A n i m
a l W r i t e s © sm
The official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue #
11/22/00
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ Park StRanger@aol.com
~
MicheleARivera@aol.com
~ SavingLife@aol.com
THE EIGHT ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Fur Free Friday by JJswans@aol.com
2 ~ Thou Shalt Not Kill, Covet, or Steal
from HumaneReligion@compuserve.com
3 ~ CAFT
4 ~ Dog, Cat Fur Products Banned
5 ~ Scientific Study - Trapper Style
6 ~ Fur Donation Program Aids Wildlife
7 ~ Fur Coats And Fur by Guila Manchester
8 ~ Quote To Remember
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`
Fur Free Friday, November 24
by JJswans@aol.com
Approximately
3.5 million fur-bearing animals -- raccoons, coyotes, bobcats, lynxes,
opossums, beavers, otters, and others -- are killed each year for their fur by
trappers in the U.S. Another 2.7 million animals are raised on fur
"farms,"according to PeTA.
My first memory of ever seeing a fur garment was one my grandmother had. My recollection of it was just 8 dead
animals, staring at me in sadness and in horror. This was one of those
kinds of coats that really is only bodies sewn together, and though I never saw
much style and fashion evident in any fur coats, this had to have been the
worst. There's only one thing good that I can say about it -- there was
nothing anyone could have done that would have turned me off on fur more than
this garment did. Both my grandmother and mother were typical of their
times - they felt that the ultimate gift a woman could receive was either furs
or diamonds. I sure won't turn down the diamonds, but any man that would
even think of giving a gift of fur would quickly find himself outside the door,
permanently.
Those eyes still haunt me, and though my grandmother was a wonderful woman,
she, like so many others, simply must not have seen the connection between
living, feeling, knowing beings and those pieces of fur that she was so proud
of. That connection that so many miss,
always seems to be that one really illusive mystery in life, that I've never
been able to justify. Why are some empathetic and others aren't?
Why are some empathetic to all but the animals?
Some simply need to be reminded, and that's one of the main reasons for the
annual Fur Free Friday. Recently, Bob Chorush, an activist, complained to
J Crew about a fur trimmed item they were selling, and he received a letter
from that company saying they had "gotten several comments about the
rabbit trimmed boots and I have discussed this issue with our merchants.
We will not have any additional fur items this season, nor do we have plans to
have any in upcoming seasons. As you put it, this seems to have been an
oversight on our part." Mr. Chorush was then asked to call (collect)
to discuss the issue further, by David Towers, the Director, Customer
Experience of J Crew.
Another encouraging sign is that the House of Lords in Britain is completing
its final stage in passing a bill to ban fur farming. Among others,
Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) has been campaigning for this bill.
"CIWF applauds the Government's decision to ban fur farming", says
Justin Wilkes, CIWF's Parliamentary Officer. "The keeping of mink -
who are essentially wild animals - in small barren cages is ethically
unacceptable. It is totally wrong in a civilized society for animals to
be kept in restricted and deprived conditions simply to serve the whims of
fashion and adornment. CIWF will now turn its attention to banning
fur farming in other European countries - and the United States".
The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill will prohibit the farming of mink and other
animals primarily or solely for their fur from 2003. There are at present
around 13 mink factory farms in England and Wales.
By nature, mink are highly active, semi-aquatic animals. In the wild,
mink travel and forage over distances up to 2 miles; they also swim, dive
and climb. All these activities are denied them in the tiny cages of the
factory farm.
According to US Commerce Department data, imports of fur apparel increased by
over 95% to $16.4 million in July, bringing the seven-month total to $62.1
million, a gain of 63%. This increase is being seen by some in the
industry as being reflective of the shrinkage of domestic production and
increasing reliance on outside suppliers.
Hong Kong/China is now the largest exporter of fur garments to the U.S.
For July, Hong Kong shipped nearly $6 million, up 174% - almost 40% of the
total. For 2000, Hong Kong's cumulative total was $24.9 million, up
132%. Canada shipped $4.8 million, and a total of $23 million (up 21%)
for the year. Italy shipped $2.9 million in July, up 81%. Their
total for 2000 is $5.9 million, an increase of 88%. Shipments from Greece
increased 2% to $671,000 in July. Greece shipped a total of $2.9 million
(up 65%) in 2000.
