Grand national aftermath

[Scamperdale]

Pinza…

STOP TYPING THE ******* NAME ANIMAL AID!!!!

Don’t you get it?

By bringing them up EVERY TIME anyone discusses making jumps racing fairer or safer is true appeasement.

It is YOU who is appeasing them & not us. Racing will talk itself into an early grave when they give credence & attention to an organisation that has neither. If you’re totally & comprehensively resistant to change, you are as big a problem as any other special interest group.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see much disagreement between us on facts here, but plenty on interpretation. To clarify just one point, I certainly

don’t

think that the appeasers are out to satisfy Animal Aid – like you, everyone knows that cannot, and should not, be done.

The basis of my logic is that

not one concession to media pressures

(BBC emails and phone calls) or RSPCA

negotiated compromises

can be shown to have resulted in either (a) the

death of fewer horses

, (b) a more

accepting attitude

to use of the now completely harmless, padded whip, or (c) the

moderation of negative coverage when the bad things happen

, as they must – even if you knocked Becher’s (formerly Brook) down completely.

This is something your contention has to deal with. Has appeasement and compromise (the chip-chip-chipping) done any good? If not, when will the policy even start to bear fruit and quieten down the negative publicists from all quarters?

What

can

be demonstrably shown is that the coverage is gradually getting

more, not less, negative in tone

and more combative even on "unbiased" BBC news programmes and websites. What can also be shown is that

more and more true fans and indeed punters are progressively turning away from this race

, sickened by what they see, given the maudlin tone of the broadcasters and the defensive tone of the appeasers, such as Ms Balding and (now, sadly) Mr McGrath.

[Miss Woodford]

The RSPCA isn’t some fringe group, though. It has credibility, probably more credibility with the general public than the BHA. It’s wise to ignore groups like PETA and SHARK (the loony anti-rodeo people) because their supporters are few and far between, but it would be foolish to cast aside everything that a respected animal welfare (not animal rights) organization says.

The biggest issue with the National isn’t the jumps, anyway. It’s the size of the field. That’s what makes me cringe watching it. A more stringent vetting and entry process (if a horse is a chronic faller/DNF-er, if a horse is obviously noncompetitive with the field at large) would do quite a bit to ease worries while maintaining the "sanctity" of the big race.

[andyod]

I agree with the post about the size of the field.The quality of jumpers needs to be established before the race and not during the race. As for the difficulty of the race, it hardly competes with Day Two(cross country, where the fences are intentionally made difficult.) of the Three Day Event in the Olympics.

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

The RSPCA hasn’t the credibility it once had because of recent campaigns targeting hunting, foxhunting and greyhound racing. If it now targets racing too it will marginalise itself even more.

I used to give to the RSPCA – but as soon as they targeted the fur trade that was me finished with them. For them to criticise a very well regulated industry and produce no evidence of any worth that cruelty was a factor I believe cost them a great deal of support. Similar with the foxhunting issue. What they failed to realise is that many people who support fur and foxhunting do so for valid conservation reasons and knowledge.They thought they could jump on a bandwagon and it has backfired as the public themselves have become more educated. The result was that actually they have lost the support of many people who care passionately about animals. I wonder how many very affluent South Kensington lady supporters who would regard themsleves as animal lovers they alienated over those two issues alone!!

The same is true of racing. I imagine a great many people who support Racing give to the RSPCA. If the organisation calls for a ban they will lose that support too.

So they have to work with these industries and sports to maintain validity and support unless they want to become another lunatic fringe Animal Aid.

The ‘appeasers’ are unfamiliar with this; and worry unecessarily.

The fur trade has not been damaged at all by the RSPCA campaign – quite the contrary. Virtually every design house of note now uses fur and sales and prices are at an all time high. The animal rights industry managed for a while to sustain the myth that fur farming and hunting were cruel – however it was evident for anyone who looked into it that this was not the case and that the propaganda was not only false; but fraudulent. The various you tube videos have been debunked. It made the RSPCA look silly. In addition the truth is that only animal produce is sustainable in the long term for clothing: much touted alternatives have been extremely eco damaging; even cotton. The public are becoming gradually aware of these things.

