Comments about Fur is Green

Comment about fur is green

6/2/2010 1:04:29 PM

The fur industry conveniently neglects to mention that all of the animal skins used to make fur coats are tanned. Tanning is a procedure that stabilizes the collagen or protein fibers in animals skins specifically to stop them from biodegrading. Today's tanning processes use a variety of environmentally damaging substances, including mineral salts, formaldehyde, coal tar derivatives, and various oils, dyes, and finishes, some of them cyanide-based. In addition to the toxic substances mentioned above, tannery effluent also contains large amounts of other pollutants, such as protein, hair, salt, lime sludge, sulfides, and acids.
Among the disastrous consequences of this noxious waste is the threat to human health from the highly elevated levels of lead, cyanide, and formaldehyde in the ground water near tanneries. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the incidence of leukemia among residents in an area surrounding one tannery in Kentucky was five times the national average.

People who work in tanneries are dying of cancer caused by exposure to dimethylformamide and other toxic chemicals used to process and dye the skins. The coal tar derivatives used are extremely potent cancer-causing agents. According to one study released by the New York State Department of Health, more than half of all testicular cancer victims work in tanneries.

Not to mention the millions of carcasses, the cruel leghold traps and the animals going insane in fur farms - facing horrific execution methods by machine-like fur farm workers.

Do you really actually think that this is a 'human' and 'green' business? You can't be serious. Depriving wild animals from their natural habitat, lock them/breed them for a life in small wire cages where they go insane for years (minks...need water...to swim, hello!!) and then make all kinds of statements about 'human' treatments -- in the 21st century's advanced technology there's no excuse for this shameful operation.

Regards,
Glen King
Vancouver

Dear Mr. King,

We notice that most of the examples you cite relate specifically to leather tanning.
But fur "dressing" is very different that leather "tanning", not least because much milder products are used -- to protect the fur and hair follicles.
In leather tanning, of course, the whole idea is to remove all the fur or hair.
For more information, please consult the section on fur dressing in our website: http://www.furisgreen.com/earth-friendly.aspx)

As for your other comments:
- carcasses of wild furbearers (if not eaten by humans) are returned to the bush where animals are hungry in the Winter; farmed mink carcasses are now often composted to produce organic fertilizer.
- Canada is a world leader in humane trapping research and regulations -- work that led to the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards being signed with the EU.
- mink farming is one of the most studied forms of animal agriculture -- and, despite what some animal-rights groups would have you believe, no study has ever found animals "going insane".
- methods used to euthanize farmed mink are quick and do not stress the animals; they are far less stressful than transporting animals to distant slaughterhouses (as is required for food animals).
- "machine-like farm workers"? That's really very insulting to thousands of decent hard-working Canadian farm families, as are many of your other remarks...

We understand that your very negative and unfair comments about our trade were influenced by sensationalist "animal-rights" websites.
This is precisely why we have launched the Fur is Green campaign -- to provide another side of the story for people who care enough to write to us.

We understand that you may not think we should kill animals for any purpose; that is your right in a democracy and we respect those who choose not to eat meat, use leather or fur, etc.
But most Canadians do accept the use of animals for food, clothing and other purposes, so long as it is done responsibly.
Our goal is to make clear that the Canadian fur trade is "a responsible industry based on the sustainable use renewable natural resources" -- a principle promoted by all major conservation authorities.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns, even if we must sometimes agree to disagree.

Sincerely,
Alan

I agree fur is renewable

3/1/2010 12:25:37 PM

I think that it is ironic that the so-called environmentalists can’t figure out that furs are more eco-friendly than are plastic coats. Plus furs are warmer. When it’s cold, we use the fur to stay warm. Plus furs are biodegradable. Keep the furs flying.

Ken
Shingle Springs, California

Reply from Grace

2/23/2010 10:42:25 AM

Dear alan - you are stupid.
Grace

Hey, I'm not the one who writes insulting accusations and then can't back them up with a single fact or reasoned argument.
Alan

IN REPLY TO:

Fur is not green

February 8, 2010

You are the most disgusting organization that can exist. You promote greed and vanity fulfilled through suffering and unethical treatment of animals - wild as well as those that are victims of farming.
Human intervention into wildlife is never beneficial - it brings chaos and disharmony. It destroys ecological balance - always.
The argument of supporting people whose livelihood is trapping and hunting is misleading and ridiculous. Most of the aboriginal communities, destroyed long time ago, are not self sustainable and rely on the government social assistance to survive.
All you support is fur industry and its corporate pockets.
I am ashamed to live in this country

