VT 3045: Thesis ModuleBA (Hons) Fashion DesignTaylor Aston GazzardStudent no 1154349

VT 3045: Thesis moduleIs the use of fur in fashion such a cruel thing?

Table of contents

Introduction

Chapter 1A Brief History

Chapter 2Creating Balance

Chapter 3Circle of Life

Conclusion

References

Appendices

2

Introduction

Is the use of fur in fashion such a cruel thing?

This paper is to study the above question and look into the uses of fur

within the world of fashion, as no other topic sparks a more heated debate

than that concerning the use of fur. Obviously in an age where technology

has created synthetic materials, no one can really defend the use of

wearing skins and fur as anything to do with just keeping warm. These

days it’s more a matter of personal taste, but to anyone who loves

animals, it’s not a debate. Killing any animals to don its fur or skin is not

a necessity, just a human-centric and cruel fashion statement. Or is it?

What causes such arguments to arise – have those people who so quickly

call fur and leather wearers heartless actually have solid knowledge of

where that fur originally came from? Whether the poor animal was

maliciously murdered through sadistic hunters or did it die of disease or

age? Maybe even a bi-product of food that we as a race seem to mostly

accept as a natural part of life.

This thesis will contain solid research into both sides of the fur trade,

touching on the hunting of the animals and the reasons behind them.

Researching into organisations that are against anything they deem as

animal cruelty such as ‘P.E.T.A’ as well as looking into companies that

still feel fur is a status vanity such as ‘Wewearfur’ and ‘Saga furs’.

3

This paper will also look at and provide a solid understanding of

everything from the history and necessity of fur in certain cultures, to

vintage fur, and touching on our relationship with food will help people

understand the reasoning behind some fur wearers instead of letting

prejudice shade their judgment.

4

Chapter 1

A brief history

The modern fur industry is a less bloodthirsty industry than when it

supposedly began in North America in the 19th century, these days it is

more common for an animal to have been bred for its fur to live a happy

fulfilled life rather than being hunted down and slaughtered by poachers.

Yet most people only see what the media have influenced, nothing makes

a better story than a picture of a sad looking fox, rabbit or monkey to pull

on the nations heart strings and convince those people to suddenly donate

a lot of money, or more fashionably “adopt an animal” with an

organisation that is supposed to stop such horror. Although the process of

adopting an animal through one of these charity organisations - who then

send the adoptee photographs, writing and more often than not a cuddly

toy, in itself raises the questions of how much of the money sent in for

adoption actually goes towards the care of the animal? and how much

does it cost to make the merchandise that accompanies each adoption?

1

1 Adopt a tiger advertisement, WWF Organisation

5

The same organisation will more often than not bring out another heart

wrenching picture or video of another cute fluffy animal that is also

suffering. Causing more people to pledge money, while no one can say

exactly where the money donated to such causes actually goes.

Whether it is such organisations that have helped or just the human race

has started to gain a conscience, the fur trade now have very strict

guidelines when it comes to hunting for any reasons. Although this still

does not stop everyone, as some prefer to follow the old ways, be that for

the fun and sport of a hunt or for deep rooted cultural reasons.

The fur trade has helped and still helps support the traditional lifestyle and

cultural values of many aboriginal Canadians, Alaskans, Siberians,

Namibians etc, who live in regions hostile to most agriculture activities that

would otherwise make them a living. Participating in the fur trade allows

them to maintain and reinforce their traditional lifestyle and culture.

One of the earliest and most important industries to have started up in

Canada and North America was actually the fur trade; it played a major

role in the development of both countries for more than 300 years, which

later ventured out to Europe and the rest of the world. (Arguably other

countries could have of course started their own fur trade before America

but the fur trade in North American and Canada in that time is the most

commonly known.)

