Home
..Site
Updates 
History & Mission,
BOD
FAQ's
Accomplishments
Disclaimer, Copyright,
ContactPet Chin Rescue/ Re-Homing
..International
Chinchilla Rescue Network (ICRN)
Quotes For
CompassionRanch Chins
..Pet
Homes For Ranchies: News, Photos
Petfinder Page
In
Defense of Positive Activism (.doc)Make A Difference
..Change
by Choice
Show You
Care, Donate
ChinCare: Educating Chinparents
PART THREE
|
||||
CbC, PART THREE (this page): *Positive Activism In Action (fur-free sites: take action and research information, lobbying & letter writing) *Defining (animal rights, activism, stereotyping, extremism, passive resistance, fur-free, pro-pet, respect vs. tolerance) *Euthanasia: What It Is and What It Is Not *Laws Advancing a Fur-Free Future *Fur: Not "Natural" or "Eco-Friendly" CbC, PART ONE: *CbC: intro, 1 (pelter clubs), 2 (facts of pelting today), 3 (homing ranchies, vivisection) 4 (quality of life, fur farms) *VIEW THE FACTS! Pelting is NOT necessary OR profitable! Ranchers agree, let's be FUR FREE! CbC, PART TWO: *Pet-Friendly Resources (organizations; forums and chat rooms; books, magazines, reference libraries, sites) *Correcting Misconceptions ("pelting neutral," sidetracking fallacies, past knowledge for today's pets) *The Chinchilla Fur Industry (news, market report: chinchilla industry council, news from croatia, hsus on fur farming) *Killing Methods (avma recommendation, electrocution, cervical dislocation) 
POSITIVE
ACTIVISM IN ACTION(fur-free sites: take action and research information, lobbying & letter writing) See: In Defense of Positive Activism (.doc) and How to be a Good Animal Activist by NYC Animal Rights As positive activists, not extremists, we promote change using peaceful, legal and educational means only. Letter-writing, petition-signing and campaigning, etc., should all be done in a civilized, respectful manner. Using the democratic process to protest something objectionable is NOT terrorism, it is the right and duty of every citizen. MM emphatically objects to terrorist methods that involve threats, violence, harassment etc., because not only are such methods unethical and often illegal, they're absolutely counterproductive to genuine, lasting change! FUR-FREE NEWS: InFURmation Press Releases/ HSUS' Fur Free Action AR FORUMS: AROC/ EnviroLink/ Veggie Boards
FUR-FREE SITES: TAKE ACTION AND RESEARCH INFORMATION 
Action
For Animals Network 
Fur
WebsitesAnimal Friends Croatia: Fur
Ranch-Raised
Fur, Captive CrueltyAnimalia, Federation for the Protection of Animals
Fur Farming
in the EUBont voor Dieren (Fur for Animals)
Campaigns
Press
ReleasesCoalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT, UK): News ChinChorro: Saving The Remaining Wild Chinchilla Population
Donate
Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation (CEASE)
The
Fur IndustryChoose Cruelty Free FurFriends of Animals
Fur
Program Fur Bearer Defenders
Activist
Resources
Trap and
Fur Facts
Hot Topics
Fur-Free
FridayFur, Fur & More Fur Related
Links
Fur FactsFur Kills.org
What You Can Do
Action Alerts Global Action Network (GAN)
Fur
Trade Myths and Facts
Take
ActionHSUS
Do's and Don'ts of Lobbying
Lobbying 101
Fur-Free CampaignIDA
Fur FactsinFURmation
Urgent Action
Campaigns
Activist Corner
Spread the MessageIFAW
Seal
Campaign (killed for fur) Last Chance for Animals
Fur Campaign
Action
AlertsLooking Glass Global News
Animal
NewsMercy For Animals
About Fur FarmsNeiman Carcass
How To Help New Hampshire Animal Rights League Call
or Write to Protest Fur
Petition
Spot: Stop Chinchilla CrueltyRespect for Animals
Get
InvolvedSave the Wild Chinchillas, Inc. (Salve Las Chinchillas) The Petition Site: Animal Welfare VogueSucks.com
Take Action Voice 4 Dogs News
ReportsWorld Animal Net
Anti-Fur Legislation
The
Anti-Fur CampaignLOBBYING
