The vivid image of a fur-clad individual in an advertisement customarily incites notions of glamour, bourgeois taste and affluence. While people's tendency to associate fur wearers with higher social standings may be controversial, fur's attributes as an exorbitant item of luxury and class do not necessarily diminish its utilitarian value as well. Owing to its excellent insulation properties, it is a favoured especially among people who reside in countries with colder climates. The Inuit people in the Arctic circle, for one, make regular use of fur in most of their clothing to ward off the harsh elements. Whereas the nomadic Inuit peoples' use of fur clothing might be driven by necessity or convenience, the vast majority of city dwellers' desire to purchase and adorn these expensive garments is usually rooted in the symbolism of fur as opposed its intrinsic warmth-giving quality. As such, it is precisely this notion borne of human vanity, that ignores the plight of animals butchered at our expense, that demands a reassessment of our standards of rectitude with regard to non-human species.
The Intricacies of Textile Making
It is common knowledge that the fabric of the clothes we wear daily consists of materials of plant, animal or synthetic origins, such as cotton, wool, hemp, polyester, nylon, etc. The manufacturing process of these textile products would be impossible without first acquiring the raw materials. Cotton would need to be cultivated and harvested. Wool would have to be sheared from sheep. Polyester would also have to be created via chemical synthesis. Fur deserves our special attention because of its exclusivity of origin from the hides of various animals, the popular targets being mink, beaver, chinchilla, fox, rabbit, etc. Obviously, these animals would not willingly let themselves be caught, killed and skinned. So how then are they procured?
Fur and Traps
The exigencies of the fur trade are met through two main channels. The first source lies in trapping, if such an iniquitous activity can be considered an occupation at all. The Fur Institute of Canada (hereafter FIC) published a downloadable article on their website, ironically titled “People of the Fur Trade, Partners in Conservation", outlining its sophisticated trap research programme that aims to develop the most humane trapping systems possible.i Any astute observer could sense the absurdity of that claim. No trapping of animals could possibly be humane. The ingenuity of mankind in designing devious mechanisms is unrivalled in this regard. Many types of traps exist, which for the sake of brevity I will not elaborate here. But any trap would be fashioned for cost-effectiveness – employing the cheapest materials for the greatest functionality. Be it steel jaws, sharp stakes or otherwise, the suffering of animals is secondary to maximising efficiency.
Any animal unfortunate enough to be captured in these traps usually sustain grievous injuries or languish for days before a trapper could come along and bludgeon it to death. Moreover, non-target animals often end up as unintentional victims of "collateral damage" by springing these deadly traps set in the wilderness, sustaining debilitating and sometimes fatal injuries as a result.
Trapping for food? No.
Men have trapped animals since antiquity, then only for their meat, which is at least somewhat excusable, given that hunting for sustenance is to ensure survival. However, trapping solely for fur is another issue altogether, with numerous alternatives available for textile production, fur is hardly a justifiable option.
Inuit Economic Insecurity or Fur Industry's Manipulative Genius?
Even if we depart from ethical considerations and instead examine the practical - the fur industry's purported mission of protecting the economic welfare of native fur trappers, such as the Inuit people, is equally preposterous. Essentially, the FIC claims that its operations safeguard the livelihood of some 25000 out of 60000 indigenous trappers in Canada, ii a substantial 42%. However, given that there are 1.3 million indigenes living in Canada, iii of which only 2% are trappers, the FIC's apparent failure to highlight that fact is rather questionable.
Furthermore, the annual aggregate revenue of the Canadian fur industry is approximately 800 million, iv while the total value of pelts from animals trapped yearly is estimated at 23.6 million. v The huge disparity is astounding in illustrating two facts. Firstly, it shows that most of the annual revenue generated by the fur industry, some 776 million, originates from merchandising and retail sectors and clearly not from pelts which the trappers have sold. Secondly, even assuming that the monetary value of pelts sold by the 42% indigenous trappers are equal to those of the other 58% trappers, the meagre amount of 9.9 million in profit constitutes of only about 1% of the total 800 million.