A smiliar thing with the foxhunting debate. The public switched their opinion; and in some cases the campaign of education by the Countryside Alliance and independent Conservationists like Dr David Bellamy even resulted in high level defections even among the League Against Cruel sports hierarchy.

Added to this is the general growing anger among the public about political correctness and ‘concern’ for animals being a ‘dollar farming excercise’.

So I think animal welfare groups have to walk a very careful line – I can imagine they feel they need to take the initiative from the animal rights groups on ‘issues’ that they raise but if they do they will become as marginalised.

There is no appeasing those that cross that line; and racing should not be afraid of standing fast. Listen to the RSPCA yes but if they for example pursue a ban the whip line then what is needed is an education campaign and to confront the irrational nature of the ban camp argument.

On this issue we need to know what Mr McGrath means – as I said if he is meaning – as an example – that the Chair is not easy but fair then he may have a point; but we need clarification.

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

Pinza…

STOP TYPING THE [expletive] NAME ANIMAL AID!!!!

Don’t you get it?

By bringing them up EVERY TIME anyone discusses making jumps racing fairer or safer is true appeasement.

It is YOU who is appeasing them & not us. Racing will talk itself into an early grave when they give credence & attention to an organisation that has neither. If you’re totally & comprehensively resistant to change, you are as big a problem as any other special interest group.

I have some sympathy with this line.

However I think if it had been taken completely we would have allowed people to believe the media line that they are an animal welfare group: they are not. We need to inform people what they actually are and what animal rights ideology is; and start asking serious questions of the RSPCA on which line they stand. A massive organisation like the RSPCA with £100 milion turnover and many seriously tragic animal abuse cases; animals needing rehoming and wild animlas needing care etc etc should not be spending so much time and money discussing a padded whip and if they do they are going to find that people are going to be asking questions about the amount of animals they destroy annually who people think they are rehoming with their huge budget.

So firstly we need to show what Animal Aid are; before we can dismiss them the public have to; and they will if we show for example what they actually spend their money on. I am not an accountant but wouldn’t mind a few of you are good with this sort of thing:
http://gallery.myff.org/gallery/1105567 … 445744.pdf

Now I imagine when people buy stuff from them of give money to their collections they imagine they are supoorting a shelter for abused animals rather than a company which appears to spend little if anything on animal welfare and lots on wages and campaigns.

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

Eliza

, having been working away in Germany I missed the opening salvoes of this thread. I’d just like to thank you for your intelligent and firmly logical posts on the subject, in the face of some surprising anger, condescension and near-personal abuse which certain posters (who ought to know better) have visited on you.

It is time that the appeasers were brought to a full realisation of what they were doing, and whose agenda they were helping to further – because as you’ve so cogently pointed out, it sure ain’t Racing’s.

Education is only part of the answer. Animal Aid and their fellow travellers need to be ruthlessly exposed for what they are, by all available media means. The RSPCA’s depressingly mealy-mouthed political trimming also needs to be addressed urgently.

Lastly – and most importantly – we need to get out more and learn exactly what the rest of the civilised world thinks of the way our administrators bend like wet reeds before the wind of animal sentimentality.

The old British arrogance that goes along with

"Fog in the channel. Continent cut off"

is still very much in place. We need to realise that we are, quite simply, out of step with the rest of the world.

We are morally wrong to take the appeasing line we do.

Thank you!
However; I think it was just that Paul was a little suspicious because the ‘merry banter’ of my blog contrasts with the rather more serious subject matter we discuss here so he assumed I had been ‘given’ BHA lines to regurgitate. Now he is aware I have in a ‘previous existence’ (ha ha) been involved in editoral contribution at a prestigious learned society journal. So here you get ‘professional Eliza’; a role I adopt from time to time when people mistake me for a ‘silly little model’ simply because I let my ‘fun’ self do the lovetheraces blog!!

