tayloraston.files.wordpress.com · web viewkilling any animals to don its fur or skin is not a...
Post on 16-Sep-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
VT 3045: Thesis ModuleBA (Hons) Fashion DesignTaylor Aston GazzardStudent no 1154349
VT 3045: Thesis moduleIs the use of fur in fashion such a cruel thing?
Table of contents
Introduction
Chapter 1A Brief History
Chapter 2Creating Balance
Chapter 3Circle of Life
Conclusion
References
Appendices
2
Introduction
Is the use of fur in fashion such a cruel thing?
This paper is to study the above question and look into the uses of fur
within the world of fashion, as no other topic sparks a more heated debate
than that concerning the use of fur. Obviously in an age where technology
has created synthetic materials, no one can really defend the use of
wearing skins and fur as anything to do with just keeping warm. These
days it’s more a matter of personal taste, but to anyone who loves
animals, it’s not a debate. Killing any animals to don its fur or skin is not
a necessity, just a human-centric and cruel fashion statement. Or is it?
What causes such arguments to arise – have those people who so quickly
call fur and leather wearers heartless actually have solid knowledge of
where that fur originally came from? Whether the poor animal was
maliciously murdered through sadistic hunters or did it die of disease or
age? Maybe even a bi-product of food that we as a race seem to mostly
accept as a natural part of life.
This thesis will contain solid research into both sides of the fur trade,
touching on the hunting of the animals and the reasons behind them.
Researching into organisations that are against anything they deem as
animal cruelty such as ‘P.E.T.A’ as well as looking into companies that
still feel fur is a status vanity such as ‘Wewearfur’ and ‘Saga furs’.
3
This paper will also look at and provide a solid understanding of
everything from the history and necessity of fur in certain cultures, to
vintage fur, and touching on our relationship with food will help people
understand the reasoning behind some fur wearers instead of letting
prejudice shade their judgment.
4
Chapter 1
A brief history
The modern fur industry is a less bloodthirsty industry than when it
supposedly began in North America in the 19th century, these days it is
more common for an animal to have been bred for its fur to live a happy
fulfilled life rather than being hunted down and slaughtered by poachers.
Yet most people only see what the media have influenced, nothing makes
a better story than a picture of a sad looking fox, rabbit or monkey to pull
on the nations heart strings and convince those people to suddenly donate
a lot of money, or more fashionably “adopt an animal” with an
organisation that is supposed to stop such horror. Although the process of
adopting an animal through one of these charity organisations - who then
send the adoptee photographs, writing and more often than not a cuddly
toy, in itself raises the questions of how much of the money sent in for
adoption actually goes towards the care of the animal? and how much
does it cost to make the merchandise that accompanies each adoption?
1
1 Adopt a tiger advertisement, WWF Organisation
5
The same organisation will more often than not bring out another heart
wrenching picture or video of another cute fluffy animal that is also
suffering. Causing more people to pledge money, while no one can say
exactly where the money donated to such causes actually goes.
Whether it is such organisations that have helped or just the human race
has started to gain a conscience, the fur trade now have very strict
guidelines when it comes to hunting for any reasons. Although this still
does not stop everyone, as some prefer to follow the old ways, be that for
the fun and sport of a hunt or for deep rooted cultural reasons.
The fur trade has helped and still helps support the traditional lifestyle and
cultural values of many aboriginal Canadians, Alaskans, Siberians,
Namibians etc, who live in regions hostile to most agriculture activities that
would otherwise make them a living. Participating in the fur trade allows
them to maintain and reinforce their traditional lifestyle and culture.
One of the earliest and most important industries to have started up in
Canada and North America was actually the fur trade; it played a major
role in the development of both countries for more than 300 years, which
later ventured out to Europe and the rest of the world. (Arguably other
countries could have of course started their own fur trade before America
but the fur trade in North American and Canada in that time is the most
commonly known.)
