Those who criticize fur farming as unfair

In response to Sophie Gaillard’s letter, “To End Fur Farms” 1published on February 19.

Posted April 25

Alan Herscovici

Alan Herscovici
The author was executive vice president of the Fur Council of Canada for 20 years. Are you the author of Animal Rights? Make a question!

It’s a sly caricature of fur farms presented by the Montreal SPCA’s legal director, Sophie Gaillard, in support of private-sector bill C-247 that would ban this type of farming.

What she describes in her text is not only misleading but also insulting and disdainful to farmers/raiders who find them attacked in their professional integrity. surname.

USAI Gaillard says she is “haunted” by what she saw on a livestock farm in Montérégie in 2014. I was there too and I can confirm that there is indeed care and well-being. benefit animals, especially foxes. WHAT MOTHERI However, Gaillard doesn’t want to add that the farmer has been charged with animal cruelty and he no longer runs a farm.

The real moral of this story is that the operating system and animal cruelty are not tolerated on Canada’s fur farms.

As with other farm animals in Canada, standards for the care of ferrets and foxes are set forth in codes of practice developed by veterinarians, animal technicians, and animal welfare officials. Sponsored by the National Council on the Care of Farm Animals.2. Failure to comply with these rules can lead to criminal charges and loss of livestock rights – as happened with the Montérégie farmer.

easy target

Fur is an easy target for activist groups that oppose any use of animals, even for food, because it is a cottage industry with no financial resources or image. political influence that major industries may have to fend off such attacks.

More important, but not often mentioned, is how insulting and hurtful these anti-fur campaigns are to livestock families. If the animals on their farm were treated badly, as activists say, these farmers would be monsters. The moral superiority shown by anti-fur activists is truly unacceptable.

According to USAI Gaillard, fur is a “completely unnecessary luxury product.” Another misleading statement. Sure, there was faux fur, but this one – like 65% of our clothes today – is made from non-renewable and non-biodegradable synthetic materials derived from petroleum. We now know that these materials release microscopic plastic particles into the air, which are found in aquatic species and even in breast milk.3 !

On the other hand, natural fur has the ecological advantage of being extremely durable and after 30 years of use, even being “recycled” as often as the taste of the day, is completely biodegradable.4.

No one is forced to wear fur. But as environmentalists urge us to consume less – which means buy better quality clothes that will last longer – we should support and promote the use of natural fur produced responsible output. And don’t try to ban it!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.