Furriers are trying to make a presence on the World Wide Web. Upscale
department stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus are selling furs
online where customers can use the technologically advanced features of their
websites such as zooming in for close-ups of detailing and styling.
While the fur trade is benefiting from the positive spin being given to it by
the fashion press, all is still not well for trappers. Thousands of
low-grade furs are being stored fur buyers' freezers. As long as these
supplies exist, the demand for furs from trapped animals will be scant.
Also of concern to trappers is the high cost of gasoline. That, coupled
with the current state of fur prices, is expected to be enough to keep many
trappers out of the woods.
A study done by New York State biologists reveals the indiscriminate nature of
conibear traps. Beaver trappers regularly catch otters in their traps,
even though otter season may not be open. It would be illegal for a
trapper to deliberately set a trap for otters out of season, but if an otter is
caught in a trap set for beavers, no trapping regulations are violated.
Biologists from the New York Department of Environmental Conservation found
that 76% of the otters caught in New York are killed with the same trap sets
used for beavers. The DEC is researching modifications to the traps that
can reduce the incidences of non-target animals being killed in traps.
Trappers and their apologists often cry that if trapping were abolished
wildlife populations would explode uncontrollably. Obviously, these
people know nothing of the situation in Arizona since 1994 when Arizona voters
banned the use of many traps on public land. Since that time, wildlife
biologists have detected no change in animal populations.
But, in the end, it still comes down to the consumer. If grandma still
thinks she has achieved a higher station in life by wearing dead animals, then
trappers will keep trapping, fur farmers will keep fur animals in puppy mill
conditions, and animals like minks, who are so similar in every way to the
"pet" ferrets that are so loved in so many of our homes, will
continue to be killed for vanity and fashion. Personally, I think the
only fashion statement that fur really makes is that it makes the wearer look
fat.
For Fur Free Friday demonstrations you can join, see the map at the following
website:
events index
http://www.furkills.org/events00/index.html
For more information about Fur Free Friday, the
following website should be of interest:
Fur Free
Friday 2000
http://www.furkills.org/
Statistical information derived from "The
Fur Trade Today" newsletter.
Source:
veegman@erols.com
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
The
following article is excerpted from "GOD"S COVENANT WITH ANIMALS: A
Biblical Basis For The Humane Treatment Of All Creatures" by J.R. Hyland,
published by LANTERN BOOKS, New York, copyright 2000 and is used by permission
of the publisher and the author.
Thou
Shalt Not Kill, Covet, or Steal
from
HumaneReligion@compuserve.com
The
contempt for God's creation that is manifested in the Christian support of
recreational killing is further revealed in the wearing of furs. At a time when
synthetic materials are easily available and are more durable and warmer than
animal skins, there is no excuse to slaughter animals for their fur. And in
these circumstances, it becomes obvious that people are willing to have animals
trapped, clubbed to death, or raised as commodities, simply to satisfy their
vanity and their greed.
Although greed and avarice are not popular subjects for sermons in a consumer
culture, when that greed becomes the impetus for the slaughter of millions of
animals it represents a serious, moral evil. The willingness to have animals
killed because people lust after the covering given to them by God, should be
challenged by every religious leader. But it is not.
While churches denounce the violence of television and films, of computer games
and websites, as detrimental to their children's moral development, the
violence perpetrated by adults on helpless animals is ignored. It is gratuitous
violence and those young people who have not yet sold their souls to the status
quo, know it for what it is. They, more than their complacent parents, react to
the sight of infant seals beaten to death because their snow-white bodies are
such a valuable commodity.
They are more likely than their parents to remember a news item that shows
ranch-raised animals being anally electrocuted in order to preserve the fur for
which they have been bred. And they are usually more troubled than their
parents by reports of the slow and agonizing deaths of those creatures who are
caught in steel traps.
