British Government on Misplaced Moral Crusade

By FCUSA Executive Director Teresa Platt and Simon Ward

IN AN UNABASHED DISPLAY of self-righteous political posturing, Britain's ruling Labour Party has introduced a bill to outlaw the farming of fur. And its principal and absurd justification for doing so is that fur farming is now "immoral"!

Specifically, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, introduced on Nov. 22, seeks "to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur," and to compensate farmers for closing shop.

In terms of its direct impact, the bill - should it pass - will be inconsequential except at a very local level. Britain has just 13 family-owned fur farms producing about 100,000 pelts annually. Yet despite their insignificant place in the country's vast agricultural sector - or perhaps because of it - Labour says they have to go.

As Michael Ancram, chairman of the opposition Conservative Party, observed in reviewing Labour's political agenda, "The most extraordinary thing is that at a time when we have the biggest crisis that the rural economy and farming has faced in generations, the only mention of farming is the abolition of fur farms. I think it is the sign of a government which has run out of steam."(1)

Moral Crusade

The official response to such criticism, in the words of Countryside Minister Elliot Morley, is that the ban is required above all on "public morality grounds".(2) But what exactly is meant by this is unclear. No existing law protecting public morals could quite compare with a fur-farming ban, although Morley has attempted to compare raising domesticated carnivores with the outlawed and inhumane sports of bear-baiting, badger-baiting, cock-fighting and dog-fighting.(3)

Labour's only concession to common sense (and international trade law) is that it will not try to outlaw the wearing of fur, even if it means buying from overseas. "Government cannot ban the import of fur and is not seeking to," said Morley. "Yes, production from the UK may move abroad. But the Government is doing what it can and setting an example for others to follow."

And what a sad example it is. Morley's Labour Party will also be pushing for a fur-farming ban across the European Union, threatening many thousands of family farms.

Inevitably, this lack of respect for diversity and local controls is raising hackles across the continent.

"We consider it without precedent that in a democratic society, emotional prejudice and misinformation can be used as the basis for bringing about the end of such a successful and economically viable farming sector," said the European Fur Breeders' Association, representing more than 8,000 fur farmers in 15 countries.(4)

Political Chopping Block

As the birthplace of animal rights terrorism, Britain has seen more than its share of illegal acts directed at fur farms, not to mention just about every other animal-based industry. In the last decade, thousands of domesticated mink have been "liberated" to become roadkill, to be torn apart by dogs or to die of dehydration or starvation.

The focus of the media, however, has been on the havoc caused by feral and newly "liberated" mink on indigenous wildlife, in particular water voles and ground-nesting birds. This reached a peak in August 1998, when 6,000 released mink wrought havoc in the wildlife-rich New Forest in the county of Hampshire.(5)

Is it fair that such destruction, brought on by animal rights terrorists, should now see the fur farmers on the political chopping block?

Along with banning fur farming, Labour has also pledged to take a harder line against domestic terrorism. But to penalize fur farmers is to penalize the victims of terrorism and reward the terrorists!

Back to Front

In an attempt to explain his government's position to the unconverted, Morley contributed a lengthy article to the Daily Telegraph (Dec. 4, 1999), Britain's most popular broadsheet and a favorite of conservative farmers. In presenting his view of contemporary fur farming, however, it became clear that Labour's telescope was back to front.

"Primarily, the Government considers that it is a question of a moral stance on holding animals in captivity, although there are also welfare issues, the damage caused when mink escape, and the environmental complaints," he states.

Leaving Labour's dubious moral code aside, what are these alleged "welfare issues" to which Morley refers?

"[The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill] is fundamentally wrong in principle and in its fact," states the EFBA, "when it has been scientifically proven that mink are fully domesticated farm animals and enjoy amongst the best in farmed animal welfare standards."