The statistical analysis proves one fact - only a tiny fraction of the Inuit people depend on trapping for subsistence, and even then their profit margins are abysmal, with 99% of the revenue being siphoned off by the rest of the fur industry. The ostensibly noble statement, advocating the protection of aboriginal people's livelihood, becomes nothing more than a pathetic pretext employed by the fur industry to dissemble the true nature of commercial trapping from the general public.
The Evils of Fur Farming
For animals which are not trapped, their fate of being raised in a fur factory is no warrant for better treatment. 85% of the pelts in fur trade are acquired in this way, vi with 35% of the farms located in Denmark. China is no less guilty of engaging in this loathsome business, being also a burgeoning market of fur export in the world. Despite these fur farmers' vehement claims that animals on their farms are well cared for, fed and painlessly euthanised, the reality is often far grimmer. While it is remotely possible that certain farms under the auspice of organisations like the FIC may be adhering to welfare standards, most poorly regulated farms in developing countries without restrictive laws have no qualms about slaughtering animals in whatever manner they deem fit.
The killing of animals on certain farms is nothing short of brutal, as exemplified by a journalist's report released by Swiss Animal Protection depicting racoons being flayed alive by fur farmers in China's Hebei province. vii Isolated incident or no, the general situation for ranched animals in developed countries is no better. Confinement in miserably tiny and filthy cages where movement is severely limited is the typical treatment they receive. And garbage food, disease, mental distress and high mortality rates are part and parcel of their ephemeral existence, before being killed by drowning which their masters so ironically call “euthanasia".
While the callous disregard these fur farmers display towards the animals is indeed despicable, the more profound blame should be attributed to the main beneficiaries of fur trade, who are responsible for keeping the Chinese bludgeoners and the Inuit fur trappers in business. For several past decades, the battle has raged back and forth between animal rights activists and their principal opponents, namely the owners of those multi-million dollar fur manufacturing businesses, most of whom operate in developed countries. These lucrative enterprises assuredly have no shortage of funds to counteract the efforts of the animal rights groups like the PETA or the SPCA. To that end, they have launched many well coordinated global PR campaigns to dispel the public's moral stigma associated with wearing fur.
However, thanks to pressure from constant lobbying, participation of celebrities in raising awareness, several countries in the world like the UK, Austria and Croatia have already abolished fur farming. T he availability of faux fur products as substitutes for real fur, given that their appearances are almost identical, also presents itself as a viable alternative to environmentally conscious consumers.
So is the "natural choice" the correct choice in our environment today? The answer, from any sensible and conscientious person, should be an adamantly negative one. Veritably, those who wear fur has the blood of minks, beavers, racoons, foxes and all kinds of other cruelly slaughtered animals on their hands. After all, it is up to individuals like us to treat animals with compassion and refrain from the excesses of needless exploitation.
i. Fur Institute of Canada, "People Of The Fur Trade... Partners In Conservation", Fur Institute of Canada, http://www.fur.ca/index-e/about/index.asp?action=about&page=potft (accessed March 23, 2009)
ii. Fur Institute of Canada, "Fur Trade", Fur Institute of Canada, http://www.fur.ca/index-e/fur_trade/index.asp?action=fur_trade&page=index (accessed March 23, 2009)
iii. Statistics Canada, "Aboriginal Share of Total Population On the Rise", Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: A Demographic Profile, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/abor/canada.cfm#1 (accessed March 29, 2009)
iv. Fur Institute of Canada, "Fur Trade", Fur Institute of Canada, http://www.fur.ca/index-e/fur_trade/index.asp?action=fur_trade&page=index (accessed March 23, 2009)
v. Statistics Canada, "Highlights", Fur Statistics 2, no. 1 (2004). http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/freepub.cgi (accessed March 23, 2009)
vi. BBC News UK , "Inside the Fur Farms", November 18, 1999, BBC Online Network, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/526107.stm
vii. Swiss Animal Protection, "Dying for fur - A Report on the Fur Industry in China", SAP; Main Campaign, http://www.animal-protection.net/furtrade/chinafur.html (accessed March 23, 2009) |
|
