Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen is apparently in Canada and enjoying her recent purchase of a new fur coat. She also explains in her column that last weekend “Canada’s National Post reported on an advertising campaign launched at the end of last year by the Fur Council of Canada, which represents 70,000 of the nation’s fur traders. These sassy new ads feature gorgeous women draped in fur, one under the heading ‘Environmental activist’. The ads explain that buying a fur coat is the ecologically correct thing to do because fox stoles and mink coats are natural, renewable and sustainable. By contrast, synthetic furs are no more than by-products of the petro-chemical industry. Making a single faux fur coat can chew up 19 litres of petroleum, a non-renewable resource, says the council. Ergo, buying a fur coat is good for the planet.”
Even before the marketing campaign started, there had apparently been increasing demand for fur products in Scandinavia and China.
Meanwhile, and also according to ABC Online, Belgium has apparently already banned fur from what they consider the inhumane killing of Canadian seals while Germany, Italy and Austria have drafted the legislation, and law makers in Britain, France and Spain are considering it.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
*Checks calendar* Nope, not 1st April.
Isn’t it always the 1st April here?
If furs were politically correct again, fox shooting would become profitable and the numbers of these introduced pests would most likely be considerably reduced.
It is interesting that the Fur Council is exploiting ‘global warming’ hysteria to promote its product. I wonder how successful the advertisements will be?
Interestingly some of Janet Albrechtsen’s previous writings suggest she is something of a global warming skeptic. I wonder if she is not exploiting the Fur Council’s initiative to have a laugh and a dig at environmentalism, in this column? All speculation.
Are you sure the Fur Council is exploiting global warming?
They’ve been pushing that angle for decades and more pointedly for well over a decade. I think it might somewhat predate AGW as a “high street” issue.
The one with the day job glanced at the screen and commented “we can make very nice fur coats out of fox and rabbit” then-
“WE DON’T NEED THEM – What a pity we humans lost our ‘owner grown’ fur coats, we might have been useful for your cold aliens”
It’s 37 C outside and climbing inside. I can do without that in this dry old sheep country.
I think Janet is amused by such a politically incorrect industry as the fur industry using the same tactic, claiming the moral high ground, as the green movement has been using for years.
For a really politically incorrect campaign, it’s hard to go past the Canadian Sealers Association.
http://www.sealharvest.ca/html/commentary/nni_jwinter.html
They are pushing for increased seal hunting, and their argument seems pretty solid.
>If furs were politically correct again, fox shooting would become profitable and the numbers of these introduced pests would most likely be considerably reduced.
Rubbish. Have you seen Australian foxes? What high end furrier wants tatty looking fox pelts? They would be battery bred should this species be desireable.
You have to get them at the right time of year, Travis. I’m surprised you didn’t know. Fox furs used to be used for garments, and fox shooting was profitable once. Probably before your time.
“battery bred”? Really?
Fox furs were profitable in a different age, when garments were of a different quality, attitudes were of a different quality and Chinese factory workers did not stock our stores which are open 7 days a week with cheap alternatives. If they were profitable now, someone would be taking advantage of it, as greed never changes. Yes you have to get them at a certain time of year, and it’s a very narrow window of opportunity before the coat starts to become less than high end fashion.
Battery bred = factory farmed = keeping them in cages so they can be managed more efficiently for better results over a longer period of time. More profitable should furs become politically correct again. Obvious really.
“If they were profitable now, someone would be taking advantage of it”
That’s what I said before! Glad to see you’ve come around to my way of thinking.
That’s a little misleading Paul! Your original statement had two parts to it. My response was in regards to the second part, regarding it reducing feral fox numbers. Yes, if it were profitable, someone would exploit it, but would it reduce feral fox numbers or would there be other ways to make a buck out of fur on humans that did not involve kocking off feral foxes?
Yes I see Travis, you think it is rubbish that people would ignore a freely available and cheap resource, in favour of setting up an expensive and labour intensive supply.
