I really wanted to do a bunch of individual updates but, when I get behind from traveling as I did last week, the potential posts add up, especially since I also cross-post at Zaadz, CrueltyFree.com, and MySpace, all of which have their own individual time-consuming idiosyncrasies (I've given up on VeganMySpace and VegSpace for now, as they are even harder to work with, and I barely have time as it is). So, I'll post another digest and endeavor to get back into a more regular routine again. Thanks for your patience!

The Associated Press (by way of Forbes) neglects to tell readers that the EU's newly-banned cat and dog fur is morally indistinguishable from fur torn from the backs of other animals in EU Douses Cat and Dog Fur Trade.

Also from AP, this time by way of The Boston Globe, an Alaska man pleads guilty to illegally selling seal parts. The man, who once agreed to help "conserve" the "depleted" northern fur seals, if you can believe that, faces up to one year in prison and a $20,000 fine for illegally selling "more than 100 seal penises to a Korean gift shop in Anchorage, where they were to be resold for about $100 apiece in the traditional Chinese medicine trade."

Bernard Matthews, the British poultry processor that last year claimed it was committed to the "highest standards" of animal welfare, is back in the news for animal cruelty at one of its plants (Daily Mail: Bernard Matthews worker caught playing football with turkeys), further demonstrating that animals' welfare will never be assured so long as they are commodified. The story includes the damning photos and video.

From MSNBC.com: Japan kicks off whaling season along coast (WARNING: Disturbing photo of a dead whale being flensed at the top of the page). Japanese whalers, who at this year's International Whaling Commission conference found themselves under pressure for their continued whaling under the guise of science, make clear the attitude toward whales, saying that they should be managed like any other natural resource, rejecting anti-whaling arguments that the animals should be protected. This anthropocentric view of animals as natural resources must be countered prominently with the fact that these are sentient individuals suffering at the hands of the whalers, not "resources." If we are to live by our own humanitarian ethics, all sentient beings ought to be protected from such so-called harvesting.

A more positive article I dug up, from DentalPlans.com of all places, is called Taking Animals Out Of Laboratory Research. It originally appeared in Science Daily, which itself adapted a press release from the University of Nottingham, but it still bears reporting. While the piece does suggest that the immediate abolition of animal testing is not possible overnight--a self-perpetuating perspective I find particularly frustrating--it does bring with that message the good news that FRAME (Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) will be officially opening its new Alternatives Laboratory on July 6th:

Pioneering work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research — and ultimately remove them from laboratories altogether — has received a major boost at The University of Nottingham.

A laboratory devoted to finding effective alternatives to animal testing has been expanded and completely remodelled in a £240,000 overhaul designed to hasten the development of effective non-animal techniques.

Scientists hope that by developing the use of cell and tissue cultures, computer modelling, cell and molecular biology, epidemiology and other methods, they will one day be able to completely remove animals from medical research — while still maintaining crucial work to defeat diseases that affect millions of people.

While I'm encouraged to see efforts to end animal research, that day can't come soon enough for the nonhuman animals who shouldn't be kept in cages and experimented on for our own specious purposes in the first place.

Labels: animal experimentation, animal testing, companion animals, fur, pets, poultry, turkeys, whales, whaling, wildlife, wildlife trade

The Oregonian: Judge largely throws out suit against downtown fur protesters

A federal judge has largely thrown out a lawsuit against downtown Portland anti-fur protesters.

The civil rights suit by Schumacher Furs & Outerwear accused demonstrators and animal rights groups of using illegal protests to put the company out of business.

But U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman on Monday ruled that the protesters sued by Schumacher were engaging in constitutionally protected free speech.

'Nuff said.

Labels: animal law, fur

KGW.com | Business

Anti-fur protesters appear to have put the final nail in the coffin of Portland, Oregon's Schumacher Furs:

An embattled Portland fur retailer is closing his 112-year-old family business for good.

Greg Schumacher, of Schumacher Furs, moved out of their downtown Portland store after citing protesters’ harassment and intimidation.

The store was set to move to the Bridgeport Village shopping Center -- but Schumacher said Monday another anti-fur campaign against that mall resulted in several cancellations and that the store had no where to relocate.

In this quote, the article makes it sound like protesters actually harassed and intimidated Mr. Schumacher, but it's clear later in the article that the city's stance on the matter is that protesters did not in fact cross any legal boundaries in their free speech-protected demonstrations on public property outside the store.

I'm curious to see whether this successfully-waged weekly demonstration against a fur store will be repeated again in the near future. Of course, if we could convince people to stop wearing the skin of other animals, these stores wouldn't have any customers.

Labels: fashion, fur

The Oregonian: Fur store eviction: Go now, not later

According to The Oregonian, downtown Portland's Schumacher Furs received an eviction notice:

The store's owner had announced last month that he voluntarily would leave the 811 S.W. Morrison St. location for an undisclosed space in the suburbs by the spring.

Gregg Schumacher, owner of Schumacher Furs & Outerwear, said late Friday afternoon that he had just opened a certified letter from his landlord's attorney saying the fur store must leave by 1 p.m. Tuesday, the day after Christmas.

Schumacher claims he has done nothing to violate his lease agreement, and does not plan to move. Rather, the store is conducting an "evacuation sale," discounting its merchandise as he makes plans to "voluntarily" move from the location he has previously dissed:

This November, Schumacher said that he felt the city's core was unsafe and unfriendly, and that he would move his shop to the suburbs in the spring. At the time, he said he was under no landlord pressure to move.

A hearing on the eviction case is scheduled for 9 a.m. Thursday.

Labels: fashion, fur

The Independent | News | UK | This Britain

The Independent comes down hard on fur once again:

Despite investigations highlighting appalling conditions in some fur farms, furriers claim that the industry self-regulates successfully and operates within the law.

This conclusion is reached after an IoS investigator visited a mink fur "farm" (or "mink prison," more accurately), and witnessed the following:

At the farm near Oslo we found a collection of five long sheds about three yards wide and 50 yards long. The sheds were crammed with animals. Cages were stacked next to each other on each side with just a narrow walkway in the middle. The cages were tiny - about 18 by 40 inches - and did not have any bedding material, just an open mesh bottom.

Some of them had up to four animals in each one, maddening for animals such as mink, which are highly territorial. Mink in the wild like to roam along waterways, something they are unable to do in the confines of a cage. Furriers stress that the animals they farm are 200 generations removed from their wild ancestors.

While the place was called a farm, many are really more like animal warehouses, where the animals are there for one reason only - to be killed for their coats.

The floor below each row of cages was piled with excrement, up to half a yard deep in places. There was mess and rubbish everywhere. Cages were covered in old food and fur and the corrugated iron roof was rusting and full of holes.

The smell inside was nothing like a normal farm smell, bad enough to induce gagging. All around was the sound of mink biting on the bars of their cages, the same cages shaking. Any movement made the cage rattle and the animals claws scrape constantly on the bars that they perch on. Other animals jump around, repeating the same movements over and over again.

There was no evidence of food. The mink had water troughs but there had been a frost that morning and some of them were still frozen over.

Some of the animals just lay there; they'd had enough. In one dimly lit cage in a corner of the shed was a large mink. Hanging down from the wire mesh of the bottom of its cage was a mixture of rotting food, excrement and bits of fur.

The animal could barely move; it seemed to have resigned itself to its fate and lay still, its eyes swollen from the ammonia fumes from its urine and faeces and a large open wound on its head.

The piece then takes to task recent fur-wearers, including Madonna and Kate Moss.

The Independent notes that fur farming has been banned in Britain since 2003, but it is still legal to buy mink. The UK remains a significant importer and exporter of fur, according to the article. In fact, sales of fur clothing are up 30 per cent from two years ago.

Mark Glover, director of Respect for Animals, noted the irony: "The hypocrisy is perverse that, while the means of production are illegal, people are still able to buy and sell fur."

Following The Independent's campaign, the International Fur Trade Federation evidently announced plans to launch an "origin assured" label stating that the tagged fur comes from a country where standards governing fur production are in force.

As if that matters to the animals being held captive for their coats...

I'm still waiting for the first furrier to call the individuals trapped in these regulated facilities "happier minks."

Labels: fur

Here's some worthwhile stories from the past few days that I couldn't get to while working on Carnival of Empty Cages #5 and prepping for an interview I'm shooting on Monday (for a documentary I'm working on - more news on that at a later date):

Proving that popular culture can offer a (rare) hook into more meaningful discussions:

ABC News: 'Happy Feet' Not So Happy - Penguins Endangered by Melting Ice, Overfishing

Proving that the resurgence of fur is not going to go unchallenged...

Daily Mail | Femail: Fur is back...and the fashion industry should hang its head in shame

...nor is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act:

Green is the New Red: Activists Target U.S. Rep. Over “Eco-terrorism” Legislation—And Get Quick Results

Factory farm cruelty, though legal, is outraging the public, thanks to undercover video:

WKYC.com (NBC): Special Prosecutor investigates handling of pigs on northeast Ohio Hog Farm

And congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, vows to re-examine the (already rarely enforced) Humane Slaughter Act:

WKYC.com (NBC): Congressman reacts to pig farm story

Of course, as a vegan himself, he surely knows there's no such thing as humane slaughter, but is playing along to get something happening among his colleagues in Congress. As WKYC's program shows, no one wants to see animals treated the way they are in factory farms, and that means legislators have to pay attention.

WKYC's first news program airing the cruelty received tremendous response, and was acknowledged in the follow-up piece, proving the power of the well-placed letter. In fact, they referred viewers to their site, asking concerned citizens to send letters to Rep. Kucinich, so he could share them with other members of the House. Maybe you'll do the same.

Labels: AETA, animal cruelty, Dennis Kucinich, factory farming, fur, global warming, overfishing, penguins

KTVZ.com | Central Oregon's Local News

On top of a fresh victory (soon to be appealed), animal lovers have good cause to celebrate.

In the wake of an amazing Fur-Free Friday demonstration in downtown Portland, Schumacher Furs has announced that, after 112 years of business in the area, it will pull out of the city's core and may leave Portland altogether. Of course, this implies they will attempt to re-launch elsewhere, presumably somewhere a little less progressive, but that ruse will only work until no place is a comfortable haven for fur peddlers.

Finding a new place to call home might prove challenging, as Shumacher doesn't exactly make one feel the warm fuzzies. Between the sign posted on the inside of his store window (at left) to his insistence that the new "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act," signed by President Bush on Monday, be enforced against the picketers, the man who trafficks in animals' pelts has got a chip on his shoulder. I guess one reason he's leaving the city is what he sees as lack of support from the police department. But they've assigned an officer to every weekly protest and they've even made the occasional arrest! Rather, he calls the activists terrorists.

Having participated in the protest for a few hours during my October Portland visit, I can personally assure you that there was no trace of terrorism going on anywhere out front of the place (otherwise I'm sure a protester would have been arrested by the one of police officers hanging out nearby every Saturday). I tell you what I did witness, though. Schumacher himself got fairly confrontational with a guy in the protest group who appeared to be autistic and was thus a little more vocal than most of the other protesters, and this intimidation came from the same guy who claims in the story, "I do not feel safe coming in my own store." He's obviously just jumping on the AETA bandwagon, but even that train might leave town.

I just read a new story about a federal judge constraining George W. Bush's ability to designate groups as terrorists. One would hope this refers to the AETA, which he signed into law yesterday, but -- the courts taking as long as they do to catch up sometimes -- the decision comes as a rebuke for his post-September 11, 2001 executive order that blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed.

The judge argued the order was unconstitutionally vague, according to the ruling released Tuesday. I will hold out hope that this judge, or at least one cut from the same cloth, will knock down the AETA. It is just as vaguely worded, and certainly threatens our constitutional freedoms. Los Angeles-based Last Chance for Animals has vowed to fight the law.

Speaking of LCA and fur in the same post, this would be a good time to post one of the photos sent to me today by fellow activist Jan Smith, who participated in the organizations's Fur-Free Friday protest in Los Angeles. I had expressed my hopes that the L.A. event would have a great turn out, and I'm happy to say that I wasn't disappointed:

Activists who participate in demonstrations and protests are having a peaceful and meaningful impact, so give yourselves a pat on the back, and keep up the good work!

UPDATE: More on this story in Wednesday's The Oregonian (further proof of Schumacher's prickliness):

"We're leaving downtown Portland because we feel that it's losing its appeal for people to shop in" said Schumacher, 51, rattling off a list of what he called his customers' complaints. "The panhandling, the musicians on the street, the urination in the parking garages. Yes, the protests. But the whole place is not conducive to running a retail operation."

Officials from City Hall to the Portland Business Alliance, while making it clear they're sad to see downtown lose any merchant, particularly such a longtime institution, called Schumacher's claims, in effect, bunk.

They pointed to recent commitments by Macy's and Nordstrom to revitalize their downtown stores. More broadly, Schumacher's comments stand in stark contrast to what many view as a thriving downtown, from the recent maturing of the Pearl District to the start of a projected $2 billion South Waterfront district.

City Commissioner Randy Leonard, who said he'd offered to help Schumacher and his wife, Linda, after the protests started last November, recalled how quickly he came to regret the move.

"I honestly had never been involved in anything in which I felt like the folks I was trying to help did not want to be helped," Leonard said.

"The Schumachers carry at minimum -- at minimum -- equal responsibility for what happened outside their store," Leonard said. "I think the case could be made they did what they could to fan the flames at every opportunity."

Heh-heh. From the City Commissioner, no less. Schumacher clearly has issues of his own devising.

Labels: AETA, fur

Fur-Free Friday is a worldwide protest that has been going on for 20 years now, and yesterday was another big day of coordinated public protests against the multi-billion dollar fur industry (and what it stands for), on what is obviously one of the heaviest shopping days of the year.

Here's video from a large protest in Portland, OR, marking its one year anniversary protesting the Schumacher Fur Company. The furrier has been in business for over 100 years, but activists have been putting the pressure on, protesting the company every Saturday, culminating with this massive, encouraging protest. What a great site.

Capital News 9 in Albany features a link to video of a much smaller protest outside Beck Fur in Stuyvesant Plaza.

Perhaps twice that size was a group of PETA members and associates who picketed in front of Scottsdale Fashion Square, according to Tucson's KOLD-13 News.

All the hand-wringers will be relieved to learn that another Anti-Fur Protest Held Without Incident, according to San Diego's 10News. This one seems to have been twice again the size of the protest in Scottsdale, AZ.

There was a protest here in Los Angeles, too, but I don't have any word yet on how big it was, much less video or pictures. Perhaps some of my local readers will do me the honor of sending the info after chewing me out not personally being present. I hope it went great. Last Chance for Animals has been involved with coordinating Fur-Free Friday campaigns for 18 years, including this past Friday, so they have a strong tradition of getting the word out to local customers and retailers on this key day.

All these protests are rather important in letting compassionate consumers know that fur has been making a surreptitious comeback over the past decade, after a much-approved nadir seemed to rally the industry back stronger than ever, with $11 billion in fur sales in 2003, and £6.6 billion in 2005 (not sure what the exchange rate was back then, but right now that's over $12 billion).

UK's The Independent has a story, The fur trade: Bloody fashion, that examines this trend, finding it just as cruel as ever. In fact, at the end of the article, celebs from Nicole Richie, to Kate Moss, to Keira Knightley are singled out for their fashion cruelty, including Nicole's rabbit fur jacket, Kate's baby sealskin boots, and Keira's karakul lambskin coat,

One of the cruellest forms of fur, according to animal welfarists. Undercover investigations have documented how heavily pregnant ewes are killed and their unborn lambs removed for their coats. Newborn lambs are routinely killed after a few days, before their velvet-smooth coats have had a chance to uncurl.

How anyone can feel luxuriant and stylish while wearing the skins of these innocent creatures is so far beyond me. Even when I still ate animal flesh I couldn't fathom the atrocity of killing animals like these sheerly for the sake of "high" fashion. Special thanks to The Independent for sharing the real story behind this abominable fashion trend.

More info on the horrors of fur

Labels: fur

Edinburgh News | Scotsman.com

The first comment below the above-linked article has a point in saying "Time to think this through. Either the piggies are our cousins and we don't eat or wear them, or all animals are fair game." The rest of the comment is, of course, arguing that all animals are fair game, but I don't see us sliding back into that paradigm, much as "Johnny" wants us to.

I would like us to think things through, though. An EU-wide ban on the use of cat and dog fur products is certainly heartwarming news, but what of all the other animals caged and killed for such a superfluous luxury? People need to break down the distinctions between animals we see as pets and animals we exploit for food and clothing, and make that moral leap.

Labels: fur

Guardian Unlimited | Special Report | Animal Rights

Thrillingly, this piece manages to neither glamorize nor condone fur, while expending quite a few column inches on the topic, mainly focusing on efforts of activists against the fur industry, and how recently they've been losing that battle on the financial front (sales of fur globally rose from $9.1bn in 2000 to $11.7bn in 2004, according to the International Fur Trade Federation), despite some companies, like Polo Ralph Lauren dropping fur from their lines altogether. Even the fur highlighted in the photo that runs with the story makes fur look really unattractive. Well, maybe it's just me, but I can't see why anyone would want to wear that ugly, horrific item.

According to the Guardian's Special Report, the blame for this "return" of fur seems to rests on the 80s-style revival of wearing your wealth (bling-bling, anyone?), as well as the deep pockets of the fur industry, whose financial backing means many designers have become obliged to feature fur in their collections. Ah, the joy of selling one's soul...

In highlighting of the dilemma of fur in fashion, the report prominently features lifelong vegetarian Sadie Frost, with whom I am now smitten:

"Designers will keep designing it if the public want it, the public will keep buying it if the fashion icons are wearing it, and the fashion icons wear it because the designers make it. It's hard to know where to start."

*snip*

"As a designer [Frost co-owns the fashion label Frost French], I've become aware of how fur is often pushed on you to get financial breaks along the way. I know that a lot of designers who were having problems financially, which we certainly have, have cleared their debts by using fur, but I would have really failed if I'd done that."

The report also reminds us of Stella McCartney, who "has proven, against all odds, that it is possible to run a fashion label without using any animal byproducts at all." I think she was looking at some sort of cruelty-free silk or wool products, last I read, but I am so totally not up-to-the-minute on fashion that I couldn't be sure. I do know that the last time I walked by her storefront on Beverly Blvd. -- on the way to a disappointing vegan dinner at The Newsroom (skip the Oaxacan Tamales) -- all the clothes I could see through her windows looked awesome. And all were of course made without using fur, much less leather.

In comparison to these integrity-driven choice, fur wearers like Frost's best friend, Kate Moss, and former (briefly) anti-fur models like Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell come off looking pretty shallow and cruel.

I think the editors deserve praise for publishing this strongly critical report on fur.

UPDATE: BrandRepublic: Sadie Frost reveals all for Peta anti-fur campaign

Earnest singer/songwriter/guitarist Bryan Adams shot the photo you see on the left (at least until the paper archives this article). Hopefully that was digital and not film, since film contains animal products.

At any rate, not only does some of Mr. Adams' music rock (hey, they can't all be classics), but his outlook on animals has rocked for a long time now. The article quotes him as saying:

"I'm opposed to fur and any kind of use of animal products. I don't eat them and I don't wear them. I'm not for the killing of any creature, whether it be seals, cows, dogs or any animal. So anytime it comes to any kind of animal cruelty I'm totally against it."

How's that for definitive?

Labels: celebrities, fashion, fur

Arizona Daily Star (courtesy of The Seattle Times)

Another unpleasant reminder that furs are selling better than ever, despite the fact that it's still seen as something to hide:

After a few rough decades, fur is back. Spurred by a boom in demand from China and recent popularity at home thanks to glossy marketing, the price of American mink pelts jumped 33 percent just last year.

This trade takes place largely out of view, in a heavily guarded, fenced-in warehouse protected from anti-fur protesters.

Like factory farming, fur is an industry that can only survive when people aren't aware what's really going on, and the producers of fur garments do their best to make sure it stays that way.

Labels: fur

The Australian: Editor faces tofu fur fury

Further testament that PETA knows how to make the news. All it cost was a tofu cream pie and a press release. Still, isn't this sort of thing kind of juvenile? I guess it's less offensive, and permanent, than red paint. But, maaaan. It's this sort of thing that makes people look at me like I'm a nut when I say I'm vegan. Maybe if someone had run a review of the tofu cream pie and said how delicious it was, activists might have "won" something... (excerpted)

Wintour, dressed in a fur-trimmed black jacket, was hit in the face with a tofu cream pie as she left the Chloe ready-to-wear show in central Paris, members of the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said.
It was the second such attack this year on Wintour, a fur supporter decried by animal rights groups as a "pelt pusher".

"Wintour is fur-bearing animals' worst enemy because her magazine continues to feature dozens of pags of pro-fur editorials and advertising each year," PETA campaigner Yvonne Taylor said. "She takes big glossy advertisements for fur and she refuses to run any anti-fur ads, even paid ones, so she's a big fur supporter."

Labels: fashion, fur, tofu