Grace Waszkiewicz
Edmonton, Canada

Dear Grace --

Animal activists are always saying that humans are just another animal, that we are part of nature and not above it -- but then claim we are the only species that should not prey on other animals. So which is it: are we part of nature or aren't we? In fact, wildlife populations are managed everywhere, even in countries with no fur trade, to prevent habitat destruction, property damage, the spread of disease, etc. As for aboriginal hunters: they eat beaver and muskrat and other furbearing animals (now cows in the north!); so should they throw away the package dinner came in?! You know, Grace: if you are really so ashamed to live in Canada, maybe you really should leave -- you could go live somewhere more "civilized", like.....?

Alan

pardon me...

2/23/2010 11:07:26 AM

furisgreen.com

Uhm, are you freaking kidding me???? Seriously??? Is this a joke??? Hello??? anyone home???

Fur is not green. Green means, you know, living in harmony with the natural world around us and all that. So obviously that includes not killing animals to use them as clothing!!! Ok, maybe it's less polluting than wearing a plastic coat but that doesn't mean it's green!!!

Rather than try to bend a term used to try for social good for your own profits, why don't you go and be a good human and uh, have a chat with the marketing person and come up with some other strategy that doesn't involve exploiting a green movement!!! Seriously folks, where is your conscience??? Killing little animals so I can wear their fur?? It's not the stone age!! There's wool, there's cotton, there's millions of green alternatives.

Wake up! Snap out of it! Your money is starting to rot your brain. Come back to the light..... anyone?? Anyone??

Sincerely
Alan Seideman

Dear Mr. Seiderman,

Well, at least we seem to have attracted your attention; our "Fur is Green" campaign is doing something right!

But, no, this is not a joke and we are not "exploiting" the green movement. Quite the contrary, we are trying to bring some serious discussion to the confusion caused by very misleading and insulting activist campaigns.

Did you actually READ what's posted on our www.FURisGREEN.com website?
You will see that "the sustainable use of wildlife" is now supported by all serious environmental conservation authorities, including the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund, etc.
Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN -- none of them campaign against the fur trade.

If killing animals is your concern, however, you should understand that you can't get wool without lambchops. (Sheep have a tendancy to reproduce -- and once the carrying density of their pasture is reached, most of the young if the year are headed for the meat counter.)

Cotton? Because it is not a food crop, pesticide use is very high. And you might want to research what irrigation of the desert to produce "cheap" cotton in Central Asia did to the Aral Sea. (No, Mr. Gore, it was not "global warming"!) Not very good for the fish and animals that depended on that remarkable inland sea.

If you are a vegan and try to avoid using any animal products, good luck to you, it's a semi-free country. (Although you might not want to think too hard about all the rodents and other animals killed by the threshing machine to harvest your soybeans, or to protect your grain supply, etc!)

But for the 97% of North Americans who do eat meat and believe it is acceptable to use animals responsibly, we want them to know that the modern fur trade is a regulated and responsible industry based on the sustainable use of resources. It is an industry that provides an incentive to protect natural habitat. An industry that supports people on the land, people with a direct interest in protecting habitat. An industry uses part of nature's surplus to produce beautiful, useful and long-lasting products. And that's what it means to be "green", no?

Sincerely,
Alan H.

Question

2/23/2010 11:19:14 AM

Is it true that people have actually been splattered with paint when wearing fur coats?? If so, could you kindly supply me with links to appropriate and bona-fide news stories regarding this issue.

Many thanks
Cath Hurwood

Dear Cath,
This is an excellent question. Some years ago when such stories or fears were being published in the media from time to time, the Fur Council of Canada surveyed fur cleaners in Canada and the USA to verify how many coats were being sent for cleaning. We found none, and no retailers reported any such attacks on their customers either. All we could conclude was that these urban myths may have originated with paint splattered old fur coats sometimes used in anti-fur street protests? Ironically, animal-rights groups have sometimes claimed that it is the fur industry that spreads these stories, to discredit protesters!

Sincerely,
Alan

Socially Just Claims Cannot Hide the Gruesome Reality of the Matter

2/23/2010 10:10:29 AM

Dear Erica, thank you for your e-mail. Read my comments in green:

Hello,
I am currently working on an essay for a scholarship called "A Voice for Animals" and chose to write it on the cruelty and suffering animals in fur farms are subject to. As an attempt to broaden my horizons and try to get the fully story on the fur industry I ventured onto your sight (sp: "site") that claims the fur industry to be "green".