& LETTER WRITINGDawnWatch: Email Etiquette HSUS: do's and don'ts of lobbying -and- lobbying 101 NYC Animal Rights: How to Write a Powerful and Influential Letter We believe it's important to notify those who supply or contribute to the fur industry of the fact that there IS public objection to pelting chinchillas, especially now that they are widely recognized and respected as pets. One polite letter of protest regarding the product or service that a business (ranching is a business) or organization (such as pelter clubs) markets to the public is neither unethical nor an abuse of free speech. As long as the U.S. is a democracy, letter writing is legitimate consumer feedback. Below are designers/ businesses/ organizations that deal in chinchilla fur farming and fur products. Their contact information is publicly presented on their websites and made available here solely for convenience. Give them your consumer feedback by politely informing them of these points: Pelting
today is non-essential, cruel, ecologically harmful and unprofitable
killing You
will boycott their product/ business/ organization until they switch
to marketing or producing alternatives instead Natural
fur will never be your choice and that you do take issue with the
fur industry's continued exploitation of chinchillas now that they
are established as valued pets
A.A.C.CH, Pelting Organization in Argentina ~ contact American Legend Cooperative ~ contact British Fur Trade Association ~ contact Canadian Fur Company ~ contact Canchilla Associates Limited ~ contact
chinchillapel.com ~ contact Chinchillas Patagonia ~ contact Elan Furs ~ contact Empress Chinchilla Breeders Cooperative (ECBC) ~ contact European Fur Breeders' Association ~ contact Farma Chinchilla, Czech Republic ~ contact Finnish Fur Breeder's Association ~ contact Finnish Fur Sales ~ contact on homepage Fur & Fashion Frankfurt ~ contact Fur & Luxury Center ~ contact Fur Commission USA ~ contact Fur Council of Canada ~ contact Fur Fashion Guide (eBay fur stores) ~ contact Fur Harvesters Auction Inc. ~ contact Fur Information Council of America ~ contact Fur Institute of Canada ~ contact Fur Works Canada ~ contact Furs.com ~ contact: Pres/ Marketing/ Editorial Furs by La Fayette ~ contact Furs by Leonard ~ contact German Fur Association ~ contact Hong Kong Fur Federation ~ contact Iglsoe Chinchillas ~ contact InfoChin, Argentine Fur Breeders Site ~ contact International Fur Trade Federation ~ contact Kaufman Furs ~ contact Kopenhagen Fur ~ contact Letino S.R.L. ~ contact Mutation Chinchilla Breeders Association (MCBA) ~ contact Naffem Montreal ~ contact National Chinchilla Breeders of Canada ~ contact Neiman Marcus ~ contact North American Fur Auctions ~ contact peterpalms.com ~ contact & contact Riedstra and Sons Chinchilla ~ contact Saga Furs ~ contact Ukrainian Informational Website ~ contact United States Fur Exchange ~ contact Vogue ~ contact Webfurs.com ~ contact
DEFINING TERMS
(How MM defines and uses the following terms in this site)(animal rights, activism, fallacies of AR stereotyping, extremism, passive resistance, fur-free, pro-pet, respect vs. tolerance) ANIMAL RIGHTS (AR) Animal rights ideology promotes the belief that animals and humans CAN coexist in a humane and balanced ecosystem that benefits BOTH equally, with mutual respect and consideration for each other's needs. (POSITIVE) ACTIVISM/ ACTIVISTS Fundamentally, activism indicates the type of approach taken, the chosen processes and methods used to achieve the goals of AR ideology. AR activists seek preventative, educational and legal solutions by working, "within the system," e.g., lobbying for change, making legislative proposals, letter-writing, signing petitions, voting, peaceful protest, passive resistance, educating the public, raising awareness about AR issues and concerns and informing the public conscience about everyday personal choices, etc... In brief, activism is POSITIVE change through peaceful, legal and educational methods, only.
