Fur is Green campaign
17 janvier 2008
Fur business green or mean? Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaign
by Ann Marie McQueen, Sun Media
Fur business green or mean? Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaign Fur business green or mean? Animal rights activists, Fur Council of Canada at odds over ad campaignA slick new advertising campaign aims to reframe the fur industry as a friend of the environment.
The Fur Council of Canada launched print ads last week calling fur “eco-fashion” in an effort to reassure consumers about their product and counter anti-fur campaigns of the past.
The Montreal-based council represents about 70,000 members, most of them trappers, said Alan Herscovici, the council’s executive vice-president.
“It was important to explain the real story of the fur industry,” said Herscovici. “And that is ‘if you care about nature and protecting the environment, fur is an excellent choice.”
Entry Filed under: Animalist, Animaliste, Animals, Biological diversity, Canada, Diversité biologique, Développement durable, Environment, Environnement, Extremist, Extrémiste, Fourrure, Fur, Sustainable development. Mots-clefs: Animalist, Animaliste, Biological diversity, Canada, Développement durable, Diversité biologique, Environment, Environnement, Fourrure, Fur, Sustainable development.
5 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Nee Hung | 17 janvier 2008 at 1:38
I object the fact that not the whole article is posted here. Only FCC’s deceptive and misleading claims are extracted from the original article. The counter argument from caring animal groups, especially in the concluding paragraph was omitted here. This is not a fair presentation of both sides of the issue.
2.
forumcanadaeurope | 17 janvier 2008 at 2:32
Don’t we know what the animalists think about it? Of course we know : killing animals is immoral. More than that, they say animals are equals than Human. Philosophically, it’s not true cause Humanity is the only species who can say “ME”, having a consciense of its born and its death. By the way, the Social Justice, even if is not perfect in the world, is not a concept created by animals.
If you want to know better the position of animalists, you have plenty websites for this. Bleu de Terre is opposed to any extremist thought.
That the reason why we decided not to publicise their comments. It’s a redactionnal and ethical position.
3.
David Dent | 7 février 2008 at 8:11
It is no more immoral for humans to kill animals than animals to kill animals. The mere suggestion that it is implies we are morally superior to animals which we are not.
The way it is sometimes suggested that the fur is green argument has no credibility belies the fact that president of the fur council is Paula lishaman the designer, who is married to the Conservationist Bill Lishman (yes the guy who has saved the whooping crane from extinction and prevented the building of airports).
Fur is an infinitely renewable resource and its an irony that the anti fur movment has supportd a massive boom in wasteful use of disposable synthetic clothing which has TRULY damaged the environment.
Animal Rights ideology and Conservation goals are fundamentally opposed and its time you started believng what the fur council of Canada has to say because its true.
4.
Nee Hung | 19 mai 2008 at 6:55
“Bleu de Terre is opposed to any extremist thought” – I humbly disagree. This is not what I have observed on this blog/forum.
It is extreme for some to say that the animals are more important than people. But it is just as extreme to say that it’s “green” to treat animals as feelingless, disposable objects when their fur is obviously NOT the necessity of human life.
Bleu de Terre is biased against the animals and the animal-caring groups because only the anti-animal portion of the article is posted and only the anti-animal comments are allowed here. Doing so in itself is not an issue, as it is someone’s forum, and that someone can do what he will with it. But it is simply not fair to assume and label all comments from any animal-caring group to be “extremist thoughts.”
At the time when our environment is deteriorating and our wildlife is disappearing at such an alarming rate, I’d think people would be more enlightened to see that killing our wildlife for their fur, for the sake of “fashion” is the last thing that can be described as green. Being “green” means minimizing consumption of luxury (unnecessary) goods, such as gas nuzzling cars, forest-destroying golf courses, and fur coats made from highly polluting and energy-consuming tanneries.
The portion of the article that is omitted on this forum states that eco-friendly means conserving, protecting our wildlife, not killing them for fur – Is this extremist thought? I don’t think so.
5.
David Dent | 1 juillet 2008 at 11:17
Nee Hung…you clearly have not read the fur is green campaign text.
The whole poiint is that ALTERNATIVES to animals whether they be for food fuel or clothing..DESTROYS habitat at the fastest rate in the history of human existence. For a million years or more we used fox and mink for furs yet they are still here…that is PRECISELY because we protected their habitat because we needed them.
Read what the Lishman “Fur is Green” campaign has to say…as I said her husband is a famous conservationist so you may want to think WHY Conservation is at odds with animal rights and the school of though now upholds traditional and sustainable use.
its the wasteful cheap mass clothing industry that is the problem: cotton production has shrunk the Aral sea by two thirds and has caused an eco disater; all synthetics are made from oil look what exon valdez alone did.
The great fur production areas are in the arctic and sub arcic and as a result the boreal forest there supports people and animals; the two are interdependent; and it is the last great wilderness. South of there we have devastated habiats and much of that is to do wtih producton of intensive arable crops (60% of British songbirds gone in just 30 years) cotton, oil, urban development etc. So whiich is the best human ecnomic activity for conservation? No contest: animals are an infinitely renewable resource (animals breed oil does not) and as long as we have good standards of welfare and preserve habitat there is not an ethical problem. Man is part of the eco system. An animal does not differentiate wheher it is used for meat or fur but when we forsake them for so called humane alternatives we destroy their habitat as a direct consequence condemning them to oblivion.