6
Native American Indians would use fur they have come across through
food and habitation to trade with the first Europeans for goods they did not
have such as tools and weapons. The settling Europeans would offer the
Indians gifts of kettles, knifes and other objects to try to gain and establish
a friendship which would result in trading of the furs. While the Native
Americans have used fur as part of their culture, the European’s who were
sending the fur they traded home was sought after as a high class product
only for the rich and famous, and so was increasingly in high demand.
With animals such as fox, marten, mink etc. being so popular, more
animals were needed to be to be traded from the Native Americans, leading
to many more being poached and killed.
Towards the 1700’s and with the Native American Indians having little
interest in trapping the animals, the westerners had to come up with a better
plan to keep up with the demand of fur throughout the western world. In
response, the fur companies that had popped up hired and created men
known as ‘Mountain Men’ who would scour and roam through the wild
areas of the rocky mountains in search for the coveted fur.
By the late 1700’s the fur trade started to decline, and as a result, more and
more land was cleared leading to the decline in population of fur-bearing
animals.
“Over trapping of fur-bearing animals hurt the fur trade in the
Western United States and Western Canada. In addition, the
7
value of beaver fur dropped sharply in the 1830's, when
European had manufacturers began to use silk instead of felt. By
1870, most fur-trading activity had ended.”
(Nov 2013, www.montanatrappers.org, WWW page)
It was in the 1600’s that the prospect of wealth from fur first attracted the
Europeans to the new world. Even though the fur trade was a harsh way to
create the money and wealth, it did contribute to the economical
development of not only America, but also a lot of Europe such as Britain
and France.
2
2 French Traders and Their American Indian Trading Partners Exchanging European Goods for Furs. Decorative detail from Map of the inhabited part of Canada. William Faden, 1777.
8
While the fur trade slowly disintegrated in the late 1700’s, it is in the 21st
century where it is an increasingly popular and growing industry again.
People in this day and age are wearing fur in greater numbers and more and
more designers are choosing to feature fur, be it little or large amounts,
within their collections, which in turn is encouraging high street shops and
the consumers to wear it.
“Welfare is at the heart of everything the fur trade does. The
IFF Is dedicated to continued high standards of care and
welfare for fur animals and supports scientific research in this
area. The IFF promotes strict codes of practice that meet and
exceed established and accepted standards for animal welfare
for both wild and farmed fur. The International fur trade does
not trade in endangered species.”
Nov 2013, www.wewearfur.com, WWW page.
Fur companies such as the online company ‘wewearfur.com’ are an
excellent example of how the fur trade has come back into fashion with the
animal’s welfare in mind. Rather than poachers trapping and killing the
9
animals in the wild, which is the older and harsher way, the modern age
has brought out an idea of farming the animals in a safe and secure
environment.
Animals are already farmed for many reasons: meat, dairy, wool,
cashmere, silk and of course fur and leather. It is the responsibility of those
who farm the animals to ensure the animal is treated humanely. In a survey
answered by the general public it was a shock to see that 90% of the results
said they are happy to eat meat, yet only 30% said they would wear fur,
with the other 70% having a strong opinion against fur. Stranger though is
that when looking at the responses for the same question for leather, a lot
of the people originally against fur have no problem with leather, with a
larger 78% saying they would happily wear the leather. This leads you to
believe that people don’t actually understand that fur and leather are not
that different, and that the methods to retrieve the products are very similar.
“As a vegetarian I would never think to eat meat, however I will
use leather, wool and the like within my work as others do eat
meat meaning that the likes of leather is no more than a by-
product of our food industry.”
(December 2013, K.A.Reynolds, fashion designer.)
This could be why company’s such as ‘Wewearfur’ are very honest with all
their products, making sure the consumers know and understand where the
fur they are about to purchase has come from. 85% of fur internationally is
10
now farmed; which is fur that has been bred selectively over 100 years
such in the same way free-range animals are bred. The strict laws,
regulations and industry codes of practice ensure the welfare of all animals,
leading them to live happy and healthy lives. An animal’s health is
actually shown in the fur itself so it would be in the interest of everyone
that the fur the animal belonged to be kept well maintained.