Yes we are out of step with the rest of the world. It is partly because we do ‘love’ animals; partly because of very very poor journalistic standards here; and partly because of rather more sinister forces at foot.

In many nations horses are regarded as work and meat animals. They are after all just ungulates like cows. So I find it quite bizarre the way we elevate dogs and cats and horses to somehow above animals like cows and pigs. Of the lot possibly pigs are the most intelligent. A similar irrational class system exists among rats and coypu for example. One we kill as a nuisance and don’t even use its skin or meat; and the other we use for meat and fur and yet people have a frilly about it. It is completely irrational. But we British have a tendency to do that when it come to animals. As far as horses go; we should be proud that racing offers animals the highest standards of husbandry anywhere in the world; at a time when millions of children are starving.

When I was press officer at the RGS I found it very frustrating to deal with some journalists. A very important contribution to human knowledge they didn’t care a hoot about; Micheal Palin on the other hand got us enormous press! far too complicated for them to explain habitat destruction on a massive scale; or the plight of an indigenous people, but a cuddly animal story always gets attention. The red tops were naturally the worst generally though not exclusively. Without a shadow of a doubt the Telegraph has the best standard of jourmalism. What we are suffering from re racing is not one journalist could check out who Animal Aid are. They all believed their line that they are a welfare organisation and printed it. Similarly with the fur farm ‘skinning alive videos’ – these have all proved fake or worse yet do we get journalistic follow up?

However perhaps all journalism isn’t simply lazy. Animal Rights and welfare oprganistaions have huge budgets for advertising in the media. After all; they can’t afford to spend money on caring for animals; can they?
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Note how their adoption rates have dropped dramtically and their kill rates risen. Had huge money for advertising though don’t they?

If the press run a story and quote an animal rights group they get advertising revenue; or quote them in that hope or as acknowledgment for previous placement.

Furthermore there is the cold hard fact that creating folk devils and moral panic sells papers.

In the rest of the world though; PETA, IFAW, Animal Aid and the like have little credence and are regularly the subject of exposes – including by Penn and Teller for example.

What we as inividuals and racing in general should be doing is refocussing public and media attention wherever we can on exposing the ‘animal rights’ industry for what it is on one hand; dealing with genuine abuse cases seriously (which the BHA are to may peoples shock rather harshly recently) on another; and on a third educating the public to the fabulous standard of care in general that racing gives to horses. This is exactly the course taken by other industries and people attacked by them especically outside the UK; to great effect.

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

The RSPCA isn’t some fringe group, though. It has credibility, probably more credibility with the general public than the BHA. It’s wise to ignore groups like PETA and SHARK (the loony anti-rodeo people) because their supporters are few and far between, but it would be foolish to cast aside everything that a respected animal welfare (not animal rights) organization says.

The biggest issue with the National isn’t the jumps, anyway. It’s the size of the field. That’s what makes me cringe watching it. A more stringent vetting and entry process (if a horse is a chronic faller/DNF-er, if a horse is obviously noncompetitive with the field at large) would do quite a bit to ease worries while maintaining the "sanctity" of the big race.

I may be talking nonsense here as I am not that familiar with it; but it at least appeared to me as if the national fences this year were narrower to allow for the ‘escape chutes’ etc. So doesn’t this concentrate the runners more tightly? I am asking was a measure introduced on RSPCA advice therefore arguably not party repsonsible for the casualties?

The amount of runners is what makes it a great spectacle and betting event with the general public. Would it not be sensible to make the fences wider and the runners therefore less likely to impede each other?

[Anonymous]

… but it at least appeared to me as if the national fences this year were narrower to allow for the ‘escape chutes’ etc. So doesn’t this concentrate the runners more tightly? I am asking was a measure introduced on RSPCA advice therefore arguably not party repsonsible for the casualties?

The amount of runners is what makes it a great spectacle and betting event with the general public. Would it not be sensible to make the fences wider and the runners therefore less likely to impede each other?

