EXCERPTS from other magazines or media sources are posted under fair use doctrine, on the basis of no more than 5-10% of content with links and credit to source for the complete story. These are posted in the interest of providing interesting links (description as excerpt) with navigation to the source. Likewise, we encourage our many subscribers to excerpt with credit and links to our e-zines, up to 10% of content. To use more content than 10%, please contact the e-zine for permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED except as stipulated herein.

Persona Corp. and Blogertize publishes several e-zines for entertainment and information, but cautions readers to read the NOTICE above:

• Films and Books

• Canadian Money Magazine

• Advance Magazine

* Link Magazine

* EDI Weekly

* Secure Network News

* Canadian Money Magazine

* Crime Report USA

Sponsored Advertisers

Jameson Bank – Canada's "It's Taken Care Of" Bank

Amer.com – Technology for Life

freedom9 — The freedom of a secure world

Daemar Inc — Moving at the pace of industry