THE FALLACIES OF AR STEREOTYPING (ref- .doc, about the Logical Fallacies) People typically assign extremist values to anyone that espouses the AR ideology. This is why positive activists are misunderstood, maligned, labelled hypocritical and so forth; not that cheap talk will dissuade us from helping animals in need. See In Defense of Positive Activism (.doc), it explains why not every AR activist fits "the type": "If you object to pelting, you must hate ranchers who pelt." Wrong. You CAN appreciate and associate with people who don't share your convictions; intelligent, mature people coexist and respect differences in others every day. We work with ranchers to end pelting, no hate required, that's a waste of time and energy. Hate is negative, it saps energy and it takes a LOT of positive energy for activists to keep going in the face of opposition from some people who are still ignorant or fearful of positive change. "If you oppose pelting, then you must think that all pet owners are above reproach." For several years now the webmasters have been personally involved with pet chinchilla rescue and re-homing, addressing the physical and psychological rehabilitation of those that have been unwanted, neglected, abandoned or abused. So no, we do not give carte blanche approval to the pet community or anyone, for that matter. It is useful to bear in mind that not all pet owners, breeders and pet shops are abusive, while all pelters do kill; this explains why the usual focus for reform points in their direction, it's not scapegoating. Blame, like hate, is a waste. We need to utilize CbC and be forward-thinking and positive in our motivations and actions, that's the best way to help chinchillas live and thrive in captivity. "Anyone who opposes pelting must necessarily: become vegan or judge others who wear leather, hunt, fish or eat meat; support all "bleeding heart" liberal views and opinions; become anti-social, intolerant or violent; burn barns with live animals in them or turn captive animals out into the wild; say "better dead than bred"; blindly believe that all pet owners are above reproach; vote "straight-ticket" in support of ALL animal rights issues..." GAG. This absurd stereotype is SO stale, so transparently manipulative of others' most idiotic, irrational fears, and obviously meant to deter people from taking fur-free action. These characteristics are applied by utilitarian ("animals are only as good as their usefulness to man") extremists who readily resort to unfounded lies to scare people into supporting their opinions. It's simply amazing that there are still folks who fall for this ruse and consequently conclude that anyone who doesn't want their pets victimized by the fur industry fits this malevolent stereotype. If you don't personally identify with or espouse a stereotype, then it's the people who judge you that are mistaken; choose how you want to help animals and ignore the losers who try to discourage you!
EXTREMISM/ EXTREMISTS Radicals, extremists, fanatics, militants, terrorists, etc. are terms used to indicate a certain approach, the chosen processes and methods used to achieve the goals of AR ideology. While AR extremists (such as ALF, ELF) may share the same ideology as AR activists, and while they may sometimes employ activist methods for achieving the goals of AR ideology, what fundamentally distinguishes extremists (ref- furcommission.com) from activists is that they are ALSO willing to resort to terrorist-type methods that are unethical or illegal and hold the potential for threats, harassment, destruction, force and violence. Extremists may masquerade as activists, but their actions set them apart. What we think: MM believes that when radicals resort to terrorist methods of persuasion, not only are they usually downright illegal in their tactics, they're absolutely counterproductive to true progress for the animals' sake. Vigilante "justice" ...ISN'T. AR extremists usually make matters worse than if they'd done nothing at all, they alienate people who might have otherwise helped, they incite opposition AGAINST animal rights goals, they set back any progress that others have or would have achieved by helping animals the right way (peaceful, legal and educational). PETA is a prime example of this, their tactics have branded activists as extremists and done about as much to destroy animal rights goals as to help them, see article. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was signed into law in the U.S. in 2006, a testament to the nation's animosity towards AR terrorism, but this legislation is potentially damaging to peaceful activism as well. It's about time that people uncovered their eyes and ears long enough to understand that not everyone who does something to protect aninmals from heinous exploitation and injustice are necessarily AR extremists or terrorists. PASSIVE RESISTANCE According to the online Columbia Encyclopedia, "a method of nonviolent protest against laws or policies in order to force a change or secure concessions; it is also known as nonviolent resistance." Not joining a pelter club (ECBC/ MCBA) until they've changed their pro-pelting agenda is an act of passive resistance used by positive AR activists and those who truly value ALL chinchillas, not just theirs. FUR-FREE Supporters advocate chinchillas as pets, not pelts, fur-free is the same as pets-only. This belief coincides with Change by Choice, advocates do not agree with the needless killing of chinchillas but they do respect (defined below) rancher's right to pelt (despite personal objections) while pelting remains legal. Fur-free supporters object to any exploitation of chinchillas by the fur industry or vivisectionists and they prioritize the competent care and best interests of chinchillas as pets. They are willing to work with ranchers to help save at-risk ranch chinchillas and aid the transition in the U.S. from regarding chinchillas as both pets and pelts to protecting them as valued pets, only.
