Should animal furs be used in fashion clothing?

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.

Should animal furs be used in fashion clothing?

Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 17: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`As long as the animals are bred for their skins and are not of an endangered species, I have no problem wearing fur'
Elizabeth Fox, official Colombian attache for the Sydney Olympics

`The fashion industry is fickle and always looking for another angle ... I don't understand why they need to use any animals'
Glenys Oogjes, Animals Australia director

1997 saw animal fur make a return to the catwalks of Europe and the United States. By 1999 the trend appears to have reached Australia. At the same time quotas set for seal harvests in Canada are at their highest level in 30 years.
Animal welfare groups and animal rights movements have begun to organise renewed protests. Some of these have taken fairly extreme forms, with minks being illegally released from mink farms in both the United States and England.
The dispute appears to have only just begun and a return to the debates and protests of the 1980s seems likely.

Background
Fur sales rose around the world until the late 1980s. Then a series of campaigns conducted by animal welfare and animal rights groups stressed the cruelty of the fur trade and it became unacceptable to wear real fur.
A number of prominent models, including Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell, lent their names to advertising campaigns opposing the use of fur.
These campaigns were financed by groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
The decline in popularity of real fur coincided with increased concern about a number of endangered species which had been hunted for their fur and with wide spread condemnation of the cruelty of some harvesting methods, such as the clubbing and axing of Newfoundland seals.
Quotas on seal numbers were set in 1970. In 1983 the European Union banned the importation of white seal fur (derived from seal pups) and the United States followed suit. In 1987 the commercial hunting of white coat seal pups was banned in Canada.
However, in 1996, with the collapse of the cod fishing industry, the Canadian Government began to seek markets for seal fur in Asia and to encourage the use of the meat at home. A $1.5 million subsidy was offered for seal meat. Quotas are now the highest they have been in thirty years and, it is claimed, regulations prohibiting the harvesting of white coat seal pups are frequently ignored.
Changes also appear to have occurred in the fashion world. In 1997 a number of major fashion houses in both Europe and the United States used animal fur extensively in their designs.
Well-known anti-fur model, Naomi Campbell, began modelling fur garments and was publicly criticised by PETA for doing so.
The 1998 fashion season saw fur gain even more acceptance.
Though the trend has taken longer to reach Australia, as of 1999 sales of fur coats, collars and trims are back to the levels they were at ten years ago.

There are many Internet sites that deal with this issue.
The IFTI (International Fur Trade Federation) is a world wide federation of fur trade associations and organisations.
Its aim is to counter the claims of animal rights groups opposed to the use of fur in the fashion industry. The site makes a distinction between what it calls `animal welfare groups', which it suggests, support an humanely managed fur trade and `animal rights' groups, which it claims, are opposed to the taking of animal lives for any purpose.
It claims to be `dedicated to the conservation and welfare of all wild fur-bearing animals'.
It presents a summation of the arguments offered in support of using fur in fashion. It links to a number of other sites promoting the same position.
It can be found at http://www.iftf.com/iftf/index.html

A very similar site is that of the Fur Commission USA, a national association representing U.S. mink and fox farmers.
Funded by members, the organization manages programs in several areas, including public relations;
classroom education and animal care research. Its primary aim appears to be to improve the image of the United States fur industry.
It also has a number of links to other sites with similar aims.
It is most easily navigated through its site map page. This can be found at http://www.furcommission.com/sitemap.htm
Its home page is at http://www.furcommission.com/index.html and is searchable.

Another site supporting the use of fur for fashion clothing is Fur Online. It claims to be the largest resource site on the web for fur fashion. It is essentially a commercial site focusing on fashion trends and promoting particular fur retailers.
However in its FAQ (frequently asked questions) subsection it attempts to answer a large number of arguments often raised against wearing fur.
Its home page can be found at http://www.piel.com/
Its FAQ page at http://www.piel.com/faq.html

A major site opposing the use of animal fur is the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) site.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is an international nonprofit organization based in the United States. It operates under the principle `that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment'.
PETA is a group many pro-fur lobbies refer to when citing what they claim is an extreme animal rights organisation.
The PETA home page can be found at http://www.peta-online.org/
Its `Fur is dead' subsite can be found at http://www.furisdead.com/
The 'Fur is dead' site supplies detailed information on fur farms and killing methods from an anti fur-farming perspective.
It appears to be updated regularly and has an extensive range of PETA press releases on the fur issue going from the present back to 1996.

The South Australian branch of Animal Liberation Australia, has an extensive site which can be found at http://www.animalliberation.org.au/
A subsection of its site deals with animal furs in fashion. This can be found at http://www.animalliberation.org.au/fur.html
It gives detailed information on the supposed cruelty associated with trapping animals for their fur, as well as describing the possible cruelties involved in farming fur-bearing animals.
It also has charts indicating the number of animals required to produce different items of fur clothing.

