The European Union is the world’s largest producer of factory farmed fur. Approximately 30 million mink, 2 million fox and 100,000 raccoon dogs are killed each year in EU fur factory farms (European Fur Breeders’ Association 2010 Annual Report)
According to a report entitled "The Welfare of animals kept for fur production" written for the EU Commission by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare-
"... current husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur, efforts should be made for all species to design housing systems which fullfill the needs of the animals."
What sort of "serious problems" are caused to fur farmed animals?
1. Most fur farmed species are ostensibly "wild" and as such are not habituated to being in close proximity to humans and to confinement in cages. In the case of mink they are solitary or territorial and their normal behaviour is therefore to be aggressive and agitated in the presence of other members of the same species! (A permanent state of stress).
2. To retain the pelt in a saleable condition - the animals are killed using either gassing or electrocution applied through an anal probe. Unfortunately - these methods (whilst protecting the value of the fur) are known to cause distress and suffering to the animals and the death is not immediate.
3. All intensive farming methods increase the risk of the spread of disease. When this risk is compounded by animal boredom, stress and distress - the incidence of disease is often unnaturally high.
4. Animals have been documented exhibiting stress behaviours including repeated rubbing against cage wire and even self-mutilation!
So what did the EU science group go on to recommend?
"The welfare of animals kept for fur production, like other subjects considered by the committee raises ethical issues. It is not within the aim of the present report to recommend whether or not continued fur farming is ethically acceptable."
Weasel words?
So to farm for the purpose of producing fur - animals are expressly and clearly known to suffer. Sentient beings are inevitably exposed to "serious problems" affecting their welfare!
To what end? Nothing more noble nor dignified than PROFIT and VANITY!
So how is this reconciled with a fundamental principle of the EU - namely, that animal are sentient and that full regard must be paid to their welfare? (Article 13 TFEU) What did the report say?
"According to the European Union Treaty of Amsterdam, farm animals that are kept for commercial purposes are considered as living and sentient, in the sense that they are able to experience pleasure and suffering. In order to safeguard welfare and avoid suffering, animals must be kept under conditions that respect their needs including those to show certain behaviours."
So are the welfare needs of animals being fully met and respected?
NO!
Is this state of affairs consistent with the great European Union envisaged by its citizens? The great trading block of peaceful, honest, decent, civilized and technologically advanced nations which have as a fundamental principle a respect for animal welfare?
Clearly not!
Or is this state of affairs consistent with a hijacked European project? An unintended grubby bureaucratic quango which is unaccountable, impenetrable - a monstrosity, hell-bent on maximising profit and which brushes-over the moral and ethical imperatives arising from its activities?
(You decide)
The petition this website is designed to promote is arguing that there is a serious gap in the present arrangements for protecting animal welfare within the EU. Will the post election changes in the personal-landscape of the EU remedy this deficit?
Will new leaders emerged who can exhibit great courage and moral leadership to remedy some of the more unconscionable transgressions against the welfare of animals and therefore which demean our very humanity?
The various reports referred to can be accessed here:
http://www.efba.eu/download/annual_report/2010/index.html
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/international/out67_en.pdf
According to a report entitled "The Welfare of animals kept for fur production" written for the EU Commission by the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare-
"... current husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur, efforts should be made for all species to design housing systems which fullfill the needs of the animals."
What sort of "serious problems" are caused to fur farmed animals?
1. Most fur farmed species are ostensibly "wild" and as such are not habituated to being in close proximity to humans and to confinement in cages. In the case of mink they are solitary or territorial and their normal behaviour is therefore to be aggressive and agitated in the presence of other members of the same species! (A permanent state of stress).
2. To retain the pelt in a saleable condition - the animals are killed using either gassing or electrocution applied through an anal probe. Unfortunately - these methods (whilst protecting the value of the fur) are known to cause distress and suffering to the animals and the death is not immediate.
3. All intensive farming methods increase the risk of the spread of disease. When this risk is compounded by animal boredom, stress and distress - the incidence of disease is often unnaturally high.
4. Animals have been documented exhibiting stress behaviours including repeated rubbing against cage wire and even self-mutilation!
So what did the EU science group go on to recommend?
"The welfare of animals kept for fur production, like other subjects considered by the committee raises ethical issues. It is not within the aim of the present report to recommend whether or not continued fur farming is ethically acceptable."
Weasel words?
So to farm for the purpose of producing fur - animals are expressly and clearly known to suffer. Sentient beings are inevitably exposed to "serious problems" affecting their welfare!
To what end? Nothing more noble nor dignified than PROFIT and VANITY!
So how is this reconciled with a fundamental principle of the EU - namely, that animal are sentient and that full regard must be paid to their welfare? (Article 13 TFEU) What did the report say?
"According to the European Union Treaty of Amsterdam, farm animals that are kept for commercial purposes are considered as living and sentient, in the sense that they are able to experience pleasure and suffering. In order to safeguard welfare and avoid suffering, animals must be kept under conditions that respect their needs including those to show certain behaviours."
So are the welfare needs of animals being fully met and respected?
NO!
Is this state of affairs consistent with the great European Union envisaged by its citizens? The great trading block of peaceful, honest, decent, civilized and technologically advanced nations which have as a fundamental principle a respect for animal welfare?
Clearly not!
Or is this state of affairs consistent with a hijacked European project? An unintended grubby bureaucratic quango which is unaccountable, impenetrable - a monstrosity, hell-bent on maximising profit and which brushes-over the moral and ethical imperatives arising from its activities?
(You decide)
The petition this website is designed to promote is arguing that there is a serious gap in the present arrangements for protecting animal welfare within the EU. Will the post election changes in the personal-landscape of the EU remedy this deficit?
Will new leaders emerged who can exhibit great courage and moral leadership to remedy some of the more unconscionable transgressions against the welfare of animals and therefore which demean our very humanity?
The various reports referred to can be accessed here:
http://www.efba.eu/download/annual_report/2010/index.html
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/international/out67_en.pdf