PRO-PET Supporters advocate chinchillas as pets, but they are not necessarily against pelting and don't necessarily take action to promote chinchillas as pets, not pelts. Some continue to maintain ties with pelter organizations. This term applies to the U.S. chinchilla clubs among others, and they're included under pet-friendly resources because we believe in encouraging the pet-focused initiative. Hopefully someday, the U.S. pet chinchilla clubs will take a stand for chinchillas, to protect the pets they ostensibly value. RESPECT VS. TOLERANCE Respecting differences is about the mature ability to coexist despite differences, to agree to disagree and move on or to set aside/ rise above differences and work together in spite of them for the public good (like putting the chins' lives ahead of egos and agendas). Respect does not necessitate acceptance, agreement or approval of the other side; if someone respects you, they'll respect your right to make your own choices regardless of whether they agree or approve. This isn't moral relativism, apathy or compromise, it's simply an honest acknowledgment of free will, because everyone is solely responsible for their own choices and the ensuing consequences. Tolerance is usually claimed by those who either don't know or don't care about one or both sides of an issue. In that case the term functions like indifference, it is inaction and that supports the status quo. By tolerating needless victimization, those who are powerless (chinchillas) suffer indefinitely.
EUTHANASIA: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOTAdditional Articles Killing With Kindness Reference Library/ AVMA Panel on Euthansia: 1993, 2000 (.pdf) Definition by Dictionary.com 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition. 2. painless death. [Origin: 1640–50; < NL < Gk euthanasía an easy death, equiv. to eu- eu- + thánat(os) death + -ia -y3] (ref) KILLING: IT'S NOT JUST EUTHANASIA ANYMORE! PAW: PET & ANIMAL WORLD NEWS Vol.29, 04/04/04, BY FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT- BRENDA BECK Here's a thought: Use the right words and improve communication! We might even clarify some of the issues! This is fairly simple advice, but somehow, the humane community has gone astray with the word euthanasia and has inhibited the progress of no kill. Look in any dictionary and you will find the definition of euthanasia: The act or method of causing death painlessness, so as to end suffering: to deal with those dying of incurable, painful diseases. The Greek word is derived from eu, meaning good or well, and thanatos, meaning death. Thus, euthanasia is a good death to relieve suffering. Now what does it mean to you when an animal shelter reports that 90% of their animals were "euthanized" in a given period? Do you seriously believe that 90% of their animals were dying of incurable, painful diseases? They were KILLED, while possibly a small percentage are truly euthanized for clinical reasons. When we understand the misuse of the word euthanasia historically in animal welfare, then we understand the honesty of the word "kill", and then we understand what "no kill" means. No kill is the absence of killing healthy, adoptable animals. When language is used literally to describe a situation, then readers and listeners know what is truthful. I am convinced that the failure to remedy the millions of homeless animal deaths and shelters is because a soft word had been used for decades to describe their killing. Euthanasia is a feel-good word, a sad necessity word that leaves little doubt as to its appropriateness. And you can bet there are uneducated people who think, "It is OK to euthanize my dog, just don't kill it," when they relinquish their unwanted pet to a shelter. My recommendation is that we train ourselves to respond with a knee-jerk reaction anytime the word euthanasia is used. Are we literally speaking the truth when we say euthanasia? Or are we using a cover-up word for kill? Listen to yourselves as you habitually say euthanasia when you mean kill. Every time we report that healthy animals were euthanized, we have delayed the process in saving animals lives. I normally include this caveat in my presentations, and it is surprising how many caregivers have never analyzed the use of words in this business. "Euthanasia" is the crux of the no kill issue, and understanding the terminology helps us to understand the goal!
