shutterstock_79331326
by Joan Reddy
Categories: Animals, Causes, Video
Tags: .

American singer-songwriter, musician, DJ and photographer, Richard Mellvile Hall, known by his stage name Moby has a message for hunters.

He took to his twitter account to ask those who enjoy hunting animals to watch a quick video that he believes will change their mind.

The musician tweeted:

Well known for his vegan lifestyle, and support of animal rights, Moby’s tweet contains a video called “Dawn the Fox wags her tail”, and boy, is it darling. What does the fox say, you ask? Check it out.

Dawn, is one of the Nuneaton and Warwickshire Wildlife Sanctuary’s six resident foxes who cannot be returned to the wild. The majority of animals they admit to the shelter, are injured wildlife who are cared for, with the goal of eventually returning them into the wild. Dawn is a special case, because unknowingly a dog rescue centre admitted her when an unsuspecting individual brought her to them, thinking she was a dog. When they realized their mistake, they brought her to the wildlife sanctuary, but by then she was already too tame to be returned to the wild, as she would be unable to fend for herself after being looked after for so long by humans. Although the sanctuary does not recommend adopting wildlife as members of a household, Dawn is remaining under the care the sanctuary, as a result of these extenuating circumstances.

Moby is a strong supporter of causes related to animal rights, and a staunch supporter of an “ethical” vegan lifestyle. In comparison to solely dietary veganism, an ethical vegan lifestyle is not just related to diet. It also stresses the importance of not exploiting animals for any reason, including medical experiments, products, food, clothing, and entertainment. Ethical vegans find non-animal substitutes for items such as clothing that traditionally use leather, fur, or fabrics, – such as wool, and cashmere – that are animal-derived. It is in keeping with Moby’s compassion towards animals, that he shared the story of Dawn the fox.

Although, it is unfortunate that Dawn cannot be released into the wild to freely live a natural life and enjoy social companionship with her own species, she is also in some ways a very lucky little fox. Every year 75 million fur-bearing animals are captured, and killed worldwide. These animals suffer tremendously, all in the name of fashion, and profit.

North America’s fur trade is booming again, thanks to demand from China’s new capitalists. The Chinese economic’s ferocious appetite for furs has single-handedly revived a dying North American and European industry. Although the fur industry does its best to keep the cruelty out of sight, suffering is a common ingredient in both methods of procuring fur, be it fur factory farming or trapping, says the Humane Society International (HSI).

Globally, most fur used in fashion comes from animals raised on fur factory farms where they are forced to live in horrific conditions in tiny, filthy cages, are denied basic care, and the ability to satisfy their most basic instinctual behaviours. HSI says that primarily minks and foxes, are killed each year on fur farms. Their suffering peaks at the time of their slaughter, when they are killed in one of four ways — gassing, neck-breaking, lethal injection or anal electrocution.

Trapping is another method of acquiring fur. Animals are caught in antiquated cruel traps (leghold traps, conibear traps, snares, drowning traps) for their fur. According to HSI, these animals are often left for days, without access no food, water or shelter, in extreme temperatures. One in four of these victims of fashion will chew off their own limbs in an attempt to escape, only to later die of blood loss, gangrene or other secondary infections. When the trappers finally come to collect the animals, they stomp or beat the animals to death. Apparently, many animals that were non-target animals are also caught in these traps, and suffer the same devastating outcome. Many companion animals, such as dogs and cats, wild birds and even several endangered species, are accidentally caught and killed by fur traps each year. These animals are simply discarded as “trash,” since they have no economic value, says HSI.

Many people think that the fur trade is only using the skins of wild animals, but there is an even darker side to this industry. In addition to wild animals, approximately 2 million dogs and cats are killed each year for the fur industry, especially for fur trim on coats, gloves, mittens, and boots. According to The Association For The Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals, “[T]he majority of these animals are killed in China, Taiwan and the Philippines. Dog and cat skins are manufactured into fur products that are traded and sold all over the globe.”

Some countries, such as Canada, do not require the labeling of animal pelts or hides, therefore, companies are able to disguise the source of the fur to unsuspecting consumers. “While the European Union and the United States have banned this cruelty, it remains legal to import and sell dog and cat fur in Canada,” says The Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals.

Even if you are not buying fur, your tax dollars are supporting this unnecessary cruelty, so that the bodies of these beautiful and innocent creatures, can adorn fashionistas, and corporations and manufacturers can profit off of the barbaric deaths of these animals. If you want to protest your tax dollars being spent on this barbaric industry, join a lobby group, send letters, and write petitions to the government. Dawn’s brothers and sisters, need all the help they can get!

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

About Joan Reddy

Joan Reddy is a professional photographer, writer, animal rights activist, and environmentalist. Joan holds a Masters degree in English Literature from the University of Toronto, and a Masters of Environmental Studies from York University, in Toronto, where her thesis focused on Animal Rights. Through her writing, Joan wants to help to educate the public about the way animals are abused and exploited, in cultures around the world. Joan is also founder and president of the Federal registered non-profit organization "International Communication for Animal Justice." Her organization's website can be found at www.internationalcommunicationforanimaljustice.org, and her professional profile on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/pub/joan-reddy/22/999/449.

View all posts by Joan Reddy →
  • Mark Harner

    Agriculture
    is the leading cause of extinction world-wide, and the single greatest source
    of greenhouse gas emission. One cannot grow meals (vegetarian or otherwise)
    without destroying wild lands and the native species dependent upon them.
    Consider the millions of acres of forest, grassland and wetland converted to
    agricultural purpose; the millions of tons of chemicals dumped into the air,
    water and soil; and the billions of gallons of fresh diverted from sensitive
    aquatic ecosystems such as the estuaries so important to the health of our
    oceans.

