|
|
It's a sad paradox that the cruelest and most degrading way of trying to look beautiful is also the most self-defeating.For if one publicly walks down the street wearing the coat of an animal killed for its fur, then many people will shudder and recoil in disgust at the ugliness of the eyesore you create.
Today public knowledge of the frightful suffering which went into a fur-coat simply eclipses the glitziness its wearer hopes to convey.
Mink, for instance, are usually kept in cages that measure 12 inches wide by 18 inches long. On fur farms, about 17% of all mink die prematurely from the stress of confinement, bad sanitation summer heat, food poisoning, and other confinement-related illnesses.
The story of our trapped victims can be even ghastlier. Perhaps ten million animals world-wide die in traps that tear skin, rip tendons, and often break bones.
There is thus an air of pathos to the wearer of fur as well as to the victim of her vanity.
For in trying to make oneself appear more beautiful in the eyes of others, one has simply managed to appear distasteful instead.
Happily, there are far better ways of looking good - both to other people and to oneself.
Of course, if you pay someone enough for his wares, the vendor will feed your credulity and capacity for self-deception.
He may even claim you'll look beautiful by wearing them.
He won't tell you that most people will privately think "Yuk!" in your presence.
He won't tell you that the social elite whom you aspire to join only disdain your nouveau riche vulgarity.
He won't tell you how you are paying for a cruel deceit.
Fashion victims
Humans have always had an astonishing capacity to rationalise pure selfishness.
Yet there is something almost uniquely sordid about trying to glamorise a trade founded on frivolous cruelty for profit; and then denouncing anti-cruelty campaigners as immoral.
Perhaps some glimmering of self-insight into the horror of fur-production creeps into the language used by its perpetrators to defend it.
For Fur Online need to use tortured Orwellian doublespeak to try and justify the organised system of abuse from which they profit.
Animal welfare activists who try to protect the victims of human vanity and avarice are guilty of "fascism by attempting to impose their views on others". One rather drastic way of imposing one's views on others is to trap, incarcerate, kill and rob them of what is rightfully theirs.
The practice of barbarously trapping and murdering other sentient creatures for profit, however, has now become "a wildlife conservation tool".
Institutionalized cruelty is better conceptualised, we learn, as "a code of humane care."
Apparently the wearers of stolen fur coats are the sort of people whose "hearts go out to abandoned animal pets."
The lingering and horrific deaths of our trapped victims, meanwhile, get sanitised as "part of our ancient heritage." If taken as a serious exercise in ethical philosophy, then this defence of traditional cruelties would morally license slavery, bear-baiting and child-abuse.
Yet it's hard to know how best to argue with animal abusers whose sense of moral urgency extends no further than the issue of "How much money should I spend on a good fur coat?"
The answer, apparently, is "$2000 - $40 000".
Some more morally worthwhile ways for disposing of all that surplus cash do spring to mind.
***Animal Abusers Online
"Far from obsolete, leghold traps are used by over 80% of modern trappers. Though leghold traps are still the mainstay of trappers, there have been changes. Traps with toothed jaws are universally banned, and are obsolete anyway. The modern leghold trap has smooth jaws, and some states require "padded" jaws. All modern leghold traps have smooth, padded, jaws. More on this in the description.Old-fashioned traps used flat springs, either one or two, at each end of the jaws. These have been replaced with more modern coils springs. Coil springs are more reliable and maintain a steady pressure throughout the travel of the jaws. They also result in a faster closing trap.
Modern traps have adjustable tension "pans". This is the part the animal must step on to spring the trap. The idea is to prevent non-target animals from being trapped. This will work to keep, say, a skunk or small raccoon out of a trap intended for a larger animal, say a bobcat or coyote. It has little effect on smaller traps intended for mink, etc.
Also available is a "raccoon" trap. This small, leghold, trap is shaped like a box, about 2" square. The opening for the jaws is in the side. The animal must place it's paw inside the hole to be caught. This works for racccoons, because of their natural curiosity, but virtually eliminates non target animals. These are more expensive than standard leghold traps ($20 vs. $15 for raccoon size legholds)
The modern leghold trap has padded jaws, as mentioned above. This serves to protect the fur the trapper prizes and increase the grip on the animal's leg. Unlike smooth steel jaws, the rubber padded jaws have a surer grip, especially if wet. Swivels and shock absorbing springs allow the trap to twist with the animal as it struggles, and absorbs the shock as the animal tries to jerk its leg free. This results in less lost animals. The jaws are set deeper than old traps. The animal is not caught at the peak of the jaw swing, but past it. This mean the jaws are "rolled in " on its leg, making it more difficult for the animal to escape. Modern legholds are sold in 3 sizes, #1, #1-1/2, and #3. These sizes are for animals from mink to coyote in size. Prices range from $14 to $18 each, depending on size.
Although Conibear traps are used by some trappers, the modern leghold is still the state-of-the-art trapping device. Incidentally, conibear traps are not new, they have been available for over 25 years. Their initial appeal was that they would kill the animal before it had a chance to escape, particularly very compact powerful animals, like badger and wolverine, which were known to commonly struggle out of a trap. So the purpose of the conibear was never to be "kind" to the animal, rather to be more efficient to the trapper.
Another modern (also available for many years) is the box trap, typified by the "Havahart" traps. Though usually used by persons wishing to relocate nuisance animals, they are also sometimes used by trappers. These traps require bait of some sort, as the animal must be coaxed to enter the wire "box". Once inside, doors at either end close, and the animal is caught uninjured, though terrfied.
He can be relocated and released. Trappers after the fur typically submerged the entire trap in water to drown the animal. These are expensive traps, costing $33-55 each, so are not largely used by fur trappers.
Fur prices, and trapping, have declined in the last few years. Animal Rights Activists claim credit. Trappers blame a "poor" economy. A raccoon pelt which brought $30, 15 years ago, now brings $4-5. Fur buyers are more choosey. They no longer accept less than "prime" pelts, they no longer accept damaged pelts. Modern traps are made accordingly. Though they result in less damage to the animal, the purpose is to maximize profit, not any missplaced concern for the animal on the part of the trapper.
Modern trappers also depend heavily on "scents". Chemical "lures" to attract animals to the traps, and cover the trappers human smell. These may be made to smell like food, or sexual lures, designed to smell like the odor produced by a female animal in heat."
EnglandGal@aol.com
***
HEDWEB
Killing No More
by Melissa Wyatt
Does one need cruelty to be beautiful?HerbWeb
Animal Rights FAQ
Animal Liberation FAQ
The Post-Darwinian Transition
The Last Twisted Molecule on Earth
dave@bltc.com
