Fur
Council of Canada Misinformation (conclusion)
Question 6: 'Who are the animal activist groups and what do they really want?'
Published 10/15/10
If this question is literally one that has been asked of the FCC (it would make
more sense to ask the “animal activist groups” in question) it seems hopelessly
absurd, and we suspect it has been made up in order to allow the FCC to
proselytize, having ended any further attempt to suggest that fur is “green.”
The first sentence of the FCC’s response reads, “The most prominent of these
organizations, PETA and HSUS, would like you to believe that they are
‘charitable’ organizations, raising funds to protect animals.”
Actually, it is not “you” that decides what is or is not a charity in the United
States, or Canada, but the government, following the strictest of regulations.
If the FCC or anyone else has proof that a registered charity is misusing funds
and is not legally engaged in charitable work, they have only to report it to
the Internal Revenue Service, in the United States, or Revenue Canada, in
Canada.
The response continues, “They really function more like well-oiled propaganda
and fundraising machines investing millions in media campaigns, paying handsome
salaries to their executives and spending very little on animal shelters.”
In the answer to Question 5 the FCC talks about how many animals are killed by
shelters, and yet in answering Question 6 seems to see shelters as the only way
to help animals.
In fact dogs and cats are not the only animals who are abused and shelters are
not the solution to animal abuse, any more than hospitals are the answer to car
accidents. The FCC does not say how shelters could conceivably prevent the
continued endangerment of wildlife species (we are now seeing more animal and
plant species exterminated than at any time since the loss of the dinosaurs some
60 million years ago, and the first caused by a single species, our own). Nor
does it say how animal shelters address dolphin slaughter, the east coast
Canadian or Namibian seal hunts, the plights of circus animals forced to live in
confined quarters and perform silly stunts, the fate of countless animals forced
to endure caustic substances that have already been tested year after year
because of fear of lawsuits if they do not, the abuse of carriage horses, the 30
percent of waterfowl wounded but not killed by duck hunters, the suffering of
animals imprisoned in woefully inadequate zoo cages, the suffering of livestock
who, in Canada, can be shipped for days without food or water, or adequate
safety from injury and in all climates, or on and on — the list of ways that
animals are abused, usually for profit and often in huge numbers, seems endless,
but the animal abusers know that progress is made.
One of the most powerful tools, perhaps the most powerful, is education. There
are lots of exceptions, to be sure, but generally speaking, people are not
cruel, and don’t want to be the cause of animal abuse, so organizations
dedicated to helping animals seek to educate the public. Calling such educative
programmes “propaganda” is puerile, and serves no useful purpose. It is also an
ironic charge, considering the source, as we have sought to show with this
document.
The reply to Question 6 continues: “They often use extremist (and sometimes
terrorist-like) tactics to get media attention and influence public opinion.”
Who is meant by “they” and what is meant by “terrorist-like”? Not only is
terrorism illegal in both the United States and Canada, but in the aftermath of
9/11 the term has been greatly expanded to include many actions that do not
cause terror. “They” looks as though it applies to the last two organizations
named, but since what these “terror-like” activities are is not explained, we
can only say that we know of nothing either organization does that is similar to
what terrorists do (such as suicide bombing, destroying aircraft, flying
aircraft into buildings, or anything else). In fact, we don’t know what
activities would be “like” such terrorism. Is the FCC saying that HSUS dresses
people up as pretend suicide bombers, that PETA flies planes almost into
buildings but pulls up at the last moment? We know this is all extremely silly
and suggest such a thing degrades any claim to be credible that the FCC might
make.
In fact the FCC is seeking to confuse legitimate, legal and widely supported
efforts to protect animals with the illegal efforts of a small number of
individuals who themselves decry the mainstream organizations and are in no way
related to them. This “guilt by association” is a sleazy tactic, rather like
saying because some terrorists pray to Allah, all who pray to Allah engage in
terrorist-like activities, or because murderers often shoot their victims, all
people who own guns and fire them engage in criminal-like activity, or because
some Republicans once approved of segregation or the Ku Klux Klan, all
Republicans engage in racist-like activity. It is the kind of intellectually
impoverished argument that appeals to the basest, most ideologically driven but
illogical thought processes and is quite demeaning to its proponent while being
insulting to discerning readers.