There still are problems with people illegally poaching and capturing
animals for their fur, leather and ivory. Yet there is still actually ‘wild fur’
options, these are completely within the strong rules and regulations
regarding the animals health and welfare. The majority of wild species
used by the fur trade are not actually specifically taken for the fur; they are
part of a wildlife management program that is regulated by the government
under the advice and supervision of wildlife biologists. While this is very
similar to hunting seasons that occurs in different parts of the world, they
are not normally to satisfy mans bloodlust but to thin the species so that the
healthier animals have not got an over crowded habitat and other problems
that could occur.
3
3 ‘Animals are sentient beings’, European fur information center, RSPCA
11
An over-population or under-population of any species creates an
imbalance of the eco-system, which can have cataclysmic effects. Wildlife
biologists supervise the environments and decide which species are having
problems, then give the appropriate advice on the problems which can be
solved, and ultimately will help the species thrive and survive as a whole.
‘PETA’ which stands for ‘People for the Ethical Treatments of Animals’
is one of the main organizations that are against anything to do with
harming animals; this includes any ingestion of animal products as well as
anything that can be created from the animals themselves such as leather
and fur.
“Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for
entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”
(PETA’s slogan, PETA.org, WWW page.)
PETA’s is a very successful volunteer based company that mostly relies on
the media creating dramatic and heart-breaking videos of animals crying to
gain funding from generous donators. No one can argue that the
organization is anything less than an outstanding establishment, set up for
the welfare of animals, with those involved actually focusing on the
welfare and health of the animals in their care rather than the concentration
of gaining money like other organizations. PETA promotes itself as being
non-profit. With the apparent success rate of the organization as a whole
12
against stopping the animal laboratories and experiments, you cannot really
argue with the tenacity and way of thinking promoted by this company.
4
With celebrities famously declaring they would rather ‘go naked than wear
fur’, how can the general populace who look up to the celebrities not
notice? Any advertisement like these does create a big impact within the
fur world. Unfortunately it cannot be taken that seriously when the
celebrities who declare such statements don’t stick to it. Naomi Campbell,
who was one of the famous faces in the campaign, was branded a
‘hypocrite’ by fellow celebrity and fashion designer Heather Mills. This
was because Campbell decided to become the face of fashion designer
Dennis Basso, who’s Russian sable fur coats would sell for up to £126,750
each. This poses the question that maybe some people put greed over
principles?
A Californian furrier was charged with cruelty to animals when PETA
investigated and were caught on film electrocuting chinchillas. The furrier
would prolong the animal’s pain by connecting wires to the animal’s 4 1944, Anti campaign poster, PETA. Photograph Rex Features. The Guardian.
13
genitals; this would cause the animals to have a heart attack when they
were still conscious. A pig farmer in North Carolina who would abuse the
pigs daily and leave them in horrific conditions, including one being
skinned alive, lead to the first ever felony indictments of farm workers.
One of the largest problems with cruelty to animals seems to be the
Chinese fur trade who is one of the largest fur exporters, which is well
known to skins animals alive.
“Workers would flip them onto their backs or hang them by their legs
or tails to skin them. Workers would stomp on the necks and heads of
the animals who would struggle too hard to allow a clean cut.”
(2014, Chinese Fur Farming, PETA)
5These are just some examples of how PETA has caught some animal
farms that have cruelly treated the animals, in cases like these and many
more, many people cant argue with PETA’s intervention.
5
5 2013, Matt Blake, Chinese Fox farms, article, Daily Mail
14
“PETA has made groundbreaking advances for animals who are
abused by corporations, governments, and individuals throughout
the world, and these successes have led to dramatic improvements
in the lives of millions of individual animals.”