LAWS ADVANCING A FUR-FREE FUTURE (also
see:
"The Chinchilla Fur Industry")November 9, 2000: The U.S. Cat and Dog Fur Ban Is Signed Into Law Public Law 106-476 (Protection Act) establishes the fact that Americans do NOT want their PETS (chinchillas have earned pet status) exploited by the fur industry. Five European countries and Australia agree, they have also passed laws to protect their pets. The burgeoning popularity of chinchillas as pets places them in precisely the same position, to be PROTECTED from pelting. Included in the massive trade bill H.R. 4868, the provisions of PL 106-476 include: (1) prohibit imports, exports, sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution in the United States of dog and cat fur products, in order to ensure that United States market demand does not provide an incentive to slaughter dogs or cats for their fur (2) require accurate labeling of fur species so that consumers in the United States can make informed choices and ensure that they are not unwitting contributors to this gruesome trade (3) ensure that the customs laws of the United States are not undermined by illicit international traffic in dog and cat fur products. (ref- CBP.gov and RFA.org) European Parliament Bans Cat and Dog Fur Imports, 2007 After a shocking investigation and eight years of campaigning by The Humane Society of the United States, the European Parliament voted on June 19 [2007] to ban the import of cat and dog fur. Describing the Asian trade in cat and dog fur "as a business fueled by cunning and cruelty," Wayne Pacelle, CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, today praised the European Parliament's unanimous vote to ban cat and dog fur from being imported or exported into Europe by December 31, 2008. (ref- hsus.org) IDA Announcement, August, 2007 "Leading fashion retailers like J.Crew, Jones Apparel, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, and Ann Taylor have all made the compassionate decision to go fur-free." (ref, Guess campaign) Ban on Breeding Animals for Fur in Croatia (2007 demonstration photo and article) During its four years of existence, the organization Animals Friends Croatia has been very active against the production and promotion of fur, on which more information can be obtained in the Campaigns section of our website. The aim of these campaigns and protests against fur was to raise the awareness of Croatian citizens on the cruelty of the fur industry and the ethical unacceptability of killing animals for their fur. In this way, we seek to achieve the ban on breeding and killing animals for fur in Croatia by means of changes in the Animal Welfare Act, which the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management intends to submit for parliamentary debate in the beginning of 2006. Arguments for the ban are ethical, ecological, and economic. We are of the opinion that killing animals for vanity and profit is shameful if Croatia aims at presenting itself as a civilized country, which has a legal treatment of animals modelled upon those of European states which have progressive laws on animal welfare, such as the neighboring country Austria, on whose law the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management is modelling its Animal Welfare Act proposal. (ref- Animal Friends Croatia)
2004: Multinational Fashion Giant Inditex Goes Fur-Free! (Inditex withdraws from its offer all products made with fur (9/22/04) In reply to the concern of a large number of its clients from around the world regarding the use of fur in garments, Inditex has decided to eliminate these products from its offer all over the world. Already in February 2002 a new corporate policy was adopted, which established that all products of animal origin, including fur and leather, sold by the group would come exclusively from animals raised in food farms, and under no circumstance from animals sacrificed exclusively for the exploitation of their skins. Furthermore, the commitment regarding the humanitarian treatment of animals by all our suppliers was reaffirmed.  