Nevertheless, the FCC’s response to Question 6 continues: “They seek to abolish
ALL use of animals, even for food or vital medical research. They oppose using
leather, honey or seeing-eye dogs. They believe that keeping pets is a form of
`slavery.’ ”
Again it is not stipulated who “they” are, but if you examine the growing body
of animal-rights literature and commentary on the subject as it is being taught
in universities you find the only commonality is opposition to abuse, to
cruelty. The responses to cruelty vary greatly and no one individual or
spokesperson speaks for all.
As well there is, within academia and legal circles, much debate over the
morality of various uses of animals. Consider “vital medical research.” Whether
one accepts the premise of using animals for “vital medical research” is morally
defensible, or not, the fact is that there is a huge amount of very cruel
research done on animals that has no chance of providing medical assistance to
humans, nor is it so designed. If your choice is to help animals, and they are
being abused for reasons that are not “necessary” even for a cause most people
would support, such as advancement in medical assistance to people, it is surely
valid to question or challenge any research that does not move toward that
objective. Again the FCC debases itself by oversimplification of complex issues
that appeal to one-dimensional thinking, but does nothing to help the reader
understand either what the objection to the fur industry is, or whether the
industry is “green.”
The response continues: “They see fur as an easy target because it is perceived
as being relatively expensive and glamorous — and therefore can be caricatured
as `frivolous’ luxury for a small group of rich people.”
But in its response to Question 2, the FCC itself says, “While fur apparel is
relatively expensive (because of the work involved in producing it) …” Is the
FCC now saying that fur is only “perceived” as being expensive? As for being
“perceived” as “glamorous,” we simply direct the reader to the FCC’s own website
or any advertisement promoting sales of fur coats to decide for yourself whether
or not the fur industry is the one emphasizing “glamour.” In fact, as we have
continually pointed out in this document and as organizations and individuals
dedicated to helping reduce or end the abuse of furbearing animals also
consistently have indicated, much fur is cheap, and is used cheaply for trim and
other uses that can surely only be considered “frivolous” by any definition of
the word, whether or not one thinks a “glamorous” fur coat is worth many times
more than what is needed to keep one warm and fashionable is “frivolous.”
The response to the final question on the FCC’s “Why fur is green” section of
its website continues, “In reality the fur industry is made up of very small
family run businesses, artisans, trappers and farmers who are not media-savvy
like PETA or the HSUS, and don’t have the financial means to compete with the
multimillion-dollar budgets of the lucrative new `protest industry.’ ”
According to the Fur Institute
of Canada, the fur trade generates $800 million annually to the Canadian
economy, while the international value of world trade “activity” in furs is $15
billion. According to
British Fur Trade, the retail value of full fur and fur trim in the United
States rings in at $1.2 billion.
These are staggering sums. The vast majority of animal protection organizations
have very small budgets, but even the largest organizations do not generate
anything like the amount of cash fur produces, and must spread it over a wide
range of campaigns. The organizations specifically dedicated to reducing or
preventing suffering from the fur trade tend to be relatively small. The larger
organizations are dedicated to a wide range of issues, so even if they have
enviable budgets — and FCC provides no figures or documentation to back up its
contention — the fact is that only a portion of their budgets can be dedicated
to any one campaign or related suite of campaigns.
We do agree that many animal-protection, environmental and conservation
organizations are media-savvy, and are staffed with the brightest and best and
most dedicated people willing to work for far less than can be earned in the
private sector. But the majority of compassionate people who are opposed to
animal abuse are no more media-savvy than anyone else; they depend on those who
advocate on behalf of animals no less than does the fur industry depend on
groups such as the FCC, itself, to present their position. If the FCC and
similar organizations cannot defend themselves, it is, we believe, because there
is no way to deny the abuse of animals inherent to the production of furs. That,
to bring us full circle, is why the FCC sought, with the website here discussed
in detail, to make the argument that fur is green. We have sought to show why it
is not.