(Success Stories, www.peta.org, WWW Page)
The one thing that can be possibly criticized about PETA is the very black
and white outlook on everything. They strongly encourage a supposedly
healthier lifestyle by developing a diet of vegan food, food that has never
been made or even produced by any living breathing creature, such as tofu,
which is made from organic soybeans. Food that is produced from an
animal include these normal ingredients that most people don’t realize
could harm the animal that made it, even though nothing has been proven
(other than killing animals for meat). Foods such as any meat,
fish/shellfish, eggs, honey, gelatin and milk cannot be ingested as they
have all been either produced or created from/by the animals. So PETA
promotes a ‘cruelty-free’ diet for anybody who feels/made to feel guilty
about eating animal produce.
This causes several arguments, as this is where there is more disagreement
between people’s opinions than any other subject concerning animal
welfare. Throughout history there have been three types of creatures;
Herbivores who are creatures who eat vegetation; Carnivores who are
creatures who only eat meat and lastly Omnivores who require a
15
combination of both to develop a healthy diet. Humans have always been
creatures that needed to eat both meat and vegetables to keep a healthy
balance, so why would you discourage the natural order of things?
You wouldn’t encourage animals such as a Lion to only eat vegetables, or a
Rabbit to only rely on meat, that would be cruel. Yet humans are made to
feel guilty for being naturally on the top of the food chain. Humans have a
peculiar notion that animals are of lower intelligence, yet most animals still
have something humans have somehow lost, natural instincts. Most
animals know exactly what food their body requires to be the strongest, yet
human vegans are arguably ignoring their natural instincts and have to
become creative to find the needed vitamins and subsidence in other food
products. Its great for them to be able to live the healthiest they can
without something that is supposedly vital to the humans diet, but should
people feel guilty for doing something that has come naturally to them
since the beginning of time?
An argument against PETA’s ‘cruelty-free’ diet would be that if the world
suddenly decided to become vegan, animals that help sustain our food
chain and our clothing industry such as cows or sheep might become
endangered, extinct or even over populated, as the human race would no
longer need them. Our eco-system is very delicate, and major changes in it
can cause a domino effect that could harm other species of animals. If the
cows suddenly ate all of the available grass in an area, what would happen
to all those animals that also need the grass to survive? Even if the animals
16
became extinct, we gave up encouraging the animals to breed, such as how
the Giant Panda is slowly dying off, what would happen to the eco-system
then?
It can be argued of course that we don’t eat mice or rats and they have not
gone extinct, but nor do we hunt them for clothing or decoration. Imagine a
world twenty years into the future, where every human being has
abandoned their natural instincts of being a hunter and now follows
PETA’s ‘cruelty-free’ diet. What would the possibility be that the only way
to see an un-needed animal such as a cow would be by visiting a zoo or
museum? Can you imagine trekking through the rolling hills of Cumbria or
Wales, on a safari to see the wild sheep? So although PETA itself is an
organization which fights cruelty to animals, if everyone were to follow
their lead, would it cause more harm than good?
Something that is very much in the media at the moment is the use of free-
range animals and food against non-free range. Its almost a slightly less
guilty option for those of us who do still wish to eat meat and animal
products. Yet when reading up articles about the supposedly ‘cruel-free’
free-range options you can get with the animals, it doesn’t seem actually
that cruel free it claims to be.
“Caged hens are more comfortable than people think, and have
higher welfare as standard than free-range hens.”
17
(Professor Christine Nicole, Article on Free-range, University of
Bristol, Daily Mail.)
The problem with free-range is that the animals have a lot of room to move
around and enjoy their life, but they panic more when they are hoarded into
a factory where they are about to meet their fate for which they were bred.
6
What causes someone to be so focused on the negative effects seen through
the media that they fail to see the harm avoiding it may do? What makes
those who enjoy the torment of animals choose their preferred method of
destruction and how long does it take them to plan it, or, as in the case of
the Californian furrier, is it more of a spur of the moment decision to cause
6 Enriched – Protection in cages, Article for free-range, DailyMail.
18
as much pain as possible? What, if anything, can we do to protect animals
from this onslaught?
