Atrocities of the Fur Industry. ~via Rebecca Grazulis

on Nov 16, 2009

Atrocities of the Fur Industry. ~via Rebecca Grazulis

I just can’t believe that people still wear fur.

On November 11^th, Sherri Shepherd came on stage on “The View” wearing a mink coat. She showed it off proudly, proclaiming that she had bought it from a charitable organization.

I suppose some people just don’t know what happens to any animal involved in the fur industry. And then, sadly, some people just don’t care. I don’t know which camp Ms. Shepherd is in, but I’m disgusted either way.

Eighty-five percent of fur skins used for human clothes come from factory farms. Minks are the most common animals found on fur farms, and they are packed in cages so small that they can only move a few feet in any direction. Living in such small spaces is particularly distressing to minks who, in the wild, may live on up to 2,500 acres of wetland. Not surprisingly, minks self-mutilate while in captivity, biting their skin, tails, and feet. They also pace endlessly, a coping mechanism and a sign of deep distress.

The methods used to kill not only minks but all animals on fur farms are especially gruesome because of the care taken to maintain the quality of the fur. There are either clamps attached to or rods forced into their mouths to electrocute them. Rods are sometimes forced into their anuses. Strychnine is used to poison them and paralyzes their muscles in the process. They could also potentially be gassed or have their necks broken.

Obviously, there are no federal humane slaughter laws.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg, but I hope it will encourage you to educate yourself on the fur industry. I like to remember what Gandhi said:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

Indeed.

Rebecca Grazulis is a Chicagoan, a vegetarian (yes, you can be both), a wanna-be yogi and a former high school English teacher in a period of career exploration. For more information, you can e-mail her or visit her website.

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and won #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive—and get your name/business/fave non-profit on every page of elephantjournal.com.

Chris Courtney says:

November 18, 2009 at 04:29

This is sick and sad.

Eco Mama says:

November 18, 2009 at 05:47

I'm right there with ya. Great post!
xo
Eco Mama

claireflannery says:

November 18, 2009 at 06:57

i firmly believe that wearing a fur is justifiable if it was manufactured in last 20-30+ years. During that time, wearing fur wasn't as big of a deal, the hunting of those animals was not looked down upon as they are today and it was commonplace. I know various people who own very vintage fur coats and wear them proudly, I also have had in my possession furs, and although today i wouldn't consider buying a "fresh mink", I think wearing fur can be justified depending on the date of manufacture.

Brittany says:

December 1, 2009 at 01:12

I don't know what the date of manufacturing really has to do with anything. There's some faulty logic there. If an 80 year old white man uses the "n word," is that okay because he grew up in a time when that's what people did? No. It might have been more accepted then, but that doesn't make it okay now because it's all he knows.