I applaud your attempts at labelling such a typically gruesome (hardly an objective comment?!) industry with the zest of a more modern issue facing our society. I am not of the knowledge or position to condone such claims, but am of the strong and stead fast opinion that this very minuscule "green" alternative the fur industry provides, in no way makes up for the gruesome (that word again) reality of murder. (when i last looked, "murder" was a word used only to describe killing people, and even then only in certain circumstances. So i suppose you also think that "meat is murder". Just want to understand where you're coming from!)

It is my personal opinion that the ONLY driving force behind the fur industry is greed (a wee bit judgemental, are we?) and the human tendency to be self involved (I was about to say the same about your letter!) Why else would we continue an industry thriving on the murder (that word again!) of living creatures, when it is far from necessary? (Of course, vegans don't think meat is "necessary" either....but 97% of Canadians eat animals every day.) Yes, in the early 1600's pelts were needed for protection and necessity drove the industry, but now, over 400 years later, with more technological advances (like the petroleum-based synthetics PETA wants us all to wear?) than could have been dreamed of, that is no longer the situation. Fashion and money are the sole instigators of the fur industry and all the horrors it entails. I cannot wrap my mind around the fact that in such a modern age, where people are so knowledgeable (uh-huh) , pelts of once living animals are draped around models and "fashionistas" and labelled trendy. These trends brainwash the public into believing such cruelty is acceptable in our society.

Likewise the facade that fur is green imposes a similarly mentality unto society (i am sure there is a point to this rant, coming soon, i am sure) . The thing that irks me is the fact that there is no initiative of the fur industry to be green or help the environment, but rather the exploitation of the growing urge to be environmentally friendly to defend a very controversial industry (i think she means we're just "green-washing" -- but she has still not addressed a single point we make in our website: www.FURisGREEN.com. Wonder if she even read through the site before making all these judgements???) That is by no means an admirable movement, as there is no good intention, only exploitation of both the animals being slaughtered and society’s good-will to preserve the environment.

Thus far I have not addressed the actual animals themselves and their treatment. (actually, you have not addressed anything in our website yet!) First off there are so many "recommendations" or "guidelines" out there for how animals SHOULD be treated but who is to say how they actually ARE treated. Secondly even these so called animal welfare codes are by no means creating an environment free of suffering for these captives. Animals are found in the wild (somehow, the domestication of livestock has escaped your notice?) , there is absolutely no way an animal can lead an enjoyable (??) life in a cage, isolated (if you are referring to farmed mink, they are not "isolated") for approximately a year before being stunned and injected or gassed to death. No matter what "codes" come in to play the reality of this industry remains the same: animals are slaughtered for fashion, their life span is compressed to less than ONE year for fashion, they live their entire life in a metal cage for fashion, have no interaction with fellow species for fashion, and so fourth (sp: "forth") and so fourth (sp -- you really have to work on your grammar and spelling if you want to be an effective social critic!)

Is this the kind of vanity driven society (ooh, "vanity"! we're into Puritan country now!) we want to present to the world? One so focused on fashion and the comparatively small amount of economic cushion this industry provides that the lives of living creatures are so forsaken and overlooked. I am making an appeal to challenge you and all Canadians to seriously consider the mentality of those supporting the fur industry and what approach to social issues it projects. Such a sense of self worth, superiority and dominance, a dab of humbleness never hurt a soul (much unlike the fur industry that harms millions a year). OK -- the only point i can see so far in this semi-incoherent, self-centred rant, is the concern that animals are being killed for suppposedly "unnecessary" reasons. Too bad Erica does not seem to have really read through www.FURisGreen.com, where we address these issues. In a nutshell: why is it worse to farm mink than chickens or pigs? Is meat more "necessary"? Not according to PETA and the militant veggie crowd. Are petro-chemical based synthetics really better for nature than furs taken from the wild or produced on farms in a sustainable way? If she seriously read through our website, Erica would know that farmed mink are fed left-overs from our own food-production system -- the parts of cows and pigs and fish that we don't eat. They recycle "wastes" to produce a warm and beautiful clothing material that lasts for generations. As for killing animals: for better or worse, that's the way our world works. Animals even die to feed vegetarians: millions of rodents and other animals are hacked to death by threshing machines that harvest their grain, or by the pesticides used to protect crops, or to protect grain supplies in the silos. Don't get me wrong: if you want to be a vegetarian and wear plastic shoes, that's your right. Hey, this is a semi-free democracy. But that does not give you the right to impose your personal choices on everyone else as if it were some sort of divine wisdom.