Yet when it comes to trying to understand why some teenagers refuse to accept
the family religion, both parents and Pastors ignore any suggestion that this
refusal may arise from an unspoken judgment on the part of the young person: a
judgment of the immorality of those who easily accept any cruelty that has not
been defined as such by their church. Church members would rather believe that
the rejection of religion can be traced to a teenage rebellion against
restrictive rules and regulations, than consider that there are adolescents, as
well as adults, who reject a religion because its followers do not maintain a
high enough standard of morality.....
....Among the most gratuitous cruelties in our culture is the wearing of fur.
The same people who are scandalized by reports of youngsters who will kill
another child because they covet his sneakers, covet the skins of animals and
are willing to have them killed in order to steal their fur. They sit in
churches, wearing the evidence of their covetousness and their theft, and no
minister or priest challenges this sin of the affluent.
Although the clergy have no direct control over the actions of their
congregants, they do have some control over church policy. Drinking and
smoking are outlawed within the sanctuaries of churches and there is no reason
why the wearing of fur cannot also be forbidden. There is certainly a
precedent. Although ministers usually do not speak out against hunting, neither
do they allow the trophies of recreational killing to be hung in their
churches. The heads of deer and other slain creatures are not allowed to
adorn the sanctuary walls. Neither should the fur of dead animals adorn the
bodies of worshippers.
Instead of treating immorality as if it were primarily a sexual transgression,
church leaders need to exercise the kind of leadership that goes beyond such
circumscribed definitions....
In our own time, many who profess to be followers of Christ would be incensed
if their Pastors told them that worshipping God, clothed in the bodies of His
dead creatures, was sinful. Immoral. Church leaders will preach against sexual
sins even if this brings a negative reaction from the congregation; they hope
that such preaching will keep their listeners from the spiritual and physical
dangers of promiscuity. However they do not speak out against nonsexual sins
that enjoy a high degree of acceptance among their church members; they are
afraid of offending them. But they ought to be concerned about the
spiritual dangers of greed and covetousness that are inherent in the supplying
and wearing of furs. They ought to be concerned about the sin of
self-righteousness, which is always a temptation for the religiously observant.
Unless these ministers of the Gospel look beyond the narrow circle of
traditionally defined sinfulness, they will be like the religious leaders of
whom Jesus warned. He said that although these men refused to see the truth
themselves, they insisted on trying to lead others in the paths of
righteousness and this could only lead to disaster. [The Pharisees] are blind
guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a ditch."
(Matt 15:14)
Unfortunately, the spirit of the Pharisees is alive and well among those
ministers who do not challenge the wearing of fur, and among those church
members who would never miss a Sunday service but have no qualms about praising
God with outstretched arms that are covered with the remains of His dead
animals.
<> <> <> <> <>
A copy of this article is available to ARO readers in a seven page booklet
which may be copied and distributed for educational purposes. For your copy,
send a self-addressed, stamped envelope (business size) to HUMANE RELIGION
Booklet, P.O. Box 25354, Sarasota, FL, 34277
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
CAFT
The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) is
a grassroots organization dedicated to saving animals who would otherwise be
slaughtered and skinned for nothing more than human vanity. They have chapters
in cities across the United States, as well as in the United Kingdom and
Sweden.
CAFT organizes campaigns to get fur out of major department stores, such as
Macy's and Neiman Marcus. They also offer assistance to grassroots animal rights
activists to help them organize in their communities. CAFT helps groups develop
strategies to win campaigns in the most efficient manner possible.
CAFT is recognized throughout the animal rights movement as the most reliable
source of up to date information on the fur industry. CAFT acts as an
information clearinghouse for information on all aspects of the fur issue and
furbearing animals.
CAFT has distributed the "Dirty Dozen" list of fur retailers for this
season. This list ended up on the National Trappers Association email
list whose members have been urged to call all of the retailers and ask them
not to give in to the pressure of animal rights activists.
Your calls are important to this campaign so please keep calling and writing
letters to these retailers. Let them know that you refuse to buy products from
their stores if they continue to sell fur.
Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade
The "Dirty Dozen" of Fur Retailers:
Express
Mr. Michael Weiss, President
One Limited Parkway
Columbus, OH 43230
800-477-8844
Bebe
Manny Mashouf, President
380 Valley Drive
Brisbane, CA 94005
877-423-2303
Lew Magram
Mr. Warren H. Golden, CEO
414 Alfred Avenue
Teaneck, NJ 07666
800-964-1955
Burlington Coat Factory
Mr. Andrew Milstein, Executive Vice President of Merchandise
1830 N. Rt. 130
Burlington Township, NJ 08016
609-387-7800
609-387-0189 fax
Sear's
Mr. Arthur Martinez, Chairman and CEO
3333 Beverly Road, BC-118A
Hoffman Estates, IL 60179
847-286-8316
JC Penny Company, Inc.
Mr. Steve Berry, Buyer, Women's Outerwear
P.O. Box 10001
Dallas, TX 75301-0001
972-431-1000
Rich's/Lazarus/Goldsmith's
Mr. Arnold Orlick, Chairman, CEO
223 Perimeter Center Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30346
(770) 913-4000
Bloomingdale's
Mr. Michael Gould, Chairman
155 E. 60th Street
New York, NY 10022
(212) 705-2000>
Saks Fifth Avenue
Ms. Christina Johnson, President and CEO
Saks Fifth Avenue
12 East 49th Street
New York, NY 10164-2114
212-940-4048
Macy's East
Mr. Harold Kahn, President and CEO
151 W. 34th Street
New York, NY 10001
800-289-6229
Nordstroms
Mr. Peter E. Nordstrom
1501 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-1603
206-628-2111
Neiman Marcus
Mr. H. W. Mullins, President/CEO
1618 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75201
800-937-9146
214-573-6142 fax
For a link that gives individual store locations and managers, go to:
http://www.neimans.org/locator.htm
Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade
P.O. Box 21780
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 328-0736
(202) 328-0774
banfurnow@aol.com
www.banfur.com
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Dog, Cat Fur Products Banned
info from Adelanim@aol.com
From
an Associate Press account, selling or making products with dog or cat fur is
now a federal crime under a bill signed into law by President Clinton.
Under the new law, selling, making or transporting clothing, toys or other
items made with the fur or skins of dogs and cats could bring a maximum $25,000
fine or up to a year in prison.
"This legislation sends a strong message to importers and retailers that
sales of dog and cat fur will not be tolerated in the United States,'' said
Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of Humane Society of the United States.
Clinton signed the bill that was introduced last year in Congress by Sen.
William V. Roth, R-Del. and Rep. Jerry Kleczka, D-Wis.
There is no evidence that pets are being killed in the United States for their
fur, but DNA tests on furs have confirmed that products like gloves, fur
linings and insoles for shoes and boots made with dog or cat hair have been
sold in this country, the Humane Society said.
An estimated 2 million dogs and cats are killed each year - often in inhumane
ways - primarily in China and other Asian countries for the international fur
trade.
Buyers of clothing often are unaware that their purchases include dog and cat
hair because they are intentionally mislabeled with exotic "fantasy
names'' - such as Asian jackal, sobaki, wildcat, goyangi and katzenfelle - to
make them more attractive to American consumers, said Richard Swain Jr., the
society's vice president for investigative services.
Humane Society investigators also discovered that dog and cat fur sometimes is
dyed and processed to resemble fur from other animals.
The law would require that all fur or fur-lined products be labeled accurately,
regardless of their cost.
The bill number is H.R. 4868.
Humane Society of the United States: http://www.hsus.org
For bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Scientific Study - Trapper
Style
For some time now the fur trapping industry has
been testing traps, that are commonly accepted as cruel, in what they call Best
Management Practice (BMP) tests.
In a booklet put out to explain the need for this research, it was stated no
less than 7 times in the opening pages that trappers need to BMP's for public
relations purposes.
The trappers have told the public that these studies are done to determine the
most humane traps, but tell themselves they need these studies to
"prove" that their traps are acceptable.
Information has been circulated that the studies were giving results that would
only do damage to the trappers. Rumor has it that the studies on raccoons
in leghold traps were producing particularly gory results.
In the September/October issue of American Trapper we get some insight into
just how the trappers plan to deal with this.
David Sollman, president of the National Trappers Association, stated that the
first draft of the raccoon studies has been delayed. The NTA wants
further research so they can get a different result.