6

Native American Indians would use fur they have come across through

food and habitation to trade with the first Europeans for goods they did not

have such as tools and weapons. The settling Europeans would offer the

Indians gifts of kettles, knifes and other objects to try to gain and establish

a friendship which would result in trading of the furs. While the Native

Americans have used fur as part of their culture, the European’s who were

sending the fur they traded home was sought after as a high class product

only for the rich and famous, and so was increasingly in high demand.

With animals such as fox, marten, mink etc. being so popular, more

animals were needed to be to be traded from the Native Americans, leading

to many more being poached and killed.

Towards the 1700’s and with the Native American Indians having little

interest in trapping the animals, the westerners had to come up with a better

plan to keep up with the demand of fur throughout the western world. In

response, the fur companies that had popped up hired and created men

known as ‘Mountain Men’ who would scour and roam through the wild

areas of the rocky mountains in search for the coveted fur.

By the late 1700’s the fur trade started to decline, and as a result, more and

more land was cleared leading to the decline in population of fur-bearing

animals.

“Over trapping of fur-bearing animals hurt the fur trade in the

Western United States and Western Canada. In addition, the

7

value of beaver fur dropped sharply in the 1830's, when

European had manufacturers began to use silk instead of felt. By

1870, most fur-trading activity had ended.”

(Nov 2013, www.montanatrappers.org, WWW page)

It was in the 1600’s that the prospect of wealth from fur first attracted the

Europeans to the new world. Even though the fur trade was a harsh way to

create the money and wealth, it did contribute to the economical

development of not only America, but also a lot of Europe such as Britain

and France.

2

2 French Traders and Their American Indian Trading Partners Exchanging European Goods for Furs. Decorative detail from Map of the inhabited part of Canada. William Faden, 1777.

8

While the fur trade slowly disintegrated in the late 1700’s, it is in the 21st

century where it is an increasingly popular and growing industry again.

People in this day and age are wearing fur in greater numbers and more and

more designers are choosing to feature fur, be it little or large amounts,

within their collections, which in turn is encouraging high street shops and

the consumers to wear it.

“Welfare is at the heart of everything the fur trade does. The

IFF Is dedicated to continued high standards of care and

welfare for fur animals and supports scientific research in this

area. The IFF promotes strict codes of practice that meet and

exceed established and accepted standards for animal welfare

for both wild and farmed fur. The International fur trade does

not trade in endangered species.”

Nov 2013, www.wewearfur.com, WWW page.

Fur companies such as the online company ‘wewearfur.com’ are an

excellent example of how the fur trade has come back into fashion with the

animal’s welfare in mind. Rather than poachers trapping and killing the

9

animals in the wild, which is the older and harsher way, the modern age

has brought out an idea of farming the animals in a safe and secure

environment.

Animals are already farmed for many reasons: meat, dairy, wool,

cashmere, silk and of course fur and leather. It is the responsibility of those

who farm the animals to ensure the animal is treated humanely. In a survey

answered by the general public it was a shock to see that 90% of the results

said they are happy to eat meat, yet only 30% said they would wear fur,

with the other 70% having a strong opinion against fur. Stranger though is

that when looking at the responses for the same question for leather, a lot

of the people originally against fur have no problem with leather, with a

larger 78% saying they would happily wear the leather. This leads you to

believe that people don’t actually understand that fur and leather are not

that different, and that the methods to retrieve the products are very similar.

“As a vegetarian I would never think to eat meat, however I will

use leather, wool and the like within my work as others do eat

meat meaning that the likes of leather is no more than a by-

product of our food industry.”

(December 2013, K.A.Reynolds, fashion designer.)

This could be why company’s such as ‘Wewearfur’ are very honest with all

their products, making sure the consumers know and understand where the

fur they are about to purchase has come from. 85% of fur internationally is

10

now farmed; which is fur that has been bred selectively over 100 years

such in the same way free-range animals are bred. The strict laws,

regulations and industry codes of practice ensure the welfare of all animals,

leading them to live happy and healthy lives. An animal’s health is

actually shown in the fur itself so it would be in the interest of everyone

that the fur the animal belonged to be kept well maintained.