I think you are quite right. The "escape chutes" compress the field and make the fences more, not less, dangerous. They are a double disaster, as in allowing the field to go round fences they only serve to highlight the injury of horses and jockeys on the first circuit.

It is highly likely that – if these chutes aren’t removed – there will

never

be another race over the full 30 fences.

You are also spot on with your idea as to what makes the race a great spectacle. The race was reduced to a maximum field of 40 many years ago now, and there is no evidence I’ve seen which indicates that the limiting of field size has reduced the danger of the race – because the fences are more inviting, nobody much "hunts round the outside" any more, and so most runners congregate on that dangerous inner rail.

No. Reduce it further and you might as well do away with the race: it won’t be the Grand National any more, but a rather exclusive, limited handicap chase. And it will be just as "dangerous".

[Miss Woodford]

… but it at least appeared to me as if the national fences this year were narrower to allow for the ‘escape chutes’ etc. So doesn’t this concentrate the runners more tightly? I am asking was a measure introduced on RSPCA advice therefore arguably not party repsonsible for the casualties?

The amount of runners is what makes it a great spectacle and betting event with the general public. Would it not be sensible to make the fences wider and the runners therefore less likely to impede each other?

I think you are quite right. The "escape chutes" compress the field and make the fences more, not less, dangerous. They are a double disaster, as in allowing the field to go round fences they only serve to highlight the injury of horses and jockeys on the first circuit.

It is highly likely that – if these chutes aren’t removed – there will

never

be another race over the full 30 fences.

You are also spot on with your idea as to what makes the race a great spectacle. The race was reduced to a maximum field of 40 many years ago now, and there is no evidence I’ve seen which indicates that the limiting of field size has reduced the danger of the race – because the fences are more inviting, nobody much "hunts round the outside" any more, and so most runners congregate on that dangerous inner rail.

No. Reduce it further and you might as well do away with the race: it won’t be the Grand National any more, but a rather exclusive, limited handicap chase. And it will be just as "dangerous".

Is the race any less exciting with 30 horses rather than 40? Are there even 40 horses in all of the British Isles truly worthy of running in the Grand National?

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

… but it at least appeared to me as if the national fences this year were narrower to allow for the ‘escape chutes’ etc. So doesn’t this concentrate the runners more tightly? I am asking was a measure introduced on RSPCA advice therefore arguably not party repsonsible for the casualties?

The amount of runners is what makes it a great spectacle and betting event with the general public. Would it not be sensible to make the fences wider and the runners therefore less likely to impede each other?

I think you are quite right. The "escape chutes" compress the field and make the fences more, not less, dangerous. They are a double disaster, as in allowing the field to go round fences they only serve to highlight the injury of horses and jockeys on the first circuit.

It is highly likely that – if these chutes aren’t removed – there will

never

be another race over the full 30 fences.

You are also spot on with your idea as to what makes the race a great spectacle. The race was reduced to a maximum field of 40 many years ago now, and there is no evidence I’ve seen which indicates that the limiting of field size has reduced the danger of the race – because the fences are more inviting, nobody much "hunts round the outside" any more, and so most runners congregate on that dangerous inner rail.

No. Reduce it further and you might as well do away with the race: it won’t be the Grand National any more, but a rather exclusive, limited handicap chase. And it will be just as "dangerous".

Is the race any less exciting with 30 horses rather than 40? Are there even 40 horses in all of the British Isles truly worthy of running in the Grand National?

Depends on the handicap. Problem is if they make the race ‘easier’ we may have Denmans etc running in it putting many horses out of the handicap. And in some cases they would not be suited to the fences. Quite often the best horses are not necessarily the Aintree specialists. Whereas for example Black Apalachi who I followed was amazing over the national fences. Would many have said Mon Mone was good enough to run in it? I think to be honest there would be hundreds of horses capable of running in it in the UK but won’t get in because of the handicap. Every year I see something I think has a chance and know it is doubtful it will get in.