Yet even knowing that in the cages the Hens are supposedly more content
and protected, most people would still rather pay the extra money for free-
range eggs just to know the animals had a sort of ok life. So once our
conscience is clear, is it ok to use every element, including skin, fur, meat
and products created from any animal ok to use on a daily basis? This
paper will continue to explore that question.
19
Chapter 2
Creating Balance
Different cultures throughout the world have used animals for food as well
as their protective clothing. A great example of this is are the Inuit people
of the Arctic, who rely on the fur they acquire though hunting as a major
factor within their clothing to keep them selves warm. To them, hunting
and using the skin of the animal is a natural thing their people have done
for generations, it’s the same with many other tribes throughout the world
who live in a particularly cold environment. Why would you change the
way you and your family have lived through generations just because some
one has commented that it is cruel?
“Aboriginal people are a part of nature in a way that very few people
have ever known. We have used the animals and the fish, plants and
water of the earth for generations. We are nurtured by this
environment, through our livelihood, we pass our traditional skills
and values to our children.”
(The council for Yukon Indians, Wewearfur.org, WWW Page)
These people are the people who rely on the gifts from the animals they
have in the area to continue their survival, just in the same way early
humans such as homo sapiens or cave men had to learn quickly to rely on
animal furs warmth to survive against the cold. Without the use of these
furs, would the human race have survived as long as it has?
20
“Protecting and maintaining healthy populations of fur-bearing
animals is more than just a matter of social conscience for our
people, it’s a matter of our survival.”
(The council for Yukon Indians, Wewearfur.org, WWW Page)
If organisations such as PETA looked towards the tribes who rely on the
animals like the Inuit tribe, would their argument for the animal’s welfare
actually have a solid base to stand on? Since the Inuit people of the Artic
are actually part of the delicate eco-system in the area, they help to keep a
healthy population of animals not just for the animal’s sake but also for the
survival for themselves too. It very similar to what the ‘Wild fur’ farms
that have popped up across the world, they don’t just farm the fur-bearing
animals just for what the society need, they look after the animals and help
the survival of their species.
For arguments sake, even if the human conscience did take over the whole
race, and everyone stopped wearing fur and started wearing more cotton
and synthetic fabrics, is that actually the way forward? Or would the
pollution generated from synthetic fabrics cause more harm than good?
There is a ‘fake fur’ option available for those people who do want fur
without the guilty conscious, but do they know that the organic fibres
needed to create it are sometimes farmed in a way that is cruel to humans?
Slavery is a huge problem in the cotton industry, which is a major
ingredient in the production of ‘fake fur’. In Uzbekistan approximately half
of the cotton farmed, is picked by adults and children who would receive
little if no pay. It is actually the sixth largest producer of cotton for around
21
the world and the fifth biggest exporter. Generating an estimated $1 billion
of revenue a year. With little money if any actually going to the hard
workers.
“The work is dangerous, children are left exhausted, suffer from ill-
health and malnutrition. During harvests there are reported deaths
due to poor health and safety. The workers are forced to stay in
makeshift dorms in poor conditions with insufficient food and
drinking water.”
(2013, Anti-slavery, Forced Labour, antislavery.org/cotton)
Obviously not all cotton is farmed like this, but why would an organisation
that is against cruelty to animals encourage the use of anything that could
cause harm to our own race?
7
7 2013, Anti-slavery, Cotton crimes, antislavery.org/cotton
22
While the argument is that animals don’t have anyone to fight their side or
defend themselves, neither do these slaves who are taken from their normal
lives in harvest season. It did not matter if they were teachers, factory
workers, children or even doctors, and regardless if they wanted to or not,
they were forced to drop everything to help harvest the cotton. If they
refused of didn’t co-operate they were threatened with dismissal from their
usual work, which would leave them with nothing.
