But Canadian fur is less cruel isn’t it?
Almost half of Canadian fur comes from trapped animals. Trapping is extremely cruel and painful. The rest come from fur farms, which are horrible factory farms.
But if they raise animals they must take good care of them?
No. All they need is the fur. And the animal doesn’t live long enough to develop serious illnesses. In Canada furriers use the cold to their advantage, and leave the animals out in the bitter cold to force them to produce thicker fur. The animals often have parts of their body completely frozen by the time they are skinned. They live their entire short lives in tiny cages, one on top of each other, in their own feces, and they eat the flesh of the animals that were skinned before them.
But aren’t they killed humanely in Canada though? They are not skinned alive are they?
Yes they often are. Animals on fur farms may be gassed, electrocuted, poisoned with strychnine, or have their necks snapped. These methods are not 100 percent effective and some animals "wake up" while being skinned.
Isn’t fur green? After all it’s a natural fibre.
Yes fur is a natural fibre but it is not by GREEN. Fur is skin and hair, so it SHOULD rot (like unrefrigerated meat) so fur is treated with dangerous chemicals to keep it from rotting. Also the animals raised for fur must be fed and watered, using up resources and they piss and shit, which pollutes the land and waterways. In fact synthetic fur by comparison is MUCH greener. But if you truly want to be green, then don’t buy any fur at all, and instead buy organic real crop-based NATURAL fibres, such as hemp, bamboo, cotton, or even buy warm coats made out of recycled synthetics.
But isn't the fur trade a traditional native practice?
Actually less than 1% of the world fur trade is carried out by truly native people. Traditionally, native people have caught and used animals for food and for clothing. They would, however, only take enough for their own use and for limited local trade. The rights of truly native peoples to continue this practice remain unaffected by a ban on the international trade in fur and on fur farms. In fact, historically the fur trade has done more harm to native peoples than good. It was much less about supporting native economy and much more about USING natives to make a profit OFF them.
But it gets cold in Canada and fur is a good way to keep warm.
Actually, fur is not a good insulator (when it is not on the animal who was born with it). All one has to do is take a look at the Arctic and Antarctic researchers to see that they wear synthetics such as gortex and polar tec that keep you much, much warmer than fur ever would.
But isn’t it hypocritical to be against fur if I still eat meat and wear leather?
No. While yes the ultimate goal should be to eliminate all animal products, none of us are perfect, and we all do things in increments. Fur is an unnecessary luxury, while some feel that they need to eat meat and other animal products and they feel that leather is a by-product of that industry.
While these people are wrong to think this, that is not the point. The issue is that there is no way that anyone can make the argument that fur is NEEDED. So you may look at it from the all or nothing perspective, or you could consider that avoiding fur is the LEAST that you could do on your path towards a more compassionate lifestyle.
Why should I care about fur while there are children starving in the world?
How is purchasing fur HELPING those children? The two are not related. We can care about both. There is no limit to compassion. There are many charitable organizations available to you to help children, and abused women, and the homeless, etc. etc.
But this is not about a charity, this is simply about asking yourself: Should I buy fur? If your reason to care about children is compassion for others, how does buying fur fit with that worldview?
What about clothes made in sweatshops?
People should avoid buying clothes made in sweatshops as well. H&M is a major retailer that has had a passing grade from all the labour watchdogs for the last 4 years. As well buying locally from small designers is a wonderful way to stimulate the economy and avoid factory labour. But again, this has nothing to do with fur. Fur is cruel. Sweatshops are cruel. These are both truths. If you are against sweatshops should you not be against fur for the same reasons?
But they are just animals, who cares?
Don’t you? If I put a puppy in front of you right now and you had a choice between kicking him in the face and NOT kicking him in the face, wouldn’t you choose NOT to harm him? It’s a no-brainer. The issue is not about whether you agree with animal rights or not, it’s simply that it is an absolutely unnecessary practice, so why not avoid it? If you don’t buy fur it doesn’t mean that you are an animal rights activist, it just means that you are not cruel.
But you are treating them as humans, they don’t feel like us.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support that belief. You can believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy if you wish, but it does not make them true either. The reality is that we KNOW that animals feel pain pretty much as we do. That they suffer as we do, feel despair and fear as we do. Anyone who has ever lived with a pet animal knows that they dream, think and make decisions.
The LEAP from all this to the belief that animals don’t care about being tortured is extreme and ridiculous. Of course they don’t enjoy being tortured and they don’t want to feel pain.
So what are animal rights?
Animal rights are simple. It is the belief that no species exist FOR the other species. And that every creature has basic rights: to live free of pain and suffering, to live as comfortably as possible, and to not be killed. We are not talking about giving dogs the right to vote and pigeons the right to drive cars I (besides they wouldn’t want those rights even if we gave them). It’s just three basic rights: No pain, a comfortable existence, not being killed.
But how do you know the animals want this? You don’t speak dog or cow or fox?
Exactly. Since we cannot speak to the animals, we must assume the negative. All animal abusers always tell us that their animals are “happy” but how do they know this? If I want to tap you on the shoulder, but I ask you and you say nothing, to be respectful, I must assume that you don’t want me to tap you. And when we are talking about killing an animal it’s kind of obvious that the animal doesn’t want to die.
But I believe that humans are more important than animals.
And you are entitled to hold that bias. But giving them rights will not in any way affect that belief. Before rights were given to any group (be it other races, women or children) there were always those who feared that giving rights to those people would somehow lessen THEIR rights, but it was NEVER the case. In fact there are still men today who believe that they have FEWER rights because women have rights, but any intelligent person knows that is not true.
If animals have basic rights, you will still have the SAME rights AND all the other societal rights that you have and animals don’t.