[Kenh]

The RSPCA hasn’t the credibility it once had because of recent campaigns targeting hunting, foxhunting and greyhound racing. If it now targets racing too it will marginalise itself even more.

What evidence is there to show they have lost credibility ? Maybe in the in the ‘let’s put on our fur coats and then go out to chase a fox for miles’ world, but certainly not in the world that most of us live in.

Similar with the foxhunting issue. What they failed to realise is that many people who support fur and foxhunting do so for valid conservation reasons and knowledge.

Thanks for putting me straight on that one. For some silly reason I thought they did it for vanity and fun

.

[% MAN]

Eliza

, having been working away in Germany I missed the opening salvoes of this thread. I’d just like to thank you for your intelligent and firmly logical posts on the subject, in the face of some surprising anger, condescension and near-personal abuse which certain posters (who ought to know better) have visited on you.

I appreciate it is a work of fiction but

Matthew 7:1

and

John 8:7

[Anonymous]

I appreciate it is a work of fiction but
Matthew 7:1
and
John 8:7

Contrariwise …

1 Corinthians 16:13

[Venture to Cognac]

Eliza/Pinza,

good to see some have a handle on this issue. That it should remain a 40 runner race is not up for debate. Of course it should. End of.

Sadly, I think that they will
reduce the numbers, for no reason other than, those making the decision will struggle to come up with any other solution to the safety issue, and it’s the easy/lazy way out. I hope I’m proved wrong on this……..I very much doubt it though.

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

The RSPCA hasn’t the credibility it once had because of recent campaigns targeting hunting, foxhunting and greyhound racing. If it now targets racing too it will marginalise itself even more.

What evidence is there to show they have lost credibility ? Maybe in the in the ‘let’s put on our fur coats and then go out to chase a fox for miles’ world, but certainly not in the world that most of us live in.

Similar with the foxhunting issue. What they failed to realise is that many people who support fur and foxhunting do so for valid conservation reasons and knowledge.

Thanks for putting me straight on that one. For some silly reason I thought they did it for vanity and fun

.

Of course you are entitled to ask me for evidence.

Okay; first you should know that I used to work at the RGS so know more than a little about Conservation. Virtually the next office to Dr Bellamy in fact.

Yesterday it was reported that the EEC CAP in converting farmland to intensive arable farming has been a bit of a disaster for our birds. Particularly partridge, linnets, and woodpeckers etc. The red squirrel and otter are also UK animals that have suffered at least partly because of intensive arable farming and urban development.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … on-decline

The ‘Hunting shooting and fishing’ fraternity by contrast – though you seemed to view them with some contempt – have preserved natural habitat for these birds and many other animals:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nting.html

Now I have shown the Conservation benefits of hunting (and it generally applies the world over to hunting in many forms – which conserve everywhere from tropical rainforest to big game hunting on savannah to boreal forest; and are being accepted even by organisations such as the WWF) what about public opinion?

Well it takes time for the public to become educated. Various prejudices; poor media and folk devils and moral panics I have explained are a barrier. However with foxhunting; it was traditionally generally around 80% of the public were against hunting. However; the efforts of both Conservationists and the Hunting fraternity and organisations such as the Countryside Alliance have presented a very good case; and most recent polls suggest the tide against hunting was already swinging before the ban. 59% at the time of the ban. Since the ban; in polls consistently the split has been around 50-50. The only ones that have differed from this were those commissioned by IFAW – an animal rights group; in which foxhunting was listed alongside bear baiting. So hardly objective.

