BFTA

BRITISH FUR TRADE ASSOCIATION PRESS RELEASE, NOVEMBER 20, 2000

Labour's £1m "Gift" Costs Taxpayers 10 Times More to Ban Fur Farming
Pigs and Chickens Next in Line for "Public Morality" Test, Warns BFTA

LONDON, 20 November 2000: The cost to British taxpayers of outlawing eleven fur farmers will be up to £10m in compensation - more than six times what the government has told parliament, the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) estimated today.

"The Political Animal Lobby gave the Labour Party a pre-election donation of £1m in return for a fox hunting ban and other animal rights issues, but the eventual cost will be bad for British taxpayers". BFTA members account for more than half of the world,s trade in fur - around £400m at primary level - which is unaffected by the expected fur farming ban.

Speaking at a press briefing ahead of Wednesday's formal passing of the Bill in the House of Commons, Robert Morgan, the BFTA,s executive officer, said: "We believe it is bad law making and morally questionable to apply the concept of "public morality" to animal husbandry legislation. Fur farming harms no-one."

During the passage of the Bill the government agreed that there would be "negotiation with interested parties and loss of income taken into account."

"The farmers have been demanding a pay out of well over £10m and there will still be a battle over how many years loss of earnings will be considered," Mr Morgan pointed out.

"The cost will also be measured in the adverse effect on small rural communities and the countryside generally and for what - ceasing the activity of a handful of totally unsubsidised farmers providing a product for a thriving world market, and which is lawful everywhere else in Europe," he said.

More worryingly, he maintained, was the precedent set by the ban. The use of "public morality" on "unsubstantiated and vague grounds could lead to the criminalising of other farming activities for no good reason." Given that animal rights activists had a broader agenda, "areas where large-scale production is seen, such as poultry and pig farming, must consider themselves to be in the firing line," Mr Morgan asserted.

With no more than 500 people in Britain involved in fur before retail level, BFTA members report trade in fur running at 20% higher this year and maintain that strong consumer demand for fur would be unaffected by the ban on fur farmers.

Euro Concern at UK Law to Ban Fur Farming, Says Dutch Farmers' Leader

Chairman of the European Fur Breeders Association Wim Verhagen, travelled to London from Amsterdam to speak out against "an illiberal British government and its moral prejudices."

Representing 6,000 fur farmers in 15 European countries, he declared: "Fur farming is as morally justifiable as the farming of animals for any other purpose, provided always that there is good animal welfare - and that is not an issue."

It was "little wonder that British fur farmers saw compensation as a way out after years of intimidation and harassment from animal rights supporters," he explained. But the farmers, who account for less than 0.01 per cent of world production, "do not think they are doing anything immoral or that fur farming should be made illegal."

The trouble now was that the fur farmers in England and Wales would be unjustly remembered for being branded by government as running farming operations that were "allegedly against UK-style 'public morality'," Mr Verhagen pointed out.

"In a Western democracy, it is of course the responsibility of governments to promote and enforce welfare standards. But it is not the role of governments to dictate what form of animal husbandry is allowed, nor to deprive individual farmers of their livelihood," Mr Verhagen said.

Pan-European farm lobbying groups had warned of the wider implications of the British measure and "a significant number of Members of the European Parliament across the political divide shares that concern."

Fur Retail Sales Up Over 10%, With Widening Availability

Fur sales through traditional retailers in the EU are estimated by the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) to have risen 5% year on year to reach US$ 4 billion in the 1999/2000 season and by more than 10% worldwide to exceed US$ 9 billion.

Lighter-weight and sheared furs and combination garments where fur is mixed with other natural fibres had fuelled the explosion in demand. But the "host of other outlets - boutiques to department stores - now selling clothing with fur has added very significantly to that those totals," the IFTF maintained in a statement. In Germany for example, there were 20,000 non-traditional fur outlets.

"We recognise well that not everyone supports fur - that is their right and their choice," the IFTF said. "However, what is immoral in western democratic countries, is the idea that the animal rights groups can impose their views on people with those ideas being dominant over all others. That is what the British government has effectively done," it maintained.

For further information contact: Jan Brown; Tel: mobile 07881 821413; press@britishfur.com

Home