"Fur is Green" campaign survey (CBC)
As of 2 p.m. on Monday March 24, the vote was as follows. Vote NOW!
Does this <the article below> change your mind about fur?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/consumers/fur.html No, I've always thought it was a good choice
(203) 46%
Yes, I might consider it now
(25) 6%
Interesting, but not yet convinced
(32) 7%
No way, ridiculous
(179) 41%
Total Votes: 439
VOTE NOW! Full article follows:
------------------------------
CBC News (CAN)
In Depth
Consumers
Fur: sustainable resource or fashion faux pas?
Last Updated March 20, 2008
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/consumers/fur.html After facing decades of criticism, Canada's fur industry is the latest
group to tout itself as being green. Fur is biodegradable, durable and
supports trappers who have a stake in protecting the environment,
according to the Fur Council of Canada.
"Fur itself is a natural resource, it's very well-regulated in Canada,
there's no endangered species used," said Alan Herscovici, the FCC's
executive vice-president said in March 2008.
"Some of these animal activist groups who say we don't need fur
anymore, we have synthetics — but wait a minute, most of those
synthetics are made with petroleum petrochemicals and petroleum, of
course, is a non-renewable resource."
However, many fur opponents reject such arguments, saying buying fur
raises serious ethical and environmental questions. While the FCC in
March promoted trappers' connection to the land, critics noted that
animal farms yield the majority of pelts used for clothing and
accessories. Indeed, the value of ranch-raised pelts in 2005 tallied
$90.2 million while the wildlife pelt industry was valued at $31.4
million, according to Statistics Canada.
Ainslie Willock, director of the advocacy group Canadians for
Fur-bearing Animals, criticizes the FCC's campaign as being
disingenuous. Willock says she believes the campaign has not been
successful in swaying the public.
"It's just sheer opportunism. There's nothing about fur that is
so-called green or environmentally friendly," she said.
"Clearly fur isn't green from a cruelty perspective and also from an
environmental perspective and I find it highly offensive," she said.
Frigid winter spurs demand for Canadian pelts
Still, in certain segments, fur is becoming a hot commodity and
Canadian trappers are benefiting.
Blustery frigid weather in Russia and China in the winter of 2007-08
has rendered Canadian furs a hot commodity. Trapper Samuel McLeod of
Aklavik, N.W.T., says with fur coats now priced at $50,000, his pelts
are accordingly selling for between 20 and 50 per cent more at
auction.
Similarly, the Yukon Trappers Association said sales of the Yukon lynx
have been promising, fetching an average of $300 a pelt.
"There has been some just phenomenal fur coming in and now with these
prices coming up, it is getting a lot more encouraging," said the
association's president, Wendy Fornier.
In haute-couture circles, fur is still a provocative matter. In
February, designer Jean-Paul Gaultier made headlines with his new line
which incorporated wild animal pets with heads and paws attached.
Conversely, designer and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals) campaigner Stella McCartney has spoken out against the use of
fur and doesn't use animal skin in her collections.
Is fur really green?
Consumers wading into the debate will find a spate of arguments on the
merits and harms of fur. A counterargument meets every argument in the
fur debate.
For example, many activists including PETA (People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals) cite a 1979 University of Michigan study that
found the process of rearing ranch-raised animals consumes 20 times
the energy as compared with a synthetic fur coat. Comparable studies
taking into account technological advances have not since been
conducted. Meanwhile, the FCC says that up to four litres of petroleum
is used to make synthetic coats.
Similarly, the anti-fur lobby argues that furs are not eco-friendly
because chemicals including chromium and formaldehyde are used to
treat them. However, the FCC says that while small amounts of
formaldehyde are used in the tanning process, fur pelts are primarily
treated with natural products including table salt, water and lanolin.
Finding middle ground in the debate can be difficult. But at the very
least, the campaign is spurring relevant and important discussions,
says John Fryxell, a zoology professor at the University of Guelph.
Fryxell says that he doesn't subscribe to the idea that trapping is
essential to maintain the health of wildlife populations but he notes
that human use of animals can be sustainable. He also notes people who
stand to benefit from wildlife tend to be active in protecting their
habitats.
"Society needs to make judgments," he said. "What I find intriguing
about the campaign is I think it generates some discussion about the
relative merits of synthetics that we often presume are benign but
that there is a definite footprint on our environment that is imposed
by using non-renewable resources — I think we're all beginning to
recognize that more and more," he said.
"On the other hand, there have been some very heated debates about fur
trapping and those arguments also need to be taken into
consideration.… It's not clear-cut one way or the other but we're
going to have make choices between shades of gray."
![[Linked Image]](http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f51/Donnie1Mac2Leod3/200px-Clan_member_crest_badge_-_Clan_Macleodsvg.png){kind=icon}