This is a murderous industry based entirely on self satisfaction (murderous; self-satisfaction -- again the moralistic labelling with no serious reasoning) ; there is no argument that could link the fur industry to necessity in this day and age. So please, don't fabricate the reality of fur farms and trapping with socially just titles like being green, at least have the decency to label it accurately. If you wear, support, buy fur you second hand take part in the unnatural, cruel captivation of helpless animals and ultimately lead to their extremely premature demise.

Although only 17, I pride myself on conducting myself on higher standards than flaunting my controversial opinion in public to irritate those who disagree, how's that for being flipped off? (I will excuse your pretentious ranting because you are only 17 and have at least made the effort to write. But please: if you are really interested in discussing these issues, please read our website carefully (we have made an effort to explain our position clearly and accurately), and then try writing again with more concrete discussion points.

Just a last thought, they don't call her CRUELla DEVILle for nothing. (Oh, there's a clever girl. Please, read go to www.FURisGREEN.com and try reading!)

Erica Baxter

Are you using Animal Furs?

2/23/2010 12:27:52 PM

To whom may be responsible for such cruelty,

I notice that you are using animals-like fur for your products. I hope that those are not real fur.
If they are, I will like to you to take a look at the following video, and hope you take the neccessary action to end these poor animals suffering.
When there is no demand, there will be no supply. And these animals should not be treated with such cruelty, be it endangered or not.
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/fur_production/
This video clip shows the poor racoons are still alive when they are skinned.
http://hsus.feedroom.com/?fr_story=55e0248a275486840fdeca626eca87685c0a3cfe
This video clip shows the poor seals that are clubbed to death.

More videos of the Animal suffering for the fur industry can be found here.
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/fur_free/

Thank you for your immediate action to make a difference.

Warmest regards,
Perlyn

Dear Perlyn,
Let me begin by saying that if I thought the videos circulated by many so-called "animal-rights" groups represented current practice in the fur trade, I would not be working for this industry.

We agree that the video showing Asiatic raccoons cruelly skinned alive is very upsetting; such practices are completely unacceptable -- and, in fact, make no sense. Apart from the obvious cruelty, it would be dangerous for the operator to skin an animal without killing it first. The heart would also be beating, causing bleeding that would unnecessarily soil and damage the pelt. The real question here is how and why the actions show in this terrible video happened: was a desperately poor villager paid to do this atrocious act for the camera? For a more complete analysis of this very questionable video, see the excerpt from Fur Commission USA, below.

Unfortunately, the use of faked or staged videos has been documented in several "animal-rights" campaigns. See the "snuff film" section at FurCommission.com.

Unfortunately, "animal rights" has become a big business for some people.
The truth is not always what it appears to be. See, for example:
www.PetaKillsAnimals.com. See also: www.ActivistCash.com.

As for the mis-named HSUS, you should look at www.HumaneWatch.com, which is launching next week.

For another view of the sealhunt, see: www.sealsandsealing.com, and www.sealsonline.org

And for a more accurate portrayal of the true environmental ethic of the fur trade, check out: www.FurIsGreen.com.

We understand that some people have strong feelings about fur, leather and other products derived from animals. But perhaps, with some accurate information, we can at least better understand and appreciate each other's points of view?

For my own analysis of these questions from an environmental perspective, you may be able to find my book "Second Nature -- The Animal-Rights Controversy" in your local library or on Amazon.com.

Sincerely,

Alan H.

****************************************************************

Media Wary of Latest Shock Video
From: www.FurCommission.com
By Simon Ward, FCUSA Communications Director

The world's fur industry held its breath this spring as animal rights groups released new and truly shocking video purporting to show "normal"
fur-production practices in China.

Short-term damage, at least, has been limited in North America, in part because the media seem at last to be treating such materials with the skepticism they deserve. But the video is not going to disappear, and references to it in animal rights propaganda are everywhere.

So the industry cannot afford to rest easy. On the contrary, we must turn the situation in our favor by exposing those responsible for this gruesome production - whoever that might turn out to be.

Trouble started when the animal rights group Swiss Animal Protection began distributing video on the web and at protests, purporting to show standard fur production practices in China.
Not for the first time, the allegation was made that animals are skinned alive. But what made this video so horrific was that they clearly were, and in the most brutal manner imaginable!

To those of us in the industry, all the signs were there of another manufactured "snuff" movie: highly edited snips of footage taken in unidentified locations, of unnamed humans committing inhumane acts - perhaps for money? But would the media catch the tell-tale signs?