The final part of the answer to the last question asked on the “Fur is Green”
section of FCC’s website is not a reply at all, but a question: “While it is
totally legitimate to have differing personal views on the use of animals,
whether in our diets or for the clothes we wear, is it really fair to single out
one industry and attack the livelihoods of thousands of people, who, like
everybody else, have families to raise and bills to pay? Is it really fair to
attack the fur industry in a society where 97 percent of the population eats
meat and uses animal products everyday (sic)?”
If 97 percent of the public eats meat and we are trying to stop people from
eating meat or keeping pets or whatever the FCC claims or implies, than clearly
we can draw support from only 3 percent of the population, begging the question:
What is the concern? In the David vs. Goliath analogy the fur institute, with
its vast resources and government support, is Goliath. That said we have long
ago learned that if we oppose some, but not all, institutionalized or other
animal cruelty, we are deemed as being hypocrites (“How dare you oppose
cock-fighting while eating a cheese sandwich!”) while if we oppose all cruel
practice we are deemed extremist (“How dare you say I’m cruel for simply eating
a cheese sandwich!”). What we do, of course, is advocate on behalf of animals,
and can only do so because of the support of people who, like us, are opposed to
animal abuse.
At any rate the same plaint is heard from every animal-abuse or environmentally
destructive industry there is. From strip miners to wildlife poachers, everyone
has what is to them a perfectly solid and justifiable reason for damaging the
environment or hurting animals. The chicken farmer whose hens are so crowded
that their beaks have to be cut so that they cannot peck each other, and whose
toes grow into wire bottoms of cages,
does not want his or her abuse of animals brought to public attention, either.
He, or she, also has a family to raise and bills to pay.
There would be no social progress if anything that generated money or was
culturally sanctioned was untouchable, not to be challenged no matter how much
suffering it caused, no matter how much damage it does to the environment.
Christians would still be fed raw to lions, criminals would still be crucified
for misdemeanors, eccentrics would still be tried and executed for witchcraft,
slaves would still be kept, women would still not be allowed to vote. And if
there were any whales, rhinos, tigers, giant pandas or egrets left, they would
still be killed for profit.
No one understands better than us just how complicit we all are to varying
degrees in our impact on the environment, and on wild and domestic animals. It
is our business, our concern and our passion to understand. But that does not
negate trying to do better, trying to reduce our negative impact on others. The
“very small family run businesses, artisans, trappers and farmers” have options
that simply do not exist for the animals that fall victim to their respective
trades. Nature is not cruel, but is indifferent; suffering occurs in nature, but
not deliberate abuse. That is very much a human option, a human choice.
The fur industry is legal. People can make choices, and if they want to support
any legal animal-abuse industry and are not concerned about what it does to
animals, the environment, or anything else, they can do so.
But they also do have the right, the fundamental right, to know the facts. The
terminology of the animal protectionist is filled with words or phrases most
folks do not encounter: the ankus, stereotaxic frame, stockwhip, hakapic,
electric goad, farrowing crate, hot branding iron, squeeze cage, captive bolt,
chick maceration, hot knife debeaker, veal crate, pit of despair, LD-5 — the
list goes on and on and represents a sad litany of cruel and unusual punishment
of innocent animals. We deal with animal abuse every day. There is a
statistically significant minority of the population who have various psychotic
disorders that lead to sadism, and it is reasonable to assume that some of these
individuals will gravitate toward occupations that allow them to legally abuse
animals. But obviously the qualities of compassion and empathy that motivate
those who work on behalf of others — animals or people — are highly variable.
Fur is not green. It comes at a cost to the environment. And while no one can
doubt that some animals are killed instantly before their skins are removed to
make coats and other products, the fur industry is not humane and is not green.
That is the concern that motivates ever-growing numbers of us to oppose the fur
industry out of compassion for those who cannot defend themselves, who were born
a species other than our own, but who experience fear and pain, like us. We
choose to try our best to reduce our responsibility for the pain, fear and
deaths of animals, and encourage others to do the same.
Introduction
Question 1:
'What do you mean by saying fur is green?'
Question 2:
'How can the use of animal (sic) to make a luxury product ever be ethical?'
Question 3:
'How can I be sure the Canadian fur industry practices humane standards?'
Question 4:
'Are those videos going around for real?'
Question 5:
'Are coats in Canada made from dog and cat fur?'
Footnotes