PETA has helped in a lot of ways the welfare of animals, yet there is a long
way yet to go, it’s the same for organisations who want to stop slavery in
not just the cotton industry, but all over the world. Organisations such as
‘antislavery.org,’ who are helping to educate the world into stopping the
use of cotton that has been harvested in such a way. So while slavery is a
part of the cotton industry, should we be encouraging the use of it? Even if
it doesn’t use any animal products?
Even the uses of these natural fibres are in some cases harmful to the
environment, which in return is possibly harmful to the animals and us.
Cotton is the most pesticide intensive crop in the world, which is one of the
major factors that cause the people farming it such health problems. The
chemicals typically remain in the fabric after finishing, and are released
during the lifetime of the garment. Potentially creating future problems to
the wearer and the environment.
Even wool, which is sheared from sheep at regular intervals and
supposedly doesn’t cause the animal any harm at all, have their own
problems, It causes both agricultural and craft workers to suffer from
23
exposure to ‘organophosphate sheep dip’ which is typically connected to
excessive tiredness, headaches, limb pains, disturbed sleep, poor
concentration, mood changes and in some cases suicidal thoughts.
Other possible solutions are to look into man-made or even synthetic
fabrics within the fashion and textile industry. Synthetic fibres are the
result of extensive research taken by scientists to improve on naturally
occurring animal and plant fibres. The first artificial fibre was known as
artificial silk, which later became known as Viscose or Rayon around 1894,
it was a cellulosic fibre that was regenerated from chemically treated
cellulose that was originally deprived from wood pulp. Nylon was the first
official synthetic fibre, which was derived from petrochemicals rather than
cellulose. It made its debut in the United States of America as a
replacement of silk, just in time for the start of World War 2. According to
scientists, synthetic fibres were a breakthrough, they would commonly
replaces nature fibres and were easier and cheaper to purchase.
The only cause to concern was that synthetic fabrics and fibres are more
harmful to the environment than natural; this is because they were all
enhanced with chemicals. Polyester and Nylon fabrics are made from a
substance that could create nitrous oxide, a very harmful gas. Many
materials that are labelled petrochemical, flame-retardants, acetate, nylon
and non-wrinkle have all been chemically treated in one stage or another
throughout the process. Whether it is from the actual creation of the fibre,
or the stages after, such as dying. All these gases are causing harm to the
24
environment around us, possibly causing irreversible damage to the
atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
“Synthetic materials are deprived from petrochemicals, meaning
production depends on declining reserves of oil and gas as they are
not renewable.”
(2008, Article, Green Couture, Maria Burke, rsc.org, WWW Page.)
Its not just the gases used in the production process that is a cause for
concern, the fact that synthetic fabrics that are made from petrochemicals
are non bio-degradable, this means that once it has been thrown away, the
synthetic fabric would take years to break down, creating a constant need
for dumps and landfills. Synthetic fabrics have even been known to be
disposed in the ocean, creating a threat to many marine lives, which will in
turn cause problems for the species of animals who rely on those marine
animals and so forth.
8 Environmental impact of natural fur and artificial fur, wewearfur.org. Reported in millipoint units. Which is an abstract unit to express potential impacts. Wewearfur.org
25
So although synthetic fibres have been known to be more durable and
resistant, the long-term effects to the environment outweigh the
advantages. This is why companies are trying to develop a ‘Green’ version
of synthetic fabrics that have all, if not most of the characteristics of
normal man made fibres. So far there has been some success with using
corn as its base for the fibre, called Ingeo. According to the company
‘Nature works’ who are the creators of Ingeo, they use ’62 to 68%’ less
fossil fuel resources than traditional plastic when manufacturing and rely
on wind turbines to create green electricity. As of yet it is not
biodegradable and is needed to be composted in industrial composting
facilities, but hopefully in the future may be chemically recyclable.
As of yet the fibre is not perfect, it has a lower melting rate than normal
polyester so would have to be ironed on a lower heat level, it also hasn’t
got the tenacity that nylon is famous for. However it is softer than
synthetic fabrics, two to three times stretchier and holds bright, bold
colours well.