There still are problems with people illegally poaching and capturing

animals for their fur, leather and ivory. Yet there is still actually ‘wild fur’

options, these are completely within the strong rules and regulations

regarding the animals health and welfare. The majority of wild species

used by the fur trade are not actually specifically taken for the fur; they are

part of a wildlife management program that is regulated by the government

under the advice and supervision of wildlife biologists. While this is very

similar to hunting seasons that occurs in different parts of the world, they

are not normally to satisfy mans bloodlust but to thin the species so that the

healthier animals have not got an over crowded habitat and other problems

that could occur.

3

3 ‘Animals are sentient beings’, European fur information center, RSPCA

11

An over-population or under-population of any species creates an

imbalance of the eco-system, which can have cataclysmic effects. Wildlife

biologists supervise the environments and decide which species are having

problems, then give the appropriate advice on the problems which can be

solved, and ultimately will help the species thrive and survive as a whole.

‘PETA’ which stands for ‘People for the Ethical Treatments of Animals’

is one of the main organizations that are against anything to do with

harming animals; this includes any ingestion of animal products as well as

anything that can be created from the animals themselves such as leather

and fur.

“Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for

entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

(PETA’s slogan, PETA.org, WWW page.)

PETA’s is a very successful volunteer based company that mostly relies on

the media creating dramatic and heart-breaking videos of animals crying to

gain funding from generous donators. No one can argue that the

organization is anything less than an outstanding establishment, set up for

the welfare of animals, with those involved actually focusing on the

welfare and health of the animals in their care rather than the concentration

of gaining money like other organizations. PETA promotes itself as being

non-profit. With the apparent success rate of the organization as a whole

12

against stopping the animal laboratories and experiments, you cannot really

argue with the tenacity and way of thinking promoted by this company.

4

With celebrities famously declaring they would rather ‘go naked than wear

fur’, how can the general populace who look up to the celebrities not

notice? Any advertisement like these does create a big impact within the

fur world. Unfortunately it cannot be taken that seriously when the

celebrities who declare such statements don’t stick to it. Naomi Campbell,

who was one of the famous faces in the campaign, was branded a

‘hypocrite’ by fellow celebrity and fashion designer Heather Mills. This

was because Campbell decided to become the face of fashion designer

Dennis Basso, who’s Russian sable fur coats would sell for up to £126,750

each. This poses the question that maybe some people put greed over

principles?

A Californian furrier was charged with cruelty to animals when PETA

investigated and were caught on film electrocuting chinchillas. The furrier

would prolong the animal’s pain by connecting wires to the animal’s 4 1944, Anti campaign poster, PETA. Photograph Rex Features. The Guardian.

13

genitals; this would cause the animals to have a heart attack when they

were still conscious. A pig farmer in North Carolina who would abuse the

pigs daily and leave them in horrific conditions, including one being

skinned alive, lead to the first ever felony indictments of farm workers.

One of the largest problems with cruelty to animals seems to be the

Chinese fur trade who is one of the largest fur exporters, which is well

known to skins animals alive.

“Workers would flip them onto their backs or hang them by their legs

or tails to skin them. Workers would stomp on the necks and heads of

the animals who would struggle too hard to allow a clean cut.”

(2014, Chinese Fur Farming, PETA)

5These are just some examples of how PETA has caught some animal

farms that have cruelly treated the animals, in cases like these and many

more, many people cant argue with PETA’s intervention.

5

5 2013, Matt Blake, Chinese Fox farms, article, Daily Mail

14

“PETA has made groundbreaking advances for animals who are

abused by corporations, governments, and individuals throughout

the world, and these successes have led to dramatic improvements

in the lives of millions of individual animals.”