One stomach-churning sequence, set in a marketplace, begins with a man wearing a butcher's apron quickly dispatching a raccoon dog. But then another man in street clothes (leather jacket and pleated pants) is shown with a live raccoon dog tied to the back of a truck with no license plate.
He then proceeds to skin the animal with great difficulty as it struggles and tries to bite him. (See Suspicious Dialogue.)

The camera then focuses on a skinned but still moving animal on a pile of carcasses. While this animal is covered in blood, indicating a heartbeat during skinning, the animals beneath it are clean, as they would be if skinned while dead.

Another sequence shows a man clubbing a fox on the head with a knife, temporarily stunning but not killing it. He then attempts to skin the still moving animal, alternating with beating it with the knife. The animal struggles so much as to make the job impossible, so the man stands on its head.

Unedited Video Requested

The industry sprang into action, though taking care to ensure this was a coordinated and global team effort. Whether or not the video was staged, it was vital to determine where these illegal and barbaric acts were committed and by whom.

A European fur trade representative wrote to Swiss Animal Protection requesting a copy of the unedited video, including audio, plus details of when the video was shot and exactly where. But the request was refused.

And Chinese industry and government representatives issued strong statements challenging the video's authenticity.

"Pictures showing animals being skinned alive are obviously plotted,"
observed the China Fur Commission and the China Leather Industry Association in a joint statement. "All those with common sense would not choose this slaughter method to attain fur."

"[W]e strongly reject some organizations which claim an individual problem which is without basis, even to the extent of producing and widely distributing an untrue report," wrote the government of Suning County in Hebei Province, a center of Chinese fur production. "We hope that the Swiss Animal Protection Organization can respect the truth and will stop their unjustified reflection on our county's fur industry."

On the other side of the fence, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals began disseminating the video in North America, adding other scenes from sources unknown.

In hindsight, this may have been a blessing in disguise. Few if any of the media outside of Switzerland had probably ever heard of Swiss Animal Protection, making its credibility an unknown. PeTA, on the other hand, is renowned as an unreliable source, so its association with the video in all likelihood increased the media's skepticism.(1)

Once Bitten, Twice Shy

Whatever the reason, most TV stations in North America chose not to air the video when its integrity was questioned.

Some doubtless were alerted by the fact the video was a graphic depiction of why only a fool would skin a live, struggling animal. But even the least discerning editor would have been mindful that their industry has been caught out before.

In the UK, for example, the 1995 duping of the BBC by Greenpeace over the alleged contents of the Brent Spar oil rig led to a collective resolution by Britain's press corps to be more vigilant in future. And in the US just this April, the Boston Globe was humiliated after it ran an article describing Nova Scotian hunters "shooting harp seal cubs by the hundreds, as the ice and water turned red." In reality, the hunt had been delayed and did not start for three more days!(2) To avoid such disgrace, major media organizations in the US now contact FCUSA as a matter of course whenever fur stories cross their desks. This time around, our website's comprehensive chronology of animal rights "snuff"
films(3) was enough to dissuade several media outlets from airing the highly suspect footage. After all, their job is to deliver the facts, not to broadcast propaganda.

Long-Term Dangers

But damage control at times like this does not end with the media.

Fully 40 years ago, a man filmed skinning a seal alive ended up signing an affidavit confessing he had been paid to commit this atrocity.(3) Yet even so, the footage would end up in a production of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the lie that sealers engage in this practice remains as strong today as ever in animal rights propaganda.

Likewise, animal rights groups will continue to refer to this latest video for all it's worth, on websites, in press releases and in fundraisers. And it's a simple truth that if people hear something often enough - particularly the young and impressionable people animal rights groups prey on - some will believe it.

If fur farmers are to avoid bearing the same stigma that sealers have carried for 40 years, we must nip this latest allegation in the bud.

We must lend every assistance in uncovering those responsible for this video, be they fur farmers or, as seems likely, animal rightists.

And if it indeed turns out the video was staged, we must seek to punish the culprits and those who profit from their actions under all applicable
laws.(4)

We must get the message out loud and clear that the fur industry comprises people who share the exact same values as the societies of which we are a part. Skinning animals alive is a sin, and we don't need anyone to tell us that.

Notes:

(1) A notable exception was PeTA's hometown newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot, which seemed to accept the video's authenticity even while reporting on PeTA's role in editing it. See PETA vs. J.Lo: Behind the scenes of a campaign, Virginian-Pilot, May 22, 2005. (Outside link.)

