I am just sick to think of the money that I have contributed over the years, only to find out I was just subsidizing the salaries of the executives and fund raising. One article I read said the HSUS has enough money to subsidize every local humane society in the U.S,, and they contribute nothing to them. That’s where the money is needed. I just wrote a check tonight that will not be sent out. I don’t need their T-shirts, tote bags, or anything else they offer me. I am going to do a lot of research to find where I can spend my money more wisely. on a group or groups who truly do love animals. I wonder why Wayne Pacelle doesn’t even own an animal. Maybe he would have to spend some of his money on its care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1) Sourcewatch has been created by John Stauber (who has created before the Center for Media and Democracy). But sourcewatch website don’t say that Stauber is member of anti-beef industry activist group like the Humane Society… strange no?
Look at the PDF document:
http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/profilingactivistgroups.pdf

2) On Sourcewatch, you have every informations on CCF (financing, support, etc) but NOTHING on the Humane Society… strange no?
Obviously transparency is good for some but not for others…

3) John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (the other person who has created Sourcewatch) are editors of PR Watch newsletter… where is defended and quoted the Humane Society point of view… strange no?

4) “SourceWatch is an encyclopedia of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda” (definition by Sourcewatch itself). That means everybody can write everything… But who has the control of the publication?