(Success Stories, www.peta.org, WWW Page)

The one thing that can be possibly criticized about PETA is the very black

and white outlook on everything. They strongly encourage a supposedly

healthier lifestyle by developing a diet of vegan food, food that has never

been made or even produced by any living breathing creature, such as tofu,

which is made from organic soybeans. Food that is produced from an

animal include these normal ingredients that most people don’t realize

could harm the animal that made it, even though nothing has been proven

(other than killing animals for meat). Foods such as any meat,

fish/shellfish, eggs, honey, gelatin and milk cannot be ingested as they

have all been either produced or created from/by the animals. So PETA

promotes a ‘cruelty-free’ diet for anybody who feels/made to feel guilty

about eating animal produce.

This causes several arguments, as this is where there is more disagreement

between people’s opinions than any other subject concerning animal

welfare. Throughout history there have been three types of creatures;

Herbivores who are creatures who eat vegetation; Carnivores who are

creatures who only eat meat and lastly Omnivores who require a

15

combination of both to develop a healthy diet. Humans have always been

creatures that needed to eat both meat and vegetables to keep a healthy

balance, so why would you discourage the natural order of things?

You wouldn’t encourage animals such as a Lion to only eat vegetables, or a

Rabbit to only rely on meat, that would be cruel. Yet humans are made to

feel guilty for being naturally on the top of the food chain. Humans have a

peculiar notion that animals are of lower intelligence, yet most animals still

have something humans have somehow lost, natural instincts. Most

animals know exactly what food their body requires to be the strongest, yet

human vegans are arguably ignoring their natural instincts and have to

become creative to find the needed vitamins and subsidence in other food

products. Its great for them to be able to live the healthiest they can

without something that is supposedly vital to the humans diet, but should

people feel guilty for doing something that has come naturally to them

since the beginning of time?

An argument against PETA’s ‘cruelty-free’ diet would be that if the world

suddenly decided to become vegan, animals that help sustain our food

chain and our clothing industry such as cows or sheep might become

endangered, extinct or even over populated, as the human race would no

longer need them. Our eco-system is very delicate, and major changes in it

can cause a domino effect that could harm other species of animals. If the

cows suddenly ate all of the available grass in an area, what would happen

to all those animals that also need the grass to survive? Even if the animals

16

became extinct, we gave up encouraging the animals to breed, such as how

the Giant Panda is slowly dying off, what would happen to the eco-system

then?

It can be argued of course that we don’t eat mice or rats and they have not

gone extinct, but nor do we hunt them for clothing or decoration. Imagine a

world twenty years into the future, where every human being has

abandoned their natural instincts of being a hunter and now follows

PETA’s ‘cruelty-free’ diet. What would the possibility be that the only way

to see an un-needed animal such as a cow would be by visiting a zoo or

museum? Can you imagine trekking through the rolling hills of Cumbria or

Wales, on a safari to see the wild sheep? So although PETA itself is an

organization which fights cruelty to animals, if everyone were to follow

their lead, would it cause more harm than good?

Something that is very much in the media at the moment is the use of free-

range animals and food against non-free range. Its almost a slightly less

guilty option for those of us who do still wish to eat meat and animal

products. Yet when reading up articles about the supposedly ‘cruel-free’

free-range options you can get with the animals, it doesn’t seem actually

that cruel free it claims to be.

“Caged hens are more comfortable than people think, and have

higher welfare as standard than free-range hens.”

17

(Professor Christine Nicole, Article on Free-range, University of

Bristol, Daily Mail.)

The problem with free-range is that the animals have a lot of room to move

around and enjoy their life, but they panic more when they are hoarded into

a factory where they are about to meet their fate for which they were bred.

6

What causes someone to be so focused on the negative effects seen through

the media that they fail to see the harm avoiding it may do? What makes

those who enjoy the torment of animals choose their preferred method of

destruction and how long does it take them to plan it, or, as in the case of

the Californian furrier, is it more of a spur of the moment decision to cause

6 Enriched – Protection in cages, Article for free-range, DailyMail.

18

as much pain as possible? What, if anything, can we do to protect animals

from this onslaught?