Taking another step forward in this policy, Inditex has decided to completely eliminate from its offer all products that include fur as of January 2005, and with immediate effect (as of September 22nd, 2004) this decision is carried out in Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Norway Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia, or in any other country in which new store openings will take place. (ref- inditex.com) COMMENTARY: "Multinational fashion group Inditex, composed of more than 2,064 stores in 52 countries, including the upscale Zara clothing chain, has announced that it will go completely fur-free. The company's news release states, 'In reply to the concern of a large number of its clients from around the world regarding the use of fur in garments, Inditex has decided to eliminate these products from its offer all over the world.' This announcement comes only days before an international day of protest was to take place, and after many thousands of people wrote and called the company. This is proof- positive that letters, phone calls, and protests can make a difference for the animals!" (ref- fundforanimals.org) Industry & Trade Summary: Fur Skins (USITC [US International Trade Commission] Publication 3666, January 2004) The Report emphasizes the decline of pelt consumption in the United States, and states matter-of-factly: “Pressure from animal rights and animal welfare groups have led many European countries to pass legislation banning fur farming or making it economically unviable to raise fur-bearing animals. In the USA there is no federal law regulating the keeping or killing of cage-raised fur-bearing animals." (ref- Friends of Animals) 2002: The Ethical Case Against Fur Farming (also in .pdf) A statement by an international group of academics, including ethicists, philosophers and theologians. Ban on Chinchilla Fur Farms in the Netherlands (ref- Bont voor Dierenl) Besides mink and foxes also chinchilla's are used in the Netherlands for their beautiful coat. Chinchilla farming is just a sideline for farmers. There is no chinchilla farmer that is dependent on the production of fur from chinchilla's. There is hardly any information about the life of chinchilla's on fur farms. The information that is available shows severe welfare problems. From origin the chinchilla is a friendly animal, but in captivity they are anxious or aggressive. This anxiety and aggression is expressed in self-damaging behaviour or damaging behaviour towards other chinchilla's. Even cannibalism is shown, especially with mother eating their young. The mortality rate of the young is high, it is over 25%. Everything shows that there are severe problems with the welfare of the chinchilla's at fur farms. Bont voor Dieren has urged for a ban on chinchilla farming for years. Finally in 1995 the minister of Agriculture decided to give notice of a ban on expanding existing chinchilla farms. A complete ban on chinchilla farming got through in 1997. The existing chinchilla farmers are given a phasing out period of ten years. All chinchilla farms need to be shut down by the 1st of April 2008. Until then the existing farms are not allowed to expand their farms, and it is forbidden to start a new farm.
European Fur Farm Bans (ref- FFA, HSUS, MFA, InFURmation and WAN Anti-Fur Legislation page) While the United States has failed to address the senseless killing on pelting ranches, many European countries have the process of ending fur farming well underway: 
European
Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming PurposesProtocol of Amendment to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act was passed by the BRITISH Parliament and the Royal Assent made on November 23, 2000. The bill banned, citing moral grounds, the farming of animals in England and Wales primarily or solely for the value of their fur from January 1, 2003. March 6, 2002 SCOTLAND joined England and Wales in passing the Fur Farm Prohibition Bill, which makes it illegal to raise mink or other animals primarily or solely for their fur. The law was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament, 77 to 8. Although there are no fur farms in Scotland, the ban was considered necessary to prevent fur farmers from England and Wales from relocating to Scotland once the English and Welsh bans take effect in 2003. While most fur farms in England and Wales are closing, others are seeking to relocate to other countries. This action followed a 200-page report recently released by the European Commission revealing serious animal welfare problems on fur farms throughout Europe. Four GERMAN states have imposed