Maybe you’re right, but maybe not. Wild fox fur may even command a premium, just like organic meat or vegetables.
Anyway, if fox fur was in demand, there would be a market for cheaper furs as well as top of the range. It’s hardly rubbish to suggest increased demand would cause an increase in harvesting from the wild. It has happened before.
Wild fox fur does indeed command a premium.
Northern furs harvested in winter are the best with full under-fur, glossier and fuller.
Northern furs are regularly used to bundle with lesser furs at the auction houses to bump up the price of the lot.
I just got a nice silver fox pelt, hand tanned by the lady down the road.
It’s glorious and will make a lovely ruff on my wife’s coat. Her old one was getting a bit worn after a few years.
Well Paul we will wait and see. There are plenty of foxes running around Australia for someone to make a buck from somehow. I gather you have been fox shooting and are aware of the rate of return for the effort put in, night after night. ‘Freely available and cheap’ it may appear, but the reality is quite different when you are talking about setting up a business which presumably you want to succeed throughout the year.
With clever marketing, sure, organic fox fur may be a big hit, but again we will wait and see.
iceclass the key word in your comment is ‘northern.’ I guess a ruff gives you something to hold on to.
Actually Travis, most foxes were shot by farmers and country folk looking for some extra income. Guess what, a lot of country pursuits are seasonal. Once again your lack of practical knowledge surprises me.
My word you are argumentative. We’ll be down to the difficulty of transporting fur in a carbon constrained future soon!
So now the seal killing industry, trappers and hunters are turning from saving the Inuits and the poor fishermen in Labrador to saving the Creek Indians???
In a previous post ( see archives) I mentioned what a fuel guzzling industry the fur businness is.
The tanning makes more emissions than making a faux fur. Besides there are huge amounts of heavy metals involved in making a fur, polluting waters.
Trapping animal is a cruel procedure and keeping mink farms an even more cruel business.
It’s amazing what fantasies and lies the fur industry makes up .
Ugly people wear fur…
Paul,
You use the term ‘were’. You are talking about the past.
>Once again your lack of practical knowledge surprises me.
Well, there you go, I was thinking the same about you!
>My word you are argumentative.
Not at all. You made a comment, I responded. I also clarified something you were implying. Apart from writing ‘rubbish’, I am simply engaging in debate. You mean that’s still not allowed here?!
>We’ll be down to the difficulty of transporting fur in a carbon constrained future soon!
That is not being provocative? Oh, that’s right, no debate allowed involving AGW believers, only deniers!
Ann, I concur.
I’m sorry Travis, I shouldn’t crush dissent so brutally. Please feel free to keep debating. What was your point again?
>What was your point again?
I’ll remember that you don’t like to be questioned on anything Paul, and can’t follow logic.
The Google ads that accompany these topics can provide much amusement. At the risk of hurting Paul’s feelings, I have to agree that I can’t see a feral fox fur industry any time soon, and can see Travis’s point. In NZ there is a niche possum fur one, but it is blended with merino wool and doesn’t have quite the off-appeal as a dead animal fur coat does. It is more of a niche market than anything else, but is available in tourist shops in NZ and even Australia.
Actually I don’t think a feral fox fur industry will occur either. I presume you read my original post that Travis labelled as rubbish. It said “IF furs were politically correct..” That’s not likely to happen.
Do you really think that if a commodity such as fox fur became valuable, no one would exploit the resources running around in the scrub and suburbs? Apparently that’s what Travis thinks, as far as I can tell. What rubbish!
Well we still have plenty of brushtail possums here Paul, despite some people attempting to make some dosh from their fur. Going out each night and shooting feral foxes is a lot of work. They can’t even be trapped reliably like our possums. I wonder if they really would take off should fur be valuable again. Forgive me, but maybe your issue is with the word “rubbish” more than anything else, and I wonder about who’s being argumentative? Good points raised all round I feel.
For the sake of the Australian native wildlife it would be great if fox numbers could somehow be reduced. People are pretty innovative, but nothing’s worked so far. Maybe a feral trading co.? I’ll trade you 10 brushtail possums for 10 Kiwi plumbers, and you can trade 10 foxes for 10 Kylie Minogues?
From Greenpeace’s weblog:
” Sara, I saw your news spot last night on Network Australia (ABC Asia Pacific)from the Esperanza. A great report but what a shame you presented it in a furlined hooded jacket. You do realise the mixed message you’re sending encouraging us to save whales while you’re wearing fur? Think next time before heading in front of the cameras.Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Nina FitzSimons | January 15, 2008 9:55 AM ”
Now I can’t answer for Sarah, but here in Sweden 99% of all modern, outdoor hooded jackets are fake furlined. Retailers have a real problem to sell real fur hooded jackets to the younger consumers.
Hmmm….I was a little bit wrong in my above post.
One of our most popular brands is Canadian Goose and I checked out that their ruff was made from coyote fur. However , many consumers in Sweden are concerned about this and ask for fake fur Canadian Goose jackets. ( GP Sara MIGHT have a CG jacket as they are extremely well suitable for extreme weather conditions).
It looked like a fake-fur-lined jacket to me.
Coyote fur makes perfect sense.
There’s no shortage of them here in Canada. Many municipalities are dealing with too many of them attacking dogs, small kids etc.
Swedish consumers need to throttle back their confused ethics and go with the sustainable coyote ruff.
I bought a couple of full coyote pelts for some projects and repairs. It’s good fur and very reasonably priced right now.
I’ve always wanted a full size fur bed cover. Coyote might be affordable enough but it remains to be seen if it is hard wearing enough.
Those Canada Goose parkas are not bad for what they are. For us they are “bureaucrat coats”. All the newly arrived Federal employees are issued with them as are many other government employees.
They’re big, heavy as hell and are useless if they get wet. They also build up sweat that freezes if you’re wearing for any length of time say, during extended trips on the land.
Sooner or later, if those bureaucrats stick around, they seek out a local woman and have her make a proper northern parka.
I always wanted big diamond rings, loads of money, sexy men and dead animals to wear, but I quickly grew out of that childish ideal when I became educated, civilised and respected. Pity the poor western neanderthals here.
It should have nothing to do with fossil fuels! The amount of people who waste the fur of hunted animals is to be considered. Maybe if every skin was used for clothing, and every animal originally hunted for eating, maybe then it would be acceptable.
As for caging them? That’s retarded… Though, many people probably don’t care..Do you buy freerange eggs?
“If I had a million dollars. I’d buy you a fur coat. But not a real fur coat, that’s cruel.” (song: Barenaked Ladies – If I had a million dollars)
Fur farming is actually incredibly bad for the environment due to the toxic dyes and other chemics used to process the fur and the huge amount of animal waste from live and dead animals that is created as 200 animals sre skinned alive each day in China. See the report by Swiss Animal Protection- it very hard to watch the video. There is no justification for this trade. Its probably important that people realise what the difference is between wearing fur and leather shoes. There is a reasonable chance your leather shoes may come as a product of the Western meat industry- this means that your cow may have been stunned before it had its throat cut. However, 90% of all fur imports come from China, where there are no animal rights laws. About 200 animals every minute, foxes, dogs, cats (strays or abducted from owners) and raccoon dogs (who are dogs) (not that the species matters!) are bashed against the ground to break their necks to be made immobile. They are fully conscious while they are skinned alive with skinning done with knife at the belly. It can take six hours. The animals scream and struggle. The workers step on their heads to hold them down of bash them. Why do they do this? Apparently it is easier to skin a live animal than one who is dead with rigour mortis. The entire skin is pulled from the animal even from its head and then the animal body is thrown on a pile of other bodies without fur. The animals continue to blink and their hearts beat for a further 10 seconds. All exploitation of animals is cruel. But this surely is unacceptable altogether. So, start taking this issue seriously and stop buying fur. It is the only way to stop this vile trade.