Pro Fur Propaganda in Mainstream Media: Part 2

“And the saga continues”,

she said as she opened the newspaper (The Montreal Gazette) to see that Dr Alan Herscovici of the The Fur Council of Canada chose to write a ridiculous and biased response to Karen Messier’s letter to the editor. Let’s get to it, so that you can form your own opinion before I give  mine.  Believe you me, I do have an opinion.

Karen Messier has a right to her opinion about fur, just as some people choose not to wear leather or eat meat, but that doesn’t mean these industries shouldn’t exist. Most Canadians accept that humans do have a right to use animals for food, clothing and other purposes, so long as this is done responsibly.

The modern fur trade is an excellent example for the responsible and sustainable use of natural renewable resources, a cornerstone of environmental conservation.

Only a small proportion of abundant wild populations is used;  never endangered species.

The Canadian fur trade also takes very seriously the responsibility to ensure that animals are treated humanely. Trapping methods are regulated by provincial wildlife departments and must comply with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.

New codes of practice developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council ensure that farmed mink and foxes receive excellent nutrition and care. A national farm inspection and certification program is being developed, but producers already have a strong incentive to follow the codes because this is the only way to produce high quality fur.

True, we now have synthetic fibers to keep us warm, but most of these are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource.

The fur trade played a central role in the history of Montreal and Canada, but it also makes sense today as we try to develop a more environmentally balance lifestyle.__Dr Alan Herscovici

I very rarely get and stay angry in my advocacy because I feel that in doing so, I am less productive.  Unfortunately, I tend to focus on the anger  which does not help the animals for whom I advocate and they are, after all, my primary concern.    However, Mr Herscovici’s biased point of view did draw my ire to the forefront. His industry supported “facts” are nothing more than  drivel which attempts to dupe the consumer by filling our heads with euphemisms of sustainability, humane, codes and care. The fact of the matter is that this industry and others of its ilk, prey on defenseless animals, either trapping, capturing or breeding and confining them all, for our wants, not needs.

So, I crafted a response, eliminated many words and thoughts  in order to be succinct (no rambling allowed)  in hopes that my letter would meet the newspaper’s criteria  for brevity.  This is the result.

Industries relying on animals’ suffering for profit are exploitative and indefensible. Using personal choice as a justification for supporting said industries is complicit.

Euphemisms abound in all death for profit industries. Calling sentient beings “natural renewable resources” is industry myth spinning which dupes consumers into buying items created from the misery of animals.

Mr. Herscovici does not provide links to support his opinion that trapping wild animals is “the cornerstone of environmental conservation”.

Trapping only non-endangered species is not a justification for the practice. Treating animals as commodities and killing them is inhumane.

The photos of Jo-Anne McArthur, a Canadian photojournalist documents the truth.  Google the SPCA raid nearly two years ago on a QC fur farm to see the ongoing and unconscionable confinement and abuse of animals for their fur.

Oil use creates a fraction of the environmental and species devastation caused by our view that animals are here for our own use, whether it be for fashion, food, entertainment …. Refer to Cowspiracy for the facts.

I thought it was pretty good considering the restrictions regarding word count and I awaited anxiously to see if my two cents would make print. Two days later, I was delighted to discover that it did. But, my goodness, the powers to be at the newspaper truncated it, chopped it, shortened it,  added their own words in the first sentence of the last paragraph (wrongly quoting Mr. H. I might add)  and essentially turned the entire comment into bullet points.

Were they looking to save space or were they protecting the establishment by removing some of my key remarks?  Did they remove the references  I provided to support my points because a letter to the editor is merely an opinion piece? Of course, I will never get the answers to my questions and it is probably not worth musing about for very much longer. But I would like your opinion and to this end  I am including the “newspaper shortened” version of my view.

Industries profiting on animals’ suffering are exploitative and indefensible.

Euphemism abound. Calling sentient beings “natural renewable resource” is industry spin.

Trapping only non-endangered species is not a justification for the practice.

Treating animals as commodities and killing them is inhumane

Alan Herscovici says synthetic furs are mostly made from petroleum. Oil use creates a fraction of the environmental and species devastation caused by our view that animals are here for our own use, be it for fashion, food or entertainment.

The website of the Fur Council of Canada is filled with indoctrination and unsubstantiated information about the humanity and sustainability of an industry that is vile and indefensible. They even have an education program for teachers and their children – a marketing program that is  more abhorrent than targeting our youth with  sugared cereal  commercials  and  violence in video games.