strict rules on fur farming: Bayern, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Schleswig-Holstein. The Bundesrat (The Higher Chamber of the German Parliament) has appealed to the Federal Government to impose strict rules on fur farming throughout Germany. A new law is currently under preparation. In SWEDEN, fox fur farming is only permitted under conditions that meet the biological and behavioural needs of the species, such as opportunity to dig, and the ability to live in a natural, social group. In practice, this has led to a complete cessation of fox farming in Sweden. Currently, a total ban on fur farming is under consideration. Provinces in AUSTRIA have either banned fur farming outright or have imposed such stringent rules that all remaining farms have since been obliged to close. In NORWAY, the Ethical Council of the Ministry of Agriculture has stated that fur farming in its present form is unacceptable from an animal welfare standpoint. In March 2001, the ITALIAN Government passed a law implementing the EU Directive "58/98/EC," for the protection of farm animals, including fur farms. The measures make fur farming economically unviable, effectively terminating it within the country. As of 2008, stringent regulations will govern fur farming in Italy. Mink, for example, must be able to swim in water. Fox farming is now banned in HOLLAND, and all Dutch fox farms must close by 2004. In SWITZERLAND, fur farming is prevented by legislation that prohibits keeping animals to be killed for their fur under what are effectively "zoo-like" conditions, since fur-bearing animals are considered to be wild animals in Switzerland. Switzerland has no fur farms. The NETHERLANDS, one of the biggest mink farming nations in the world, distinguished itself in the early eighties by showing a 90% drop in fur retail sales. This was the result of a united anti-fur campaign of several years. In 1997 the Dutch government decided that fox farming will have to be phased out by 2002. Subsequently it decided to ban the farming of chinchillas as well. The 5 remaining chinchilla farms had to be closed by January 1999.
Curtain Falling for Fur Farming in Europe (ref- Bont voor Dieren) There are no longer any fur farms in Austria. There is a total ban on fur farming in six of the nine Austrian federal states and in the remaining three there are such strict welfare regulations, in relation to the availability of swimming water, that fur farming is no longer economically viable. In Italy, strict welfare conditions for fur farming were adopted in March 2001. From 1st January 2008, all mink must be given enriched living environments in which they can climb on branches, dig holes, use a nest of 50 x 50 cm and also have a water basin of at least 2 x 2 metres and 50 cm deep in which to swim. These welfare demands should effectively put an end to fur farming. In Switzerland also, animal welfare legislation ensures that fur-bearing animals cannot be kept under intensive farming conditions. In 2005, the Swedish government announced that they were planning to make similar legislative changes to protect the welfare of mink by stipulating that they must have access to swimming water. The German government is also currently working on such legislation, although fur farming has already been banned in the federal states of Bavaria, Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Schleswig-Holstein. In the United Kingdom, a bill to prohibit fur farming in England and Wales was passed in the House of Commons on 22nd November 2000. Fur farming has thus been banned in the whole of the UK since 1st January 2003. In the Netherlands, bans on fox and chinchilla farming were passed in 1995 and 1997 respectively. The phasing-out of these forms of fur production began in April 1998. By 1st April 2008, all fox and chinchilla farms in the Netherlands must cease their operations. The Dutch parliament also unanimously accepted a motion to ban mink farming on 1st July 1999. Legislation to ban mink farming was in preparation. However, before this legislation could be passed into Dutch law, the progressive left-wing government fell and was replaced by a conservative government, which sadly decided to reject the proposed ban on mink production. An English version of the proposed bill to prohibit fur farming here and the memorandum of explanation here.
