Much of what I will be writing about can also be said for the meat industry. I do not mean to stand on a higher ground since I do sometimes eat meat and I do own two clothing products that are accented with fur. I also wear leather. My bias against wearing fur for fashion will come through, but I hope that any readers that I get here will appreciate my effort to try to provide balanced information along with critical thoughts on industry information. Naturally, there are a few things to correct from my first post on this topic.
First, fur does not have to come from far away. Fur is still an important part of Canada's economy. If you live in Europe, northern countries farm fur. Second, the production of fur does not usually use a significant amount of toxic products. The only one of concern would be formaldehyde, but it is used in a small amount. Third, there is a sort of certification for "Origin Assured" products, that tells you that the fur came from a location that follows regulations on humane trapping, farming, and euthanasia (killing with the use of injection or carbon monoxide).
This blog post is still presenting very introductory information on fur. I gathered the information from a website, Fur Is Green, which is providing me with a good jumping-off point and helping me to identify potential research topics that I can look into more fully. This site tells its readers that fur is environmentally-friendly in a number of ways: (1)it is long-lasting; (2)processing it is earth-friendly;(3)it is biodegradable; (4)there is no waste from the animal*; (5)no endangered animals are killed in the fur industry✢; (6)there are more of many of the animals that are trapped for fur now than there were when settlers landed.✾The website also says that "local environmental protection controls ensure that there are no harmful result." The problem with this is that the treatment may depend on those environmental controls, which can be weakened by lobbying in an industry.
Another quote that runs along the same lines is: "Animal welfare is a top priority for the people working in the fur industry because when animals provide us with a wide range of products and services, we have a responsibility to ensure the highest standards of care and prevent unnecessary suffering." What I have to say to that is, if only our recognition of this were all that it took to prevent unnecessary suffering, then the world would be a much better place. For craft furriers and small-scale animal handlers, with sufficient resources in terms of money, space, and staffing, this recognition might be all that is needed. When people are well taken care-of, they tend to be better at treating others, including animals, with respect. However, there are some people who seem to have everything and still abuse others, so I do hope that the humane treatment laws in all of these places where fur is part of the economy have the rigor to stand up to any abuse.
As I had thought about in my previous post, it would appear that as long as the harvesting of fur is done humanely and sustainably, fur products are "better" for the environment than petroleum based polyester clothing. A quote from the website reads: "Up to one gallon of petroleum is needed to produce synthetic jackets. Production of synthetic fibers involves chemical reactions at high temperatures and using harmful substances." Going off of this, I have also read that the tiny fibers that come off our clothing when we do laundry can get into our waterways and have a negative impact. These fibers are now part of the microplastic problem−in which the oceans are filling up with tiny pieces of plastic−and fish and other organisms are ingesting them in place of food. Needless to say, the ramifications of this could be significant.
A final claim made on the Fur Is Green website that I would like to comment on is about the use of science as a matter of convenience versus inconvenience. The writers talk about the basic 'boom and bust' cycle in nature. Basically, left to their own devices, species' populations will rise and fall in a cycle due to such factors as predation, disease, and food abundance/scarcity. The fur industry is purportedly following conservation biologists' research on population dynamics and see themselves as helping to stabilize the population and end the lives of the "surplus" in a humane way. In terms of ethics, I find this to be a weak justification. Wild animals have a right to live out their lives in whatever way nature intended. Besides this, predation and disease generally serve a purpose in taking out the sick and dying. I would hazard a guess that the fur on these animals is not up to the industry's standards and that fur trappers aim to get healthier animals with better coats.
Overall, as long as they are not adversely affecting populations, then I suppose I cannot say too much against the industry, but they are not saviors for playing God. Besides this, in one Q&A panel on their website, where people are asking whether they are wearing cat or dog fur, the writers make an argument that "some animal rights groups are saying that raccoon dogs are dogs, because they are classified by biologists as in the canidae✧ family... but Nyctereutes procyonoides is really a completely distinct species that resembles a North American raccoon much more than it does a coyote, wolf or other members of the dog family." This is a sloppy argument since they say they follow what scientists say on the subject of population dynamics, which suits their industry, but not to other scientists whose classification of the raccoon dog as a member of the dog family might discourage buyers. This would be me. On my hat with the little tuft of fur, the label says "raccoon", and if it came from a raccoon dog, then in my opinion I am being misinformed.
So, I have a lot to read up on. We'll see how it goes. Thank you for your attention!*They specifically mention mink in this and so it is unclear whether this is the case for other animals. Mink oils are used in leather treatment and in cosmetics, and the rest is used in fertilizer.
✢ I have a very hard time believing this and it makes me suspicious of the rest of the claims from the Fur Is Green website. I had one friend on Facebook express excitement over the prospect of soon owning a snow leopard coat. Snow leopards are listed as Endangered.
✾ I have a hard time believing this as well. Also, what about the animals that have not recovered their pre-colonial populations?
✧ Coyotes, dogs, foxes, jackals, and wolves
No comments:
Post a Comment