Yet even knowing that in the cages the Hens are supposedly more content

and protected, most people would still rather pay the extra money for free-

range eggs just to know the animals had a sort of ok life. So once our

conscience is clear, is it ok to use every element, including skin, fur, meat

and products created from any animal ok to use on a daily basis? This

paper will continue to explore that question.

19

Chapter 2

Creating Balance

Different cultures throughout the world have used animals for food as well

as their protective clothing. A great example of this is are the Inuit people

of the Arctic, who rely on the fur they acquire though hunting as a major

factor within their clothing to keep them selves warm. To them, hunting

and using the skin of the animal is a natural thing their people have done

for generations, it’s the same with many other tribes throughout the world

who live in a particularly cold environment. Why would you change the

way you and your family have lived through generations just because some

one has commented that it is cruel?

“Aboriginal people are a part of nature in a way that very few people

have ever known. We have used the animals and the fish, plants and

water of the earth for generations. We are nurtured by this

environment, through our livelihood, we pass our traditional skills

and values to our children.”

(The council for Yukon Indians, Wewearfur.org, WWW Page)

These people are the people who rely on the gifts from the animals they

have in the area to continue their survival, just in the same way early

humans such as homo sapiens or cave men had to learn quickly to rely on

animal furs warmth to survive against the cold. Without the use of these

furs, would the human race have survived as long as it has?

20

“Protecting and maintaining healthy populations of fur-bearing

animals is more than just a matter of social conscience for our

people, it’s a matter of our survival.”

(The council for Yukon Indians, Wewearfur.org, WWW Page)

If organisations such as PETA looked towards the tribes who rely on the

animals like the Inuit tribe, would their argument for the animal’s welfare

actually have a solid base to stand on? Since the Inuit people of the Artic

are actually part of the delicate eco-system in the area, they help to keep a

healthy population of animals not just for the animal’s sake but also for the

survival for themselves too. It very similar to what the ‘Wild fur’ farms

that have popped up across the world, they don’t just farm the fur-bearing

animals just for what the society need, they look after the animals and help

the survival of their species.

For arguments sake, even if the human conscience did take over the whole

race, and everyone stopped wearing fur and started wearing more cotton

and synthetic fabrics, is that actually the way forward? Or would the

pollution generated from synthetic fabrics cause more harm than good?

There is a ‘fake fur’ option available for those people who do want fur

without the guilty conscious, but do they know that the organic fibres

needed to create it are sometimes farmed in a way that is cruel to humans?

Slavery is a huge problem in the cotton industry, which is a major

ingredient in the production of ‘fake fur’. In Uzbekistan approximately half

of the cotton farmed, is picked by adults and children who would receive

little if no pay. It is actually the sixth largest producer of cotton for around

21

the world and the fifth biggest exporter. Generating an estimated $1 billion

of revenue a year. With little money if any actually going to the hard

workers.

“The work is dangerous, children are left exhausted, suffer from ill-

health and malnutrition. During harvests there are reported deaths

due to poor health and safety. The workers are forced to stay in

makeshift dorms in poor conditions with insufficient food and

drinking water.”

(2013, Anti-slavery, Forced Labour, antislavery.org/cotton)

Obviously not all cotton is farmed like this, but why would an organisation

that is against cruelty to animals encourage the use of anything that could

cause harm to our own race?

7

7 2013, Anti-slavery, Cotton crimes, antislavery.org/cotton

22

While the argument is that animals don’t have anyone to fight their side or

defend themselves, neither do these slaves who are taken from their normal

lives in harvest season. It did not matter if they were teachers, factory

workers, children or even doctors, and regardless if they wanted to or not,

they were forced to drop everything to help harvest the cotton. If they

refused of didn’t co-operate they were threatened with dismissal from their

usual work, which would leave them with nothing.

PETA has helped in a lot of ways the welfare of animals, yet there is a long

way yet to go, it’s the same for organisations who want to stop slavery in

not just the cotton industry, but all over the world. Organisations such as

‘antislavery.org,’ who are helping to educate the world into stopping the

use of cotton that has been harvested in such a way. So while slavery is a

part of the cotton industry, should we be encouraging the use of it? Even if

it doesn’t use any animal products?