Sollman then said that "NTA has presented its own protocols to test
raccoon traps, and the BMP Work Group has agreed to discover if our version
will produce different results this year."
In other words, studies funded by trapping interests and carried out by
trappers produced results that are embarrassing to trappers. Therefore,
the trappers are going to modify the protocols, do new studies, and try and
come up with more PR friendly results.
When it comes to playing loose and fast with the facts, the trappers are the
best. When it comes to distorting science, no one tops the trappers.
In fact, trappers are claiming that a proposed leghold trap ban in Oregon would
ban holding chutes for cattle. This is a ridiculous claim even for a
trapper. Since when has a holding chute for cattle fallen under the
definition of a "body gripping trap"?
No claim is beneath these guys.
It is important that any readers who will engage in campaigns to stop cruel fur
trapping print out this email, and save it.
These BMP studies will be twisted to suit the trappers needs, and they will be
used against those who want to protect wildlife.
We must be armed with the facts so that we can present the truth when this
occurs.
Those who want to slaughter American wildlife for what amounts to market
hunting are not above distorting the truth to maintain the status quo.
Let's not let them fool anyone.
Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade
PO Box 822411
Dallas, TX 75382
www.banfur.com
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Fur Donation Program Aids
Wildlife
info from SandieGaertner@gateway.net
An
innovative program sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
has a solution for anyone who has inherited a mink coat from a relative or
struggled over what to do with that fox stole in the coat closet. By sending
your unwanted furs to The HSUS, you can help injured or orphaned wildlife and
receive a tax deduction.
Danielle Bays, who runs the program for The HSUS, receives approximately 150
fur garments each year and says that the program's popularity is growing. "Despite the fur industry's claims, fur
continues to be unfashionable," says Bays. "I get phone calls every
day from people who are concerned about the animal cruelty associated with
producing fur garments. Some of them own fur that they don't want to wear but
aren't sure how to dispose of."
The program works like this: Ship your fur garments to The HSUS, which will
provide documentation of your donation. The HSUS will send your fur to any one
of about 40 wildlife rehabilitators across the country who participate in the
program. They will cut the garment into smaller pieces and turn them into a
surrogate parent for an orphaned wild animal, a warm nest for a burrowing
animal, or just a warm blanket. Wildlife rehabilitators report that chipmunks,
raccoons, squirrels and opossums given a piece of fur have shown reduced stress
levels. If you itemize your deductions on your tax return, you can claim the
fair market value of the garment on your tax return for the year in which you
make the donation. Fair market value is the amount for which you could
sell the fur today - not it's original price. Tax laws require an appraisal for
items valued at $5,000 or more. The HSUS advises you to consult a tax attorney
with any questions.
Furs should be mailed to:
Danielle Bays
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L St., NW
Washington, DC 20037
The fur donation program is part of The HSUS' Fur Free 2000 Campaign, which is
designed to save animals used for their fur by educating consumers about the
animal cruelty associated with fur, working with manufacturers to promote
alternatives to fur garments, encouraging designers and retailers to curtail
their use of fur, and seeking stronger laws protecting animals. For more
information, visit The HSUS' web site -
http://www.hsus.org
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Fur Coats And Fur
by Guila Manchester
Your fur coat cost a pretty price;
My fur was almost free.
The only thing I had to pay
Was just a kennel fee.
Your fur coat now is snowy white
And lined with softest silk.
My fur is just a little ball
That still is lapping milk.
I wouldn't trade your fur for mine;
I'd be ashamed to wear it.
I know the way it came about;
I simply could not bear it.
It's made of pain and blood and cries
And the agony in a mother's eyes
While a baby seal was stripped of skin
So you could wear that coat you're in.
It's not an easy death to die,
So please think hard before you buy
And if you really want a fur,
Then get the kind that bark or purr.
It may not keep you warm outside,
But you can hold your head with pride
and in the world so filled with pain
Know you, at least, are not to blame.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
Quote To Remember
"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk?
But rather,
Can they suffer?"
-Jeremy Bentham, 19th C
Philosopher, Oxford University
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This
Newsletter In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward
this to a friend who you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO gratefully accepts and
considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com