However it is the defections by those who were active at top level in the League Against Cruel Sports that merit the most attention here. It demonstrates that informed opinion is what actually matters; and those who fought for a ban did so from a point of view that was not informed; and changed it when confronted with overwhelming evidence:
“I have come to despise the League Against Cruel Sports, even though I was its Chairman and Chief Executive…”(Richard Course)
“What is often missing from the argument is a willingness to look at the full picture and to discuss the repercussions of a ban. One thing is certain: if hunting with dogs is to be proscribed, other methods to kill foxes currently in use will take its place. These methods are not all preferable to hunting as far as the suffering of animals is concerned and some will be harder, if not impossible, to bring to account.” James Barrington; former director League against Cruel Sports.
“I am aware that few of the total number of foxes killed each year are, in fact, accounted for by hunting with hounds, but that doesn’t make it any less a reasonable method of control. Compared with shooting, gassing and trapping – which are often indiscriminate, often inefficient and clearly detrimental to other wildlife – give me hunting any day.” Mark Halford LACS member and Hunt Saboteur Association member) Daily Telegraph – 8th April 2000)
“Take away hunting and the management system will break down. Over the years, and many meetings with landowners and others, I have come to the conclusion that in the event of a total hunt ban, the deer population will be decimated. This view is shared by many, including some who remain independent on the hunting issue.”Graham Sirl; west country head of LACS

I could go on; but there are many. So it is perhaps indicative that ‘informed’ opinion has shifted.
As I said I know Dr David Bellamy and his Conservation Organisation were very adamant about this:
"While we have hunting, shooting and fishing interests in this country, we will have better landscape management. Without these interests, Britain would become a prairie landscape." Dr Bellamy
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p … 029-08.htm

But perhaps the best indicator was Tony Blair himself:
"I think yes on balance it was in the end. It’s not that I particularly like hunting or have ever engaged in it or would. I didn’t quite understand, and I reproach myself for this, that for a group of people in our society in the countryside this was a fundamental part of their way of life."
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftw … lishe.html
The point that Blair makes is an important one in the context of the issue I have raised in regards to the RSPCA. In a way; it does not matter what public opinion says. What does matter; is what public opinion is in areas or with people to whom it is a major priority. So – Monmouthshire, parts of Wales and Gloucestershire were in Labour hands before the hunting ban. Now the switch to conservative has been dramatic and the hunting issue was a major factor. Likewise; the RSPCA taking up a ban position may have got them a few supporters in urban areas but it will have lost them a great deal of support from people in the countryside to whom Conservation and animal husbandry is important; and to whom the desire to offer a good home to animals is important. Greyhound rescue for example would never alienate people in this way. The RSPCA cannot continue to alienate people and retain credibility. Furthermore; the spending of Millions of their budget on propaganda against hunting at a time when they are themselves destroying thousands of animals a year (presumably because they cannot afford their keep and cannot find them homes) is hardly defensible. I am sure any real animal lover would prefer they used the money to keep abandoned animals rather than euthanize.

So I hope that answered your question re hunting. I don’t hunt or shoot myself btw but was brought up in the Forest of Dean ; and know Monmouthshire well too; and have seen directly the results of habitat protection for many animals as a consequence of hunting shooting and fishing interests.

Now for fur.
Once again I speak from intimate knowledge. The first time I bought fur for myself was not for fashion reasons. My specialist area of interest is Geography and Palaeoclimatology so have spent much time in glaciated and arctic regions. My first fur item was opossum ear muffs – essential for the glaciers in NZ and it is the produce of indigenous Maori; and it is an animal that has to be culled anyway for Conservation reasons. It has now expanded into a major fashion industry with sound eco basis:
http://www.tve.org/earthreport/archive/doc.cfm?aid=1416

Secondly I encountered the Sami; the nomadic peoples of northern Scandinavia and Russia whose way of life protects the boreal forest. They herd reindeer and hunt and farm foxes etc for fur. I have bought reindeer and fox fur from them ; once again for practical and ecological reasons; and secondly because I began to feel more than faintly ashamed of western prejudice against the fur produce of indigenous and rural peoples in these areas who do such a fabulous job in conservation terms while we reject fur but our record on conservation and green issues is so appalling. All over the planet we destroy forest and produce oil to fuel our relentless consumerism; yet reject what these areas produce naturally. This has a devastating effect not only on the animals and habitat; but also on the cultures of the people. I will cite Inuit rock star Lucie Idlout:
http://dancooper.tv/fashionfinds_1999/j … lout_2.htm
If you are in any doubt of the Conservation benefits of fur produce I suggest you look at the campaign of Paula Lishman the head of the Fur Council of Canada. Paula is married to the famous Conservationist Wiliam Lishman. Here is their website which includes both their Conservation work, work with indigenous peoples and Paula’s fashion work. Their daughter I believe is an ecologist.
http://www.williamlishman.com/flight_with_birds.htm