Even the uses of these natural fibres are in some cases harmful to the

environment, which in return is possibly harmful to the animals and us.

Cotton is the most pesticide intensive crop in the world, which is one of the

major factors that cause the people farming it such health problems. The

chemicals typically remain in the fabric after finishing, and are released

during the lifetime of the garment. Potentially creating future problems to

the wearer and the environment.

Even wool, which is sheared from sheep at regular intervals and

supposedly doesn’t cause the animal any harm at all, have their own

problems, It causes both agricultural and craft workers to suffer from

23

exposure to ‘organophosphate sheep dip’ which is typically connected to

excessive tiredness, headaches, limb pains, disturbed sleep, poor

concentration, mood changes and in some cases suicidal thoughts.

Other possible solutions are to look into man-made or even synthetic

fabrics within the fashion and textile industry. Synthetic fibres are the

result of extensive research taken by scientists to improve on naturally

occurring animal and plant fibres. The first artificial fibre was known as

artificial silk, which later became known as Viscose or Rayon around 1894,

it was a cellulosic fibre that was regenerated from chemically treated

cellulose that was originally deprived from wood pulp. Nylon was the first

official synthetic fibre, which was derived from petrochemicals rather than

cellulose. It made its debut in the United States of America as a

replacement of silk, just in time for the start of World War 2. According to

scientists, synthetic fibres were a breakthrough, they would commonly

replaces nature fibres and were easier and cheaper to purchase.

The only cause to concern was that synthetic fabrics and fibres are more

harmful to the environment than natural; this is because they were all

enhanced with chemicals. Polyester and Nylon fabrics are made from a

substance that could create nitrous oxide, a very harmful gas. Many

materials that are labelled petrochemical, flame-retardants, acetate, nylon

and non-wrinkle have all been chemically treated in one stage or another

throughout the process. Whether it is from the actual creation of the fibre,

or the stages after, such as dying. All these gases are causing harm to the

24

environment around us, possibly causing irreversible damage to the

atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

“Synthetic materials are deprived from petrochemicals, meaning

production depends on declining reserves of oil and gas as they are

not renewable.”

(2008, Article, Green Couture, Maria Burke, rsc.org, WWW Page.)

Its not just the gases used in the production process that is a cause for

concern, the fact that synthetic fabrics that are made from petrochemicals

are non bio-degradable, this means that once it has been thrown away, the

synthetic fabric would take years to break down, creating a constant need

for dumps and landfills. Synthetic fabrics have even been known to be

disposed in the ocean, creating a threat to many marine lives, which will in

turn cause problems for the species of animals who rely on those marine

animals and so forth.

8 Environmental impact of natural fur and artificial fur, wewearfur.org. Reported in millipoint units. Which is an abstract unit to express potential impacts. Wewearfur.org

25

So although synthetic fibres have been known to be more durable and

resistant, the long-term effects to the environment outweigh the

advantages. This is why companies are trying to develop a ‘Green’ version

of synthetic fabrics that have all, if not most of the characteristics of

normal man made fibres. So far there has been some success with using

corn as its base for the fibre, called Ingeo. According to the company

‘Nature works’ who are the creators of Ingeo, they use ’62 to 68%’ less

fossil fuel resources than traditional plastic when manufacturing and rely

on wind turbines to create green electricity. As of yet it is not

biodegradable and is needed to be composted in industrial composting

facilities, but hopefully in the future may be chemically recyclable.

As of yet the fibre is not perfect, it has a lower melting rate than normal

polyester so would have to be ironed on a lower heat level, it also hasn’t

got the tenacity that nylon is famous for. However it is softer than

synthetic fabrics, two to three times stretchier and holds bright, bold

colours well.