WSPA (the World Society for the Protection of Animals) has an extensive subsection of its site dealing with the fur trade.
WSPA's home page can be found at http://www.wspa.org.uk/home.html
The Society works in co-operation with some 300 member organisations in 70 countries, promoting animal welfare and conservation.
This organisation claims to have been the first to have protested against the slaughter of seal pups.
The section of its site dealing with the fur trade can be found at http://www.wspa.org.uk/furtrade/fur1-1.html

Arguments in favour of animal fur being used for fashion clothing
One of the arguments offered in favour of animal fur being used for fashion clothing is aesthetic.
According to this line of argument, animal furs have a unique softness and pliability which make them particularly appropriate for high fashion clothes.
Elizabeth Fox, official Colombian attache for the Sydney Olympics, has claimed of fur, `It is both elegant and luxurious and has a wonderful tactile component ...'
Related to this is the claim that fur is a status symbol, both because of its appearance and because of its cost. Thus, it is claimed, it is preferred by the wealthy to either fabric or faux (fake) fur for some items of clothing.
Secondly, it is argued that animal furs come mainly from animals bred and farmed for this purpose.
According to this line of argument, farmed fur-bearing animals can be killed without threatening species' survival.
It is also claimed that they are reared and killed according to appropriately humane regulations and so there is no cruelty involved in their slaughter.
This point has also been made by Elizabeth Fox, who has argued, `As long as the animals are bred for their skins and are not of an endangered species, I have no problem wearing fur.'
Thirdly, it is argued that if it is acceptable to rear and slaughter animals for food it should be equally acceptable to rear and slaughter animals for clothing.
This point has been made by Anna Wintour, editor of American Vogue, who has argued that if we breed animals for eating, then why not for wearing.
According to this line of argument, those who oppose the use of animal fur for clothes are either inconsistent (because they will accept the use of animals for food) or extremists who will not accept that human beings have the right to use animals for their purposes.
Those who support the use of fur in clothes claim that it is unreasonable to argue that human beings should not be able to make use of other animals. They argue that we have a need to do so and they also tend to argue that we are a superior species who are entitled to do so.
Those who support the use of animal fur in clothing also argue that it is economically important in some areas to be able to either hunt animals or farm them for their fur.
This point has been made about the Canadian seal hunt which has resumed in part in response to the failure of the Canadian cod fishing industry and the resultant unemployment.
It has also been noted that in the single North American state of Oregon there are some 80 mink farms. Mink farming is thus a significant contributor to that state's economy and is also an important source of income and employment for those farmers engaged in it.
Finally it has been claimed that many of those who oppose the use of animal fur for fashion clothing employ violent and illegal means to attempt to promote their cause.
It is noted that some of those opposed to the wearing of animal fur have thrown paint over fur coats being worn by others.
It has also been noted that some animal liberationists have broken into mink farms and have either accidentally killed many animals in an attempt to release them or have succeeded in releasing them only to have them die in unsuitable environments or threaten the survival of animals native to the areas where they have been released.
A police officer commenting on one release in Britain noted, `Whoever committed this crime is extremely foolhardy ... in respect of the damage to wildlife and local ecology.'