“Not only is the fibre new, but the process used to produce the
polymer ingredients is new, so we have been working to educate
people on its performance benefits and attributes, as well as the
environmental benefits.”
(2008, Nature Works, Chemistry world.)
26
At the moment synthetic fibres are doing a more harm than good to the
environment, even more so than actually farming natural fibres and fabrics
including leather and fur. With the new environmentally friendly fibres
such as Ingeo still in the early stages, and yet only available in niche
markets, it isn’t affecting the fashion and textiles synthetic fabrics industry
as of yet, but when it does it will change how we see and use natural
fabrics.
9
9 2008, Nature Works, Chemistry world, Woman wearing Ingeo in catwalk show.
27
Everything from plant life to animals has to use and rely on the atmosphere
and their environment, without it they could not continue their existence, as
the world would become inhabitable. So anything that could help the
environment and atmosphere would benefit every living thing on earth,
humans, plants and animals. It’s inevitable that we use animals for the
purpose of our survival, but using the bi-products created is a clever way to
give something backs to the environment.
As of yet, we cannot create a faux or synthetic copy of either leather or fur
that doesn’t affect the environment and atmosphere in some way.
Hopefully with future research we could get a breakthrough and not need
to use the animals for fur or leather, either as a by-product or not. With the
technology to create synthetic lab grown meat available now, it doesn’t
seem such a huge jump.
28
Chapter 3
Circle of Life
Vintage fur has had a slightly less prejudiced reaction to it than modern fur,
it has been worn by many people throughout the decades, even century’s.
So in a modern day where wanting to save the planet is a must, why would
we not want to recycle?
“Fur farming plays a valuable role in the recycling chain by making
efficient use of the animal by-products. Each year over one million
tonnes of these by-products are used in the EU alone.”
(Facts and Figures, BritishFur.co.uk, WWW Page)
As a race that is mainly omnivores, we eat meat. Yet what happens to the
waste of the animals? It’s ironic that wearing fur repels people, yet they eat
meat themselves without any worries. Obviously not everyone is like this,
looking back through the survey carried out to the general public
unsurprisingly 90% of the interviewees were meat eaters and only 20% of
those meat eaters would wear fur, even if it was for recycling purposes.
Yet when explained that if the animal had died of natural causes, and not
for the purpose of fur, the opinions of a lot of those 80% who did not like
the original idea of fur changed.
29
10
11A great example of someone using animals that have been either naturally
killed or killed by accident is taxidermist artist ‘Polly Morgon’. She would
find road kill, or even in some cases have bodies donated by zoos and the
public to her to use, and create beautiful works of art, while some people
judge her work as glamourizing cruelty to dead animals, she never
physically caused any harm or cruelty to those animals she used in any of
her exhibitions. So why shouldn’t she recycle the animals that would
otherwise be thrown away and forgotten? Her work immortalizes the
beauty of the creatures she came across that came to an unfortunate yet
inevitable death.
11
10 Results of survey carried out ‘Is it fair to wear fur?’11 Sunny side up, Polly Morgon, Taxidermist
30
You could relate the idea behind Polly Morgon’s work in the same way as
using the by-products of the animals that are already being used for food, If
the animal is already destined to be killed, free-range or not, wouldn’t it be
more environmentally friendly to recycle and re-use any products that
would otherwise be wasted?
“Fur is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource. That means
we only use part of what nature produces each year without
depleting wildlife populations or damage the natural habitats that
sustain them.”
(Fur a renewable source, Fur council of Canada, Fur is green)
If you didn’t re-use the fur or leather within something else you could
arguably say that animal by-products are biodegradable, so they would
never have the problem of sitting for years in landfills taking up precious
space on this planet. So if we didn’t use the fur, fashion designers would
have to find suitable fabric else where, that brings in again to the use of
synthetic fabrics, which have the problem of causing a lot more harm to the
environment than needs to be.