“Not only is the fibre new, but the process used to produce the

polymer ingredients is new, so we have been working to educate

people on its performance benefits and attributes, as well as the

environmental benefits.”

(2008, Nature Works, Chemistry world.)

26

At the moment synthetic fibres are doing a more harm than good to the

environment, even more so than actually farming natural fibres and fabrics

including leather and fur. With the new environmentally friendly fibres

such as Ingeo still in the early stages, and yet only available in niche

markets, it isn’t affecting the fashion and textiles synthetic fabrics industry

as of yet, but when it does it will change how we see and use natural

fabrics.

9

9 2008, Nature Works, Chemistry world, Woman wearing Ingeo in catwalk show.

27

Everything from plant life to animals has to use and rely on the atmosphere

and their environment, without it they could not continue their existence, as

the world would become inhabitable. So anything that could help the

environment and atmosphere would benefit every living thing on earth,

humans, plants and animals. It’s inevitable that we use animals for the

purpose of our survival, but using the bi-products created is a clever way to

give something backs to the environment.

As of yet, we cannot create a faux or synthetic copy of either leather or fur

that doesn’t affect the environment and atmosphere in some way.

Hopefully with future research we could get a breakthrough and not need

to use the animals for fur or leather, either as a by-product or not. With the

technology to create synthetic lab grown meat available now, it doesn’t

seem such a huge jump.

28

Chapter 3

Circle of Life

Vintage fur has had a slightly less prejudiced reaction to it than modern fur,

it has been worn by many people throughout the decades, even century’s.

So in a modern day where wanting to save the planet is a must, why would

we not want to recycle?

“Fur farming plays a valuable role in the recycling chain by making

efficient use of the animal by-products. Each year over one million

tonnes of these by-products are used in the EU alone.”

(Facts and Figures, BritishFur.co.uk, WWW Page)

As a race that is mainly omnivores, we eat meat. Yet what happens to the

waste of the animals? It’s ironic that wearing fur repels people, yet they eat

meat themselves without any worries. Obviously not everyone is like this,

looking back through the survey carried out to the general public

unsurprisingly 90% of the interviewees were meat eaters and only 20% of

those meat eaters would wear fur, even if it was for recycling purposes.

Yet when explained that if the animal had died of natural causes, and not

for the purpose of fur, the opinions of a lot of those 80% who did not like

the original idea of fur changed.

29

10

11A great example of someone using animals that have been either naturally

killed or killed by accident is taxidermist artist ‘Polly Morgon’. She would

find road kill, or even in some cases have bodies donated by zoos and the

public to her to use, and create beautiful works of art, while some people

judge her work as glamourizing cruelty to dead animals, she never

physically caused any harm or cruelty to those animals she used in any of

her exhibitions. So why shouldn’t she recycle the animals that would

otherwise be thrown away and forgotten? Her work immortalizes the

beauty of the creatures she came across that came to an unfortunate yet

inevitable death.

11

10 Results of survey carried out ‘Is it fair to wear fur?’11 Sunny side up, Polly Morgon, Taxidermist

30

You could relate the idea behind Polly Morgon’s work in the same way as

using the by-products of the animals that are already being used for food, If

the animal is already destined to be killed, free-range or not, wouldn’t it be

more environmentally friendly to recycle and re-use any products that

would otherwise be wasted?

“Fur is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource. That means

we only use part of what nature produces each year without

depleting wildlife populations or damage the natural habitats that

sustain them.”

(Fur a renewable source, Fur council of Canada, Fur is green)

If you didn’t re-use the fur or leather within something else you could

arguably say that animal by-products are biodegradable, so they would

never have the problem of sitting for years in landfills taking up precious

space on this planet. So if we didn’t use the fur, fashion designers would

have to find suitable fabric else where, that brings in again to the use of

synthetic fabrics, which have the problem of causing a lot more harm to the

environment than needs to be.