and now Paula’s FCC campaign:
http://www.furisgreen.com/furisgreen.aspx
Of course; while most of the ‘informed’ public are now of the opinion that indigenous people have the right to trade their fur and acknowledge that habitat protection is the result of fur producing economies from the Arctic to South America ; there was still the worry about the welfare standards of fur farming. Before I go into that; I must remind those who eat meat that while there is some illogical idea floating around that it is ok ethically to kill for meat but not for fur; that it is NOT essential to eat meat. Many people do not. We eat meat because we enjoy it; and, we wear fur yes partly to keep warm but partly because we enjoy it. The animal does not object if you kill for pelt but is ok if you kill for meat! We like the taste of meat and the look of fur. However; if there is an ethical difference ; while meat only gives us energy for a few hours; a fur can conserve energy for decades; even generations; reducing our need for burning fossil fuels.

So a fur coat can last a long time; can be recycled, and is eventually biodegradable. Clothing made from cotton by contrast has been extremely ecologically destructive; turning the Aral sea into desert and destroying a whole eco system:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … 9-2008.jpg
Clothing made from synthetics means petro chemicals. They are eco destructive the whole way along the line from oil extraction to transports to refining to clothing production to their mass marketing as ‘disposable’ (because they are cheap and non repairable) to ending up in landfills.
However; as I have said people worried about welfare standards in fur farming. What we didn’t know, was that the ‘shock’ videos that were being produced and spread by manipulating naive youngsters on you tube were in fact fraudulent. Courts of Law regularly exposed them but we didn’t get to hear about it.
The anti fur propaganda was not only false and misleading it was fraudulently produced; sometimes with the collusion of animal rights groups:
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm

All those are independently verifiable btw; and anybody who believes a fur farmer would stack one animal in a cage on top of another because he sees such a video on you tube – well naive isn’t the word. The one animal would urinate on top of the other ruining the pelt. These videos are staged; obviously to anyone who has experience of animal husbandry. What we need is independent verification on fur farm husbandry and we have it now. The original report is not online and had been extensively ‘doctored for political end’ according to the welfare scientists and their report and strong complaint is online:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scah/out74_en.pdf

If you read from page 5/6 you will see that they point out that fur farm welfare is good and exemplary in some respects. For example the way mink are weaned. Fur farm animals also have to have ‘adequate stimulation’ (they are played with by their handlers and have balls and poles and water areas etc on many farms (though they point out that actually there is no evidence as yet that domesticated mink actually require water courses). Now the credentials of the welfare scientists involved are second to none, The world’s experts in the effects of animal captivity of their behaviour for example. So; you can carry on believing crass and suspect propaganda, or you can believe the world’s top scientists in the field (frequently cited by animal rights groups on many issues when it suits them) .

As a result of all this the case against fur fell apart. It is an infinitely renewable resource; in some cases the animals have to be culled for sound eco reasons (possums, rabbits –possibly soon grey squirrel – and coypu); the welfare on farms is actually very good; the propaganda turned out to be false; in many cases the meat is eaten (coypu, rabbit, reindeer, seal, beaver; alpaca and of course sheep/mouton etc) anyway; the siting of farms actually fulfils a good ecological role (often next to chicken farms and fisheries therefore using non human consumption otherwise wasted feed); hunting as a human economic activity protects boreal forest; indigenous peoples profit and their culture is maintained; use of fur is very pratcical (essential where I will be working soon) in cold climates and discourages use of fossil fuels; etc etc.
This is accepted by the IUCN and fur producers are an integral part of Conservation strategy. In Canada for example; Cree fashion designer D’arcy Moses advises the WWF and traps his own beaver. Saskatchewan is a haven for beaver and bio diversity as a direct consequence; in a continent that many urban and crop producing areas have wiped them out as a pest.
http://assets.wwf.ca/downloads/wwf_mack … gtojrp.pdf