FUR: NOT "NATURAL" OR "ECO-FRIENDLY""Apart from ethical arguments, there is the important ecological issue of disposing animal carcasses, as well as that of chemicals used in the processing and conservation of fur. In order to make one single fur coat, it is necessary to kill 200-250 chinchillas, up to 60 foxes, 30 coypu, 60 minks, etc. The fur industry is polluting our environment enormously, since apart from spending a large amount of natural resources (60 times more energy is needed to produce fur coats from ranch-raised animals than is needed to produce fake furs) carcasses of skinned animals are turned into waste. "The process of fur production requires dangerous chemicals, which irreparably pollute our waterways. Moreover, the fur industry not only has a negative impact on ethical principles, since it forces people to earn their living by killing innocent animals, but also jeopardizes their health – the tanning process requires the use of carcinogenic trivalent and hexavalent chrome, which increases the risk of testicle cancer, while the high concentration of lead, cyanide, and formaldehyde, which have been detected in waterways around fur factories, may cause leukemia in the local population." (ref- Animal Friends Croatia) "Furs are loaded with chemicals to keep them from decomposing in the buyer’s closet, and fur production pollutes the environment. More than 60 times as much energy is needed to produce fur coats from ranch-raised animals than is needed to produce fake furs. The Environmental Protection Agency has filed complaints against companies involved in fur production and transportation for illegally generating and disposing of hazardous waste from processing pelts. The fur industry has lobbied governments in the Great Lakes area to maintain low water-quality standards—so that fur farms won’t be identified as major polluters. Furriers claims that the carcasses from animals skinned for their pelts are used for animal feed (even though many animals on fur farms are killed by being injected with poisons), but often they end up dumped in landfills." (ref- choosecrueltyfree.org.au, also see: The Fur Industry: An Environmental Nightmare) "Furs are bleached and dyed to make them resemble more expensive fur. And that process uses carcinogens such as benzene. Under the World Bank's industrial pollution protection system-IPPS-fur dressing and dyeing rank among the worst five industries for toxic metal pollution. Some products used in the process are banned in the European Union-for example, arsenic, which is a multiple carcinogen. In practice, furs are not biodegradable despite being natural products because the chemicals, including the carcinogens, needed to preserve the coat are not degradable and so add to the issues surrounding landfill sites when coats are discarded." (ref- voice4dogs.org) "Formaldehyde, chromium, and other dangerous chemicals are used in the processing of furs, and have catastrophic effects when this runoff leaks from fur farms into rivers or streams. In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined 6 New Jersey fur processors $2.2 million as a result of the pollution they caused. The EPA claims that the waste from fur processing plants 'may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens.' Fur industry lobbyists are even working in state legislatures for more lenient water pollution laws, a chilling sign that their product can hardly be considered 'natural." (ref- Humane Society Legislative Fund) "Fur farms, like all factory farm operations, produce massive amounts of animal waste that are high in both phosphorous and nitrogen. When it rains, this waste becomes a part of our water systems. Caustic chemicals such as formaldehyde are used in the processing of fur coats, thus eliminating the biodegradable value of an animal skin. Only 'dressed' pelts are put on the market, for no one wants a coat that would rot in her closet. Further, a ranch-raised coat requires nearly 50 times more energy than its synthetic counterpart." (ref- Last Chance for Animals) "Process of chemical tanning stabilizes collagen and protein fibre so skin actually stops to biodegrade. Workers employed in fur production process in Chinchilla d.o.o. use a carcinogenic three-valent and six-valent chrome, which increases the risk of testicle cancer, while high concentrations of dangerous substances for fur processing like led, cyanide and formaldehyde pollute water, which can cause leukemia with local people. According to American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), all toxics that contain chrome is considered hazardous and dangerous. Inadequate waste handling can lead to water contamination. According to study issued by Ministry of Health State of New York, more than fifty percent of testicle cancer victims are among skin-tanning employees." (ref- Animal Friends Croatia) "Environmental Toll: While the fur industry promotes its product as a "natural" fabric from a "renewable resource," nothing could be further from the truth. Gregory H. Smith, an engineer with the Ford Motor Company, reported that the amount of energy expended to manufacture a fur coat from trapped animals was nearly four times the amount needed to manufacture a fake fur coat, and that the amount of energy expended to manufacture a fur coat from ranched animals -- after calculating the production of feed, cages, skinning, pelt drying, processing, and transportation -- was 66 times the amount needed for a fake fur. "Formaldehyde, chromium, and other dangerous chemicals are used in the processing of furs, and have catastrophic effects when this runoff leaks from fur farms into rivers or streams. In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined six New Jersey fur processors $2.2 million as a result of the pollution they caused. The EPA claims that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens." Fur industry lobbyists are even working in state legislatures for more lenient water pollution laws, a chilling sign that their product can hardly be considered 'natural." (ref- Orange County People for Animals) |
||||
