Monday, December 03, 2007

The Upside Of The Fur Debate

I don't have to put an expensive mink/beaver coat on my Christmas list.......

Fur debate heats up
Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaign

By ANN MARIE MCQUEEN, SUN MEDIA

A slick new advertising campaign aims to reframe the fur industry as a friend of the environment.

The Fur Council of Canada launched print ads last week calling fur "eco-fashion" in an effort to reassure consumers about their product and counter anti-fur campaigns of the past.

The Montreal-based council represents about 70,000 members, most of them trappers, said Alan Herscovici, the council's executive vice-president.

"It was important to explain the real story of the fur industry," said Herscovici. "And that is 'if you care about nature and protecting the environment, fur is an excellent choice.' "

One ad criticizes synthetically made fake fur as containing petrochemicals, "non-renewable resources that cause environmental problems."

"Fur, by contrast, is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource," it says.

Herscovici said the council wanted to capitalize on current interest in all things green by getting the message out that fur is a biodegradable, renewable resource.

He stressed that all aspects of the industry are regulated and none of the Canadian animals used -- including beaver, mink, muskrat, fox and coyote -- are endangered.

MORE

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have read that in 1992 the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that fur apparel advertised as “ecological” was improperly and misleadingly labeled.

In 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined 6 fur processing firms $2.2 million for the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Anonymous said...

I have read that in 1992 the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that fur apparel advertised as “ecological” was improperly and misleadingly labeled.

In 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined 6 fur processing firms $2.2 million for the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Anonymous said...

All animals play vital roles in our eco-system. For example, after the extermination of wolf in the US Yellowstone Park in the early 20th century, soaring elk population leads to the decline of aspen, cottonwood and willow trees that are crucial components of natural habitats for birds, beavers, and other animals. Coyote population also skyrocketed. The number of coyote prey such as deers and ground squirrels plummeted. This negatively impacted the middle level predators like foxes, hawks, owls and pine martens

Anonymous said...

Why is fur always compared to fake fur? The alternative to a cruel product is any and every fabric there is.

If we must compare fur with fake fur, a 1979 study by the Scientific Research Laboratory at Ford Motor Company compared the amount of energy required to produce real versus synthetic fur coats. A synthetic fur coat was found to require 120,300 BTU (British ThermalUnits), which is approximately equal to the amount of useful energy in one gallon of gasoline(128,000 BTU). A coat made from trapped animals required 433,000 BTU, and a coat made from cage-raised animals required a staggering 7,965,800 BTU—66 times more energy than what is needed for a fake fur. This study took into consideration the feed required for cage-raised animals and the transportation, skinning, scraping, drying, tanning, and dyeing of pelts.

Anonymous said...

Just because a product is regulated, doesn’t make it ecological. Cars' emission is regulated. Does it make it "environmentally friendly?" The so-called trapping regulations are created by the fur trade themselves to weasel out of an import ban by European Union on cruel fur products. These standards are so scandalously low that the same cruel leghold, Conibear, and snare traps are still legally used in Canada.

Anonymous said...

What the fur trade fails to mention is the high number of non-target catches. The trap does not have a computer chip that distinguishes protected animals from non-protected ones. Species at risk do get caught in these indiscriminative traps. The fur trade cannot guarantee that no endangered species has ever been and will never be injured or killed by these cruel traps.

Unhypentated Canadian said...

Ooops! I seem to have touched a raw nerve......

I will admit I have bought a couple of fur coats as gifts but I have also bought steaks, veal, pork and enjoyed them tremendously. BTW I have a few friends that are dedicated vegins and we eat meals together frequently. To each his own I guess and while there is no doubt the Fur Council has "manipulated" their "facts" I am sure the anti-fur lobby's facts would make great elastic bands.

About Me

My photo
I lean to the right but I still have a heart and if I have a mission it is to respond to attacks on people not available to protect themselves and to point out the hypocrisy of the left at every opportunity.MY MAJOR GOAL IS HIGHLIGHT THE HYPOCRISY AND STUPIDITY OF THE LEFTISTS ON TORONTO CITY COUNCIL. Last word: In the final analysis this blog is a relief valve for my rants/raves.

Blog Archive