The result is now that over 400 Fashion Houses use fur. In Europe it was never a serious issue; but now especially as Eastern Europe has opened up , and more people have travelled and seen for themselves how fur is produced, the objection to it has fallen away even in the UK and it has graced the catwalks of London fashion week ever since. In London in particular you will see fur everywhere during the winter. In the late ‘80s 75% of women in UK and US polls said they would not wear fur. Now that trend is again around 50-50. But significantly the increases in fur sales and prices are climbing to record highs since 2000 and holding up despite recession:

http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF03d.htm
http://www.furcommission.com/farming/statistics.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= … fer=europe
http://www.iftf.com/press-release/1/glo … ility.html

So that represents evidence that fur sales are on the up. So were the RSPCA right to ostracize the whole fashion industry and many of their own supporters by taking up an anti position based on irrational grounds? Some may argue yes; some may argue they should do it to racing; but they can’t keep doing it without damaging their own support base. Certainly; the fur trade has not been damaged in the slightest by their campaign.

Now. I will endeavour to show you what wearing fur actually involves and costs from a personal perspective by linking my own blog:
http://www.lovetheraces.com/voices-of-t … e_tab=blog

You will note that my coat is made from sheared beaver. This was produced in Canada in the 1940’s so is already 70 years old and still looks beautiful. The meat will have been eaten by the Cree who trapped it. Beaver meat has been an important part of their diet for centuries and is very good. The beaver fur trade has given the Cree a degree of wealth and autonomy not enjoyed by their US counterparts. They have a degree of autonomous rule in the breathtaking wilderness of Saskatchewan today; and you saw how they responded to our Royal family; they regard the Queen and Price Charles as their chiefs and share an interest in conservation with the Prince. They still produce most of the Beaver fur in Canada. Beaver cannot be farmed: they do not reproduce if they cannot dam. The fox fur sleeves are more contemporary and also produce of the region.
The fox hat worn by my former colleague at the RGS is also fox and is the produce of the tribes of Siberia where she has travelled. There is no more stark example anywhere in the world of how an indigenous people are attempting to defend their forests and tundra and reindeer and fox and sable against development for non renewable resources to satisfy western demand:
http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publica … gas-develo

So I hope you appreciate the time I have taken to bring you the evidence you asked for and perhaps you will re evaluate your opinion about those who hunt and wear fur. It may not be currently appreciated by those in ‘your world’ but in my world ( professional Geographers, Conservationsists, Anthropologists, Fashion professionals, etc) it is; and if we want to protect the habitat of animals for the future it is going to have to be a future based on sustainability and habitat protection. And while many of the things we consume in ‘our world’ we take for granted are not sustainable; the hard fact is that fur is an infinitely renewable resource and has been for tens of thousands of years of human history – rabbit mink fox and reindeer are all still with us in abundance. And the RSPCA and those who truly care about animals are going to have to acknowledge that at some point. Campaigning for good welfare – whether directed at horse racing on fur trade – they have to acknowledge that if the welfare is good then they have no remit to call for bans x

[ElizaVoiceoftheRaces]

Eliza

, having been working away in Germany I missed the opening salvoes of this thread. I’d just like to thank you for your intelligent and firmly logical posts on the subject, in the face of some surprising anger, condescension and near-personal abuse which certain posters (who ought to know better) have visited on you.

I appreciate it is a work of fiction but

Matthew 7:1

and

John 8:7

Perhaps a very salient point re the RSPCA:

http://rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/2009 … s-for.html

They kill tens of thousands of animals a year needlessly; have they any right to criticise Racing?

[Author]

Posts