In North America and Canada about 95% of the people eat and wear
animal products. Worldwide animals are used for food, clothing,
companionship, medical and scientific research, entertainment and even
transport. In Canada alone the fur trade accounts for less than one percent
of the animals that are actually used for food and other purposes each year.
31
According to the ‘Fur Council of Canada’ about twice as many unwanted
pets are put down in humane shelter, and about ten times more are animals
that are killed on Canadian highways.
Looking at statistics like that you realize that maybe the fur trade isn’t such
a huge cruel impact to the animal world as the media try and make it out to
be.
32
Conclusion
You cannot fault companies such as PETA or Swiss Animal Protection / EAST
international when they have huge global campaigns to stop animal cruelty,
When you are the people who see the worst of any animal cruelties, where there
is unspeakable deaths and animals denied even the simplest acts of kindness you
would try in everything you have to help stop the slaughter, but is the use of fur
in fashion such a cruel thing?
Any fashion designer or retailer who would get their fur from countries and
companies that make a mockery of the most elementary animal welfare
standards, use unregulated farms for ‘cheap’ fur would have to have the animals
cruel death on their conscious.
In elite places where the high standards of animal care and welfare are on a
completely different scale, how can any place that values their animal’s health
and comfort above anything else be classed as cruel? Pets who are abandoned by
or even those who are not are sometimes not even treated as well as the animals
that are kept in some of these new farms. Establishments that house animals in
zoos have been classed as cruel before, animals that are at their healthiest kept
within chain fences, that live decades past their life expectancy, animals
protected from things that would have otherwise wiped a whole species out.
As a species of animals ourselves we have relied for centuries on the use of
animals, it was in our instinct to survive and as a species we have excelled. Just
as its in other animals instincts to do anything in their own power to survive, we
33
too have learnt to adapt and evolve in order to better our survival. We have
discovered through trial and error new ways to help our own survival as well as
helping other less fortunate species along the way. It is unfortunate that we need
and rely on animals in such a way we do, but it is just the circle of life in which
all animals live by. We just have to do it in a comforting, pleasant and humane
way that doesn’t affect the animal’s welfare and wouldn’t be obtained in a cruel
way.
In conclusion the fur trade is neither cruel nor not cruel, it is something that
balances out everything that has been depicted from history and generations. If
we are to eat meat, we should use the bi-products such as the fur rather than
letting the animal that has enriched our lives rot into the earth.
So is the use of fur in fashion, or in any other industry such a cruel thing? The
answer would depend on your personal perspective; it would rely on if you were
close to your own animal instincts, your sense to survive or your conscience.
34
References
References and quotations may have been used more than once in this thesis, but
will only be mentioned once in this list.
WWW Pages, Articles and Journals
Last assessed November 2013, http://www.wwf.org.uk, WWW page
Last assessed July 2013, http://www.montanatrappers.org, WWW page
Last assessed July 2013, http://www.lib.niu.edu/2004/iht1110429.html, WWW
page
Last assessed November 2013, http://www.wearefur.com/our-trade, WWW page
Last assessed October 2013,
http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/aboutus/-/article/EM_About_us, WWW page
Last assessed January 2014, http://www.peta.org, WWW page
1944, Anti campaign poster, PETA. Photograph Rex Features. The Guardian.
2012, Professor Christine Nicole, Free-range, University of Bristol, article, Daily Mail. 2013, Matt Blake, Chinese Fox farms, article, Daily Mail
Last assessed on November 2013, 2013, Anti-slavery, Cotton crimes,
http://antislavery.org/cotton
Last assessed on November 2013, 2008, Maria Burke, Green Couture, Article,
http://rsc.org. WWW page
2008, Maria Burke, Green Couture, Nature Works, Chemistry world.
Last assessed on June 2013, http://www.britishfur.co.uk/index.php/farmed-and-
wild-fur/farmed-and-wild-fur/, WWW page
Last assessed on January 2014, http://www.furisgreen.com/renewable.aspx,
WWW page
35
Appendix
36
37
top related