In North America and Canada about 95% of the people eat and wear

animal products. Worldwide animals are used for food, clothing,

companionship, medical and scientific research, entertainment and even

transport. In Canada alone the fur trade accounts for less than one percent

of the animals that are actually used for food and other purposes each year.

31

According to the ‘Fur Council of Canada’ about twice as many unwanted

pets are put down in humane shelter, and about ten times more are animals

that are killed on Canadian highways.

Looking at statistics like that you realize that maybe the fur trade isn’t such

a huge cruel impact to the animal world as the media try and make it out to

be.

32

Conclusion

You cannot fault companies such as PETA or Swiss Animal Protection / EAST

international when they have huge global campaigns to stop animal cruelty,

When you are the people who see the worst of any animal cruelties, where there

is unspeakable deaths and animals denied even the simplest acts of kindness you

would try in everything you have to help stop the slaughter, but is the use of fur

in fashion such a cruel thing?

Any fashion designer or retailer who would get their fur from countries and

companies that make a mockery of the most elementary animal welfare

standards, use unregulated farms for ‘cheap’ fur would have to have the animals

cruel death on their conscious.

In elite places where the high standards of animal care and welfare are on a

completely different scale, how can any place that values their animal’s health

and comfort above anything else be classed as cruel? Pets who are abandoned by

or even those who are not are sometimes not even treated as well as the animals

that are kept in some of these new farms. Establishments that house animals in

zoos have been classed as cruel before, animals that are at their healthiest kept

within chain fences, that live decades past their life expectancy, animals

protected from things that would have otherwise wiped a whole species out.

As a species of animals ourselves we have relied for centuries on the use of

animals, it was in our instinct to survive and as a species we have excelled. Just

as its in other animals instincts to do anything in their own power to survive, we

33

too have learnt to adapt and evolve in order to better our survival. We have

discovered through trial and error new ways to help our own survival as well as

helping other less fortunate species along the way. It is unfortunate that we need

and rely on animals in such a way we do, but it is just the circle of life in which

all animals live by. We just have to do it in a comforting, pleasant and humane

way that doesn’t affect the animal’s welfare and wouldn’t be obtained in a cruel

way.

In conclusion the fur trade is neither cruel nor not cruel, it is something that

balances out everything that has been depicted from history and generations. If

we are to eat meat, we should use the bi-products such as the fur rather than

letting the animal that has enriched our lives rot into the earth.

So is the use of fur in fashion, or in any other industry such a cruel thing? The

answer would depend on your personal perspective; it would rely on if you were

close to your own animal instincts, your sense to survive or your conscience.

34

References

References and quotations may have been used more than once in this thesis, but

will only be mentioned once in this list.

WWW Pages, Articles and Journals

Last assessed November 2013, http://www.wwf.org.uk, WWW page

Last assessed July 2013, http://www.montanatrappers.org, WWW page

Last assessed July 2013, http://www.lib.niu.edu/2004/iht1110429.html, WWW

page

Last assessed November 2013, http://www.wearefur.com/our-trade, WWW page

Last assessed October 2013,

http://www.rspca.org.uk/in-action/aboutus/-/article/EM_About_us, WWW page

Last assessed January 2014, http://www.peta.org, WWW page

1944, Anti campaign poster, PETA. Photograph Rex Features. The Guardian.

2012, Professor Christine Nicole, Free-range, University of Bristol, article, Daily Mail. 2013, Matt Blake, Chinese Fox farms, article, Daily Mail

Last assessed on November 2013, 2013, Anti-slavery, Cotton crimes,

http://antislavery.org/cotton

Last assessed on November 2013, 2008, Maria Burke, Green Couture, Article,

http://rsc.org. WWW page

2008, Maria Burke, Green Couture, Nature Works, Chemistry world.

Last assessed on June 2013, http://www.britishfur.co.uk/index.php/farmed-and-

wild-fur/farmed-and-wild-fur/, WWW page

Last assessed on January 2014, http://www.furisgreen.com/renewable.aspx,

WWW page

35

Appendix

36

37