Arguments against animal fur being used for fashion clothing
The first argument offered against the use of animal fur for fashion clothing is that it is unnecessary.
According to this line of argument there are many other sources of material for clothing that do not involve the slaughtering of animals.
It has also been noted that for those who like the look and feel of fur there are man-made furs which have very similar properties and have much the same appearance.
This point has been made by Animals Australia director, Glenys Oogjes.
Ms Oogjes has claimed, `There are alternatives that look exactly the same.'
It is also maintained that killing animals for fashion is essentially frivolous as it is a matter of whim rather than need.
It is further maintained that the use of animal fur is in large part dictated by fashion's pursuit of the new. Those who hold this view suggest that the fashion houses could just as easily make some material other than fur the vogue and that at a later date the requirements of style will change again and animal fur will be out of favour.
This point has also been made by Ms Oogjes, who has claimed, `The fashion industry is fickle and always looking for another angle ... Fashion is about look. I don't understand why they need to use any animals.'
More extreme animal rights opponents of the use of real fur in clothing do so as part of a broader argument which holds that human beings have no right to exploit animals for their purposes.
Secondly it is argued that the use of animal fur for human clothing inevitably involves suffering for the animals involved.
According to this line of argument there are no means of hunting animals for fur that are not likely to cause some pain or distress to the animal concerned.
Opponents of the use of animal fur cite particularly the use of leg traps to capture fur-bearing animals.
They maintain that all such devices inflict pain. They also note that such traps do not discriminate and that animals other than those for which they were set are often caught in them.
Animals welfare groups have been particularly critical of the means used to kill Newfoundland seals. The seals are usually clubbed to death or a special pointed axe is used.
They also maintain that the regulations governing this slaughter are frequently not adhered to, that some animals are skinned while still alive and that baby seals, supposedly exempt from slaughter, often make up the majority of the harvest.
The slaughter of baby seals is said to be common because their white fur is the most sought after and the most valuable.
The claim is also made that animals reared and slaughtered on fur farms also suffer.
Those who maintain this claim that such animals, including foxes and minks, are raised in battery conditions, in confined enclosures; die before they have reached maturity and that there is generally some pain involved in their mode of death.
Donald Broom, Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge University, has claimed with regard to caged minks, `Some returned to forms of abnormal behaviour, which in humans would indicate madness ... One repeatedly climbed the walls of its cage and appeared to throw itself to the floor.'
It is claimed that the principal means of slaughter are suffocation with car exhaust fumes, strangulation, poisoning or electrocution.
Thirdly, it is claimed that hunting animals for fur can endanger some species. This can be either because of the illegal killing of protected species, or because animals not intended for capture are caught in traps.
On the economic argument, it is claimed that people should not make their livings from industries which are cruel and inhuman and that there are other alternatives for many of those who work in the fur industry.
It is also noted that the manufacture of faux fur creates employment for people.

Further implications
It appears that, at least for the moment, the trend against political correctness has resulted in a resurgence of interest in fur.
The fur industry appears to be regaining some of the economic strength it had prior to late eighties and the nineties. It also seems that many of the major fashion houses are once more making extensive use of animal fur.
The Blair government in Britain, prior to assuming office, had pledged that it would outlaw the fur trade in Britain. Some commentators have suggested that this is unlikely to happen given the renewed strength of the fur industry in the European Union.
It has also been claimed that popular opposition to the wearing of fur in the United States is declining.
If the current trend persists it seems likely that some animals species will be pushed closer to extinction. It is even possible to speculate about the long-term future of species in such apparent abundance as the Canadian harp seal.
One of the reasons for the return to seal hunting in Canada is that over-fishing has all but destroyed the Newfoundland fishing industry. The seals have been seen as a means of supplementing the incomes of many fishermen who are now largely unemployed.
If fish stocks could be fished out, it is also possible that over time seal numbers could fall to unacceptably low levels.
In Australia we appear to respond to overseas trends on the issue. We have no local luxury fur trade and import either our mink and fox pelts or the finished items of fur clothing.
Rabbit is still regarded as vermin to such an extent that it is difficult to image any animal welfare body contemplating a campaign here to prevent the use of its fur.
There is however the possibility that critical attention could be focused on our recently established Tasmanian possum industry. There have already been criticisms made of the means used to capture the animals and the manner in which they are killed.
The use of native animals for commercial purposes, including the use of their fur, may ultimately become an issue here. There is significant commercial pressure for such a development and there are ecological reasons for favouring the farming of indigenous animals over exotics.
As with the release of minks from mink farms, there is the possibility here for conflict between conservationists and animal rights movements.
Finally, as recent raids on mink farms in both the United States and Britain appear to indicate, as animal fur regains popularity it is likely that at least some animal activist groups will take reasonably extreme action to draw attention to what they believe is a cruel and unnecessary practice.

Sources
The Age
4/5/97 page 13 news item, `Raid to free mink ends in mass death'
26/4/98 page 3 analysis by James Gerstenzang, `A bloody trade returns and their fate is sealed'
(See also, accompanying article published in The Age on the same date and page, titled, `Canadians put flipper on their forks'. This does not deal with the fur trade but shows other uses for slaughtered Canadian seals.)
12/8/98 page 9 news item, `Minks on loose threaten wildlife'
18/8/98 page 8 news item, `Protesters release 1000 more minks'

The Australian
1/2/97 page 5 news item by Jody Scott, `Fur out! Fashion houses happy to fake it'
13/3/97 page 6 news item, `Fur flies as animal charity flays Naomi for catwalk no-no'
10/2/98 page 13 analysis by Jane Fraser, `Animal magnetism'
18/8/98 page 9 news item, `Mink stink part II'

The Herald Sun
13/3/97 page 24 news item by John Ferguson, `Fur flies over catwalk hypocrisy'
12/4/97 page 19 analysis by John Ingham, `Shame of the killing fields'
24/8/97 page 53 comment and analysis by Danny Penman, `The madness of fur'
30/10/98 page 21 comment by Cheryl Critchley, `The fur is flying again'
30/4/99 page 7 news item by Simon Pristel, `Fur's real revival has some bristling'