(2) "Canadian seal hunt resumes," by Barbara Stewart, Boston Globe, Apr. 13, 2005. (Removed from the web.)

(3) See Saving Society from Animal "Snuff" Films, FCUSA commentary.

(4) In the US, this could include Title 18, Sec. 48 of the US Code, which prohibits the profiting from film depicting animal cruelty. See Saving Society from Animal "Snuff" Films for full text.

Thank you Alan

2/23/2010 11:49:22 AM

Alan got a call this morning from someone angry about our "Fur is Green" campaign. As we've seen before, many people can see another perspective if we have a chance to speak with them. He probably still won't wear fur (he's a vegan), but he now sees that this is a more complex issue than he thought -- and that we're not the devil incarnate!

Dear Alan, Thank you for the very enlightening conversation. I think I'll vote for you rather than our current leader, even though the PM is very pro-fur--you're more reasonable! I see what you're saying, based on what Peter Singer said--it seems there's some scapegoating of the furriers going on, compared to the animal factory industry. Thank you for apprising me of that. I'm going to read Second Nature: The Animal Rights Controversy. Here's the "Guaranteed Livable Income" website and video:

http://www.livableincome.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JflHH3N8fu4

The very best,
Larry Wartel
Victoria BC

Fur is not green

2/23/2010 10:29:24 AM

Thank you for your web site!!

2/23/2010 10:23:00 AM

Greetings from sunny Thousand Oaks, California.

While our climate is not generally conducive to the wearing of fur coats, I wear mine whenever possible. I have 3 coats, all purchased second hand, and I just love them, and not because they are a "fashion statement". They are the warmest coats I own. Went back east in the winter to visit my brother, and my mink coat and hat kept me nice and toasty in single digit temps. Because we're loaded with so many bleeding heart liberals here in CA, it's not uncommon to have to defend the wearing of my coats, and keep an extra eye peeled for potential attackers, too. Your web site gives honest, logical information about the fur industry and how it operates. You've provided great ammunition that enables thinking people to be able to throw back being "green" at this intolerant, propagandist movement disguised as love for animals. Most of the younger people who have taken up the anti-fur mantle are well-meaning, but totally misguided. It's the hard-core, near religious, stance of the extremists like PETA who mislead and brainwash the youngsters, and while claiming to be non-violent, think nothing of destroying other people's property and livelihoods to advance their agendas. Additionally, these same people claim to have the welfare of indigenous people, such as the Indian tribes of Canada, who rely so heavily on the fur trade for their livelihoods, and our also our Native Americans, at heart, but do not hesitate to destroy the products of their labors. Fur and leather are difficult materials to work with, and making garments and accessories out of them requires an extremely high level of craftsmanship and expertise. I've sewed most of my life, and greatly admire the workmanship that goes into fur products.

I have a lot of respect for trappers, who thoroughly understand wildlife management and realities of animal life in the wild. We, today, do not have the natural predators that kept animal populations in check so they did not overpopulate limited feeding grounds and habitats. That void in predators has been taken up by trappers and hunters. Anyone who knows hunters and trappers knows that the "innards" are a food source for many, including the native peoples of Canada and the US. Making clothing of the "outsides" is making full use of resources and recycling what isn't going to be eaten or used for other products.

Many years ago, while working a foot beat Christmas patrol in a local mall, I had the opportunity to chat with a salesman in the fur section of a major department store. He was very lonesome and hadn't had a single customer all night, so I stopped to talk with him, and asked him questions about furs. He told me about what is done with the animal carcasses and how so many things are made with them. I also got an education about selecting a quality garment or accessory, and the difference between male & female mink pelts, etc. It was very enlightening and I appreciated it. I was in uniform, so not doing any shopping, and a full-length mink coat was way outside my budget at the time. All the coats and accessories I currently have were purchased second hand.

Being an animal lover, yes, I'd like to see that animals utilized for food and clothing are well-treated and dispatched humanely. But, the extreme views and lack of respect for others' property and way of life totally turns me off to many so-called "animal rights" organizations. Some years back, a group broke into a mink ranch and turned the animals loose. Many of those minks made it to local chicken farms, raided the hen houses for the eggs and killed some of the chickens, causing headaches for the chicken ranchers. The laws of un intended consequences (always one of the results of liberals' dictates and activities) at work, and obviously no concern for others, or of the minks after they were turned loose. I proudly wear my fur coats and hats as a "middle finger" to those folks since it irritates them so much to see furs in public.

Thanks so much for the valuable information; I will pass it on to others.
Mrs. KB