    While hunting takes a sustainable number of individuals from
    healthy native systems, agriculture kills every individual, of every major
    species, inhabiting the landscape. Eating vegetarian may reduce your impact in
    comparison to eating farm-raised meat, but it does not compare to
    well-regulated subsistence hunting in terms of animal welfare and reduced
    environmental impact. The most sustainable system of food production will
    involve both, and it is a shame that so many who claim to be motivated by these
    considerations have such poor understanding of ecology and the relative impacts
    of hunting in comparison to their own eating habits

    • Benjamin Spider

      Your argument fails to take into account how much hunting would be required to feed everyone who wants to eat meat. Nor the amount of resources everyone would expend to hunt. Let alone the damage that would be caused to the environment should everyone who wants meat had to actually have to hunt for it. Having gone with my grand parents many times to hunt, there is defiantly one factor you had not considered and that is time. After having hunted with my grand parents and father I can say you don’t just spend the same amount of time as you would at a grocery store to get meat. Not to mention get a bunch of city slickers that think they are rambo in your territory and you will get nothing. I can see my grandfather turning over in his grave seeing all these as he called them jack asses running through the mountains that have long been a part of his life.

      Also your argument seems to treat all agriculture as bad and users of chemicals. Which brings me to the whole recycling process and how would you return waste materials that made up the species back in the environment? Not to mention did you account for how long it may take any given species to reach an optimum age? I could go further, but we are at a around 7 billion as a species and we have already decimate if not entirely wiped out animals because they were tasty. Never mind the impact that fishing has taken on our oceans. I recommend watching Blue Planet’s Deep trouble to get a glimpse. Turning a wild species into a resource will have the same impact.

      I have also seen first hand the disaster of free range cattle. One day what was a lush fields of wild plant life turned into a waste land of either mud or dried dirt the very next day. Even after 2 decades these fields are not up to their previous glory.

      If you really want to eat meat and help the planet, I suggest starting with pigeons, rats, cockroaches, and other invasive species. Taking those out would give natives species a better fighting chance than “trying” to selectively hunt them.

      • Mark Harner

        I understand and agree with your point that wild game cannot sustain the entire human population. I did not intend to suggest that it could. However, it can support some part of this population very well. I, for example, can step off my porch and into the woods. On any given day, I can shoot either a turkey or a deer and have it back to my house in less time that it takes to reach the nearest grocery store. Granted, this situation does not apply to most Americans, but it does to many. A good number of us can, in fact, feed ourselves by hunting in a manner more sustainable than purchasing groceries at the market. While I accept that not all vegetables are grown with the application of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, there are none that can be grown and delivered to market without generating more carbon dioxide that I produce hauling a turkey out of the woods. And, since crop yield typically improves with the application of pesticides and fertilizers, eliminating these will require even more acreage retained in agriculture than would otherwise be necessary. You mention overfishing as responsible for the decline in marine fish populations, but this is only part of the story. The other is the diversion of fresh water away from critical spawning habitat (such as rivers or the estuaries to which I previously referred), and the degradation of Earth’s oceans by agricultural pollutants (including fertilizers and pesticides, but also carbon dioxide and soil eroded from barren ag lands). The issue of returning of waste nutrients to their source is far more difficult to imagine in an urban setting depended on agriculture than it is in a rural setting where hunting may play a role in sustaining the populations.

        As for cattle, they have nothing to do with hunting. Too often, the environmental impact of meat consumption by hunting is confused (often intentionally) with the impact of raised livestock, but they are nothing alike. I would point out that two decades is typically no where near enough to convert abandoned ag land of any sort (orchard, row crop, etc) back to its natural condition with the sort of biodiversity one would expect of hunted, wild lands.

        I agree that hunters should target,especially, non-native animal species. Ironically, when the same suggestion is made about reducing non-native plant species such as those intentionally cultivated by man in order to restore native plants and animals, the typical reaction is blank stares. I know, we cannot eliminate all agriculture, and we cannot all be sustained on wild lands. However, we also cannot all commute to work by bicycle, but this should not discourage those who can from doing so, and the rest of us should be grateful for the effort that such commuters put forth to improve the air for the rest of us. Similarly, it is possible for many of us to take our meals in a sustainable manner from healthy, wild lands. To the extent that we may do so, we should. It does not help when pseudo-environmentalists like Morrissey who have given little thought to the relative ecological and animal welfare impacts of our dietary alternatives cast a blanket criticism over “meat” as if all meat is created equal.

  • darcy

    perhaps we should all stop hunting and allow nature to do its course. What the bleeding hearts do not realize is how cruel nature really is. the damage has already been done by us changing massive amounts of HABITAT. Without intervention by human culling, our ecosystem would face massive winter die-off from disease, lack of food and chronic wasting. What is more humane to you? An animal who has lived a good life in a balanced ecosystem and is taken quickly and humanely through chase(an integral part of our heritage here) or one that is left to mother nature(she can be nasty) and is taken by overpopulation, lack of food and disease? If you have ever seen a moose or deer being consumed alive by ticks Im sure you would give it some good hard thought. Not all hunters are unethical and stone cold killers, many of us do our part to improve habitiat, report and aid in reintroduction of lost species, report on health of populations etc. We eat what we take and thank mother nature for her gifts.