Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Fur is the ultimate eco-fabric ???

lezzpezz
February 21st, 2006, 04:36 PM
That is the quote from Paula Lisman, Fur Council of Canada president in an article in today's rag. Can you believe that??

Here's her contact info, if you feel the need:

Fur Council of Canada
1435 St. Alexandre, Suite 1270
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 2G4

Phone: (514) 844-1945
Fax: (514) 844-8593

e-mail: info@furcouncil.com

According to this article, "the fur trade is experiencing an unprecedented resurgence." It continues, "The growing popularity of fur in fashion markets around the globe is pushing fur prices to record levels...." and " More than half of fur customers are now under 45 years old."

The FCC is pushing the message that fur is a natural alternative to petroleum based synthetic materials that are helping to drain the world of non-renewable oil resources. (whatever!)

Ms. Lisman then blathers on; "...your purchase also supports aboriginal and other people who live close to the land."

Uh, excuse me, but after watching the PETA footage from China, I did not see anybody in that video needing to capture wild animals and sell fur for survival purposes....

She then says, "the industry supports research to ensure excellent animal welfare standards." Yup we make sure we kill them nicely.....for their skin.....because we care.......

At the start of the article, the author, the business editor of the rag says, "Pamela Anderson and her friends at PETA will not be amused, but I am."

I can't figure out why he's amused....I'm asuming that he is not taking delight in the fact tha retail sales of fur products has skyrocketed lately, but rather, that he thinks that the clowns at the FCC are idiots to think that this is a good thing!

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
March 7th, 2006, 01:17 PM
*gags* Ugh, I hate people who think vanity is so important yet animal welfare isn't.

Derek & Jeter
March 18th, 2006, 05:23 PM
I heard or read somewhere in the thread below (37 pages long), that mink farms (in parts of Canada) are now euthanising the animals the way vets do and that they live in nice fenced in fields or very large cages like hamster cages. Propaganda?
www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1925 (http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1925)

Just want to tell you this so you don't think opposition towards animal abuse has lessened, it's actually getting stronger, and that would explain the actions of animal use industries in the past year or so (see next par.)

The animal use industry has organized to fight the work of animal welfare goups and I wouldn't be surprised if lying or at least exagerating is part of their strategy. They have paid posters who hijack forum threads. AR has more people, but industry has more money. maybe they're paying high profile people to wear fur coats and/or using fake sales numbers.

Some of the anti-animal rights groups are www.consumerfreedom, www.activistcash.com, www.naiaonline.com. According to this site www.wickedwildlifefund.com, the WWF's initial purpose was to preserve prey for the hunting industry and they are not "the voice of animals".

I've read and suspect the above but have no proof.

lezzpezz
March 21st, 2006, 03:42 PM
PRO-FUR BUSINESS COLUMN PROMOTES CRUEL, FRIVOLOUS TRADE
Monday, March 20, 2006
BY MICHAEL MANCHESTER, SPECIAL TO THE FREE PRESS

Many Free Press readers expect that anything published outside of the opinion pages will contain some balance when there are competing viewpoints on an issue.
So the column, Consumers warm up to fur again (Feb. 21) written by business editor P. J. Harston to promote the fur industry, was glaring in its factual distortions and exclusions. He failed to provide all the information one could use to determine whether or not to buy these products.

Fur was described as the "ultimate eco-fabric," made from a "renewable resource," and the column said it supports people who "live close to the land." These statements give the impression that the industry relies on wild populations.

In fact, Statistics Canada figures show that the majority of animals killed for fur in this country come from fur farms. These are animals bred in captivity and confined to cages their entire lives. Fur farms were not mentioned in the piece.

The Fur Council of Canada's president was quoted claiming that the trade is "extremely well regulated." However, Ontario's Fur Farms Act was repealed in 1997. Therefore, we have no legislation that specifically protects animals at fur farms in Ontario any longer. Most would question how an industry left to monitor itself could be considered regulated at all.

Harston partly attributes a perceived increase in our fur industry to Chinese markets that are opening to North American fur. But trade works in both directions and the label "made in China" can mean more to Canadians than lost jobs. The fashion business is increasingly outsourcing to China, which has no animal welfare legislation at all. A simple Internet search yields videos of fur-bearing animals being subjected to cruelty that is almost incomprehensible by western standards.

In addition to wild species, the Chinese use dogs and cats. The sale of dog and cat fur has been banned by countries including the United States. But unbeknownst to most of us, it is legal to import and sell it in Canada without requiring it to be labeled. Efforts to initiate a dog and cat fur ban in this country were rebuffed by the former Liberal government.

James Peterson, Canada's international trade minister until the recent election, remarked that "trade rules oblige Canada to treat foreign and domestic products on an equivalent basis. Thus, were a ban on imports into Canada of cat and dog fur products to be contemplated, there would also need to be a prohibition on the domestic sale, offering for sale, manufacture, transportation and distribution of dog and cat fur in Canada."

Harston's column concludes with a designer promoting "new sporty, fashion-forward fur styles and sexy accessories." Causing the death of an animal to produce a product no one needs and that is motivated by vanity strains logic and decency. To kill an animal to provide trim or to decorate a novelty item is outrageous. The lives of humans are simply not important enough that other animals should suffer for mere consumer items.

chico2
March 21st, 2006, 04:59 PM
Paula Lisman is a liar,yes the fur-business is a profitable one,but most of the fur-export is to countries like China and Russia.
Our dealings with China and cat/dog fur makes me ill,the problem is,most people are not aware the faux fur on their jacket-hood or in their gloves is actually cat or dog fur from China.:evil:
I noticed watching fashion-shows,one"designed" by Puff Diddy,one by Jennifer Lopez,much fur was used,anything from wolves,fox,minks etc..that too made me ill:evil:
Here we do not see many people in fur anymore:thumbs up except our new Governor General seem to take a liking to fox and other furs:sad: