By Belinda Chen(Photo credits: The Fur Commission USA)
“ Oh dear, is that genuine fur ?” Wearing animal fur products today is usually frowned upon, marking you as a selfish and ruthless human being in the eyes of animal rights activists. Yet a large portion of people remain adamant about wearing animal fur products. As an indestructible industry valued at more than $40 billion annually worldwide, the only plausible method to alleviate the cruelty placed upon the animals is by establishing a reinforced legislation system to enforce animal welfare in the fur industry. In this article, I’m not going to include detailed statistics and data to prevent my readers from dozing off; I would simply like to raise awareness of the incomplete protection of captive furbearers raised for the fur industry throughout the world. To defend the captive furbearers, we must first acknowledge some basic facts about the global distribution of the fur industry. The majority of the captive furbearers are raised within the European Union (EU), contributing up to 63% of the global mink production and 70% of fox production. Other countries with thriving fur industries include China, Russia, the United States, etc. Fortunately, in January 2013 the EU established legislation for the humane killing of animals that extends specifically to fur animals. However, China, Russia, and the U.S have failed to do so. Existing Animal Welfare Legislation? In the U.S., captive furbearers suffer from a federal exclusion from the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA). If HMSA can be approved and applied to livestock, why not also for captive furbearers? HMSA applies to livestock such as cattle, calves, horses, and swine, protecting them from dying in writhing pain by enforcing the use of certain devices for stunning the animals into unconsciousness before slitting their throats. Why doesn’t the U.S attempt to apply the HMSA to all captive furbearers? The killing process isn’t the only unacceptable part of the fur industry – the lack of animal welfare in farming the animals is also a major concern. In essence, animal welfare states that animal should enjoy the following five freedoms: (1) Freedom from hunger and thirst, (2) freedom from discomfort, (3) freedom from pain, injury and disease, (4) freedom to express normal behaviour, and (5) freedom from fear and distress. Again, the EU legislation for animal welfare applies also specifically to captive furbearers. Why doesn’t the Animal Welfare Act in the U.S apply to captive furbearers? This implies that the majority of fur ranches in the U.S, where captive furbearers are raised, may not be the best environment. In other words, regulated standards are not imposed for cage sizes, cage density, sanitation, veterinary care, food/water, ventilation, handling, etc. Inadequate maintenance of the environment and animal care will result in distress of the animals, consequently upsetting the physical and psychological balance of the animals. All in all, if those suffering captive furbearers can’t be free from being skinned for our selfish reasons, at least allow them to be free from living and dying in agony! I believe that as an industry that rolls in massive profits, it is viable to demand the application and reinforcement of animal welfare legislation for the slaughtering and farming of furbearers. The creation of fashion does not need to involve barbaric treatment of animals. (Photo credit: https://fluoresblog.blogspot.tw/2016/12/why-i-dont-buy-mink-lashes.html) a
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Authors
The Taida Student Journal has been active since 1995 with an ever-changing roster of student journalists at NTU. Click the above link to read about the authors Archives
May 2024
|