This conclusion is echoed in a Sept. 20 report commissioned by the Dutch government following a parliamentary motion to ban fur farming there.(6) "The scientists I spoke to ... stated that the welfare problems encountered in mink farming are less extreme than those experienced in the farming of chickens, pigs and other agricultural livestock," writes the report's author, animal welfare expert Jan van Noord. "... The talks I held and literature I studied made it evident to me that mink farming could not possibly be banned on the grounds of animal welfare."

Morley also talks of "the damage caused when mink escape, and the environmental complaints." But any "damage" is not caused by escaping mink. It is caused when they are illegally released by animal rights terrorists. By using the word "escape", Morley implies that this unfortunate situation is the fault of the farmers!

Morley goes on to vilify the mink as "a ruthless killer", and bemoan the impact free-roaming mink have on indigenous wildlife. This can be a problem when animals are released illegally, but is the mink truly Public Enemy No. 1? Few survive long in the wild, and feral colonies that do become established are small and kept under control. Furthermore, the mink is not the only domesticated species that kills more than it can eat, given the chance. A recent study estimated that house cats operating outside their houses kill a staggering 70 million birds and mammals in Britain each year.(7)

Wild Among Us

Morley notes a Council of Europe opinion that "fur animals kept on farms retain the characteristics of wild animals," as if this somehow means they do not belong in a domestic setting. How close domesticated mink are to their wild cousins is debatable, but if they do exhibit "wild" characteristics, they are hardly unique.

All domesticated livestock and pets retain traits of their "wild" ancestors, some more than others. The best fed of pet cats still stalk birds, and sleeping dogs protect their noses from the elements with their tails, even when indoors. A herd of cattle will form a protective circle when they feel threatened, and factory-farmed pigs attempt to dig nests in concrete floors. And what of totally "wild" pets - snakes, budgies and goldfish? Or zoos? Will Labour be banning those too?

But most significantly of all, Morley misses the positive contribution made by fur farming as a sustainable recycler of agricultural waste.

"Mink pelts are not a by-product of the food industry, unlike leather, which, if not used in the footwear and fashion sectors, would be thrown away," he states.

If only he turned his telescope round, he would find that mink and other domesticated carnivores are the tail end of the food industry, picking up the scraps that no one else wants.

For as long as Man has walked the Earth, we have fed our kitchen scraps to waiting carnivores. Today, the job of recycling all those fish guts, chicken heads and expired dairy products falls to the pet food industry, for our carnivorous dogs and cats, and to the fur-farming industry. An average farmed mink consumes 20 times its body weight annually, while a fox will consume 30 times.

And fur farmers don't stop at reducing waste; they transform it into valuable pelts, oil, organic fertilizer and protein meal. Each full-length mink coat represents 2.5 tons of recycled waste.(8)

Last but by no means least, for every fur coat that is produced, there will be one less coat produced from non-biodegradable, non-renewable, petrochemical-based synthetic material.

If Britain's Labour Party is seriously interested in promoting "public morality", banning fur farming is absolutely the wrong place to start.

NOTES:

(1) See the website of the Countryside Alliance.
(2) The Times, Nov. 24, 1999.
(3) Daily Telegraph, Dec. 4, 1999.
(4) Press release, May 14, 1999.
(5) See Carnage in the English Countryside, FCUSA commentary, Aug. 20, 1998.
(6) See Double Dutch: Debating the Morality of Mink Farming, FCUSA commentary, Jan. 12, 1999.
(7) "Trappers help solve wildlife problems", Sunday News (Lancaster, PA), Jan. 2, 2000.
(8) See Super Duper Recyclers - How Fur Farmers Turn Waste into Beauty, FCUSA commentary, Oct. 28, 1999.

For further information contact: Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA, PMB 506, 826 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118-2698 USA, (619) 575-0139, (619) 575-5578/fax, furfarmers@aol.com, www.furcommission.com.

To take a cyber-tour of a fur farm, visit Fur Commission USA's Fur on Film at http://www.furcommission.com/video/index.htm

Back to News / 1997-8 News Archive / Home

© 1998-2008 Fur Commission USA