Acceptability of fur rebounds: commentary on Gallup poll�


FCUSA COMMENTARY, June 23, 2009

Moral Acceptability of Fur Rebounds : Gallup

http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF11m.htm

According to Gallup's latest "moral acceptability" poll, out this May, the percentage of Americans who find "Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur" to be morally acceptable has rebounded after three years of decline.

Since the poll began in 2001, a majority of Americans have always found fur clothing morally acceptable. However, from a high of 64% in 2005, its positive rating began falling, to just 54% in 2008. But in 2009, it staged a sharp recovery, bouncing back to 61%.

Of the 15 issues polled, the most comparable with fur is the acceptability of "Medical testing on animals". Since both questions concern the use of animals, trends in the two sets of results show expected similarities (see chart).

Thus the fact that medical testing bottomed out in the same year as fur, 2008, may indicate that the results reflect more on the specific pollees that year than on the moral compass of society as a whole.

Harder to ignore, however, is the current disparity between the two ratings.

Prior to this year's survey, fur had been less acceptable than medical testing except for two years in which it was ahead by just one point. This is arguably as it should be.

In 2004, when fur inched ahead for the first time, FCUSA called it "mildly surprising". "Society deems an activity 'moral' or 'immoral' based largely on the perception of need - of the end justifying the means. Fur clothing can be justified on many different levels, but given the competition from 'inexpensive' fossil fuel-based synthetics, few would still consider it an absolute necessity. Medical testing, on the other hand, has led to treatments that save millions of human lives each year - about as necessary as it gets."

But if that was "mildly surprising", the results in 2009 (while gratifying to the fur industry) are a little alarming.

While acceptability of medical testing rose just one point, to 57%, acceptability of fur soared seven points, to 61%. Bearing in mind these are the same pollees being questioned, one must wonder what kind of person favors fur but not animal testing.

Is it all down to education and PR? Does the increased support for fur, as some analysts suggest, reflect a backlash against the belligerence of animal rights groups? And if so, why has it not benefited medical research also?

DON'T BET THE BARN

The fact that natural-fiber fur clothing for cold weather is even included in a poll on morality is regrettable. (We urged Gallup years ago to reconsider, but were ignored.) But at the end of the day, prudent farmers don't bet the barn on polls.

Whether buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur is morally acceptable is a straight question. And a positive response of 61% is respectable, given the misunderstanding and confusion sown by animal rightists.

But society is moving forward in its understanding of sustainability and care for the environment. So how much more positive would the response be to this question?

"Which is more morally acceptable: Buying and wearing clothes made from oil-based synthetics, or from natural, renewable, biodegradable fibers produced by recycling food production waste?"

Notes:

(1) See "Gallup: Young Americans find fur more "moral" than research. Is public relations the key? FCUSA commentary, Sept. 1, 2004. http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF08a.htm

Very interesting set of morals...

Gallop

I don't believe anything the fur commission writes. Total biased self serving bullshit5.

Gee, just like PETA, the Humane Society, Gary Francione, Tom Regan, Roger Yates and all the other AR blowhards.

I never found fur unacceptable. I'd like the effete AR "men" to try their antics on bikers like the Hells Angels who wear leather. In other words, people who would fight back.

That makes no sense. They've taken on major corporations, much bigger bullies than hells angels. And have won.

Are you saying Gallop never created the poll & the fur commission is making the results of a non-existent poll up up??? That is quite a stretch.

I can't find that Gallup poll, except one dated 2004. Do you have a link?

Here's a mention. Since the Gallup poll is comprised of public opinion on more than 140 countries in the world, if you consider the 3rd world countries included, who use and abuse animals, I'd say it doesn't count. If they did a poll only in the USA, I'd would wager the percentile would change.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118546/republic...ral-issues.aspx

April 6, 2009

The Humane Society of the United States estimates that changing public opinion, the increased use of faux fur and other alternatives and the current economic slump are preventing the suffering and deaths of approximately 10 million raccoon dogs, bobcats, mink, foxes and other animals annually for fur and fur-trimmed garments. Fur industry data released last week reveals a reduction in annual global fur sales of roughly $2 billion between 2006/2007 and 2007/2008.

"The fur industry thrives on limited public knowledge of the fur trade's practices and high levels of disposable income—both of which have been eroding recently," said Pierre Grzybowski, manager of the Fur-Free Campaign. "Recent high-profile investigations of animal cruelty and consumer deception in the fur trade, coupled with the economic downturn, has replaced animal fur with faux fur and other alternatives for many shoppers."

Gallup, Inc. conducts an annual poll of Americans assessing the public's stance on a number of "moral" issues, including "buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur." Data show an erosion in the percentage of Americans who find the practice "morally acceptable." The number who find it "morally wrong" has been increasing at the same rate, showing public opinion turning against the trade.

Facts:

The International Fur Trade Federation, a global trade organization, reported March 27, 2009 that [global retail fur sales] "figures are back to the level of 2005/2006." A graph published online by Fur Commission USA, a U.S.-based fur organization, shows the sales drop amounts to approximately $2 billion. The Fur Information Council of America, another U.S.-based fur organization, as reported on the Web site of Fur Commission USA, reported a 12 percent drop in U.S. retail fur sales in 2006 from the previous year based on a survey of fur sellers in the United States.


The numbers of animals killed every year for fur varies according to market fluctuations, and while some data is readily available, China's dominance of fur-bearing animal production for the past several years—raising raccoon dogs, mink, foxes, domestic dogs and cats and other animals—has been hard to quantify. The prediction of 10 million animals a year saved is based on a 13 percent reduction in global fur sales ($15.02 billion to $13.03 billion) multiplied by the estimated 75 million animals a year killed for the fur trade globally in 2007.

The Humane Society of the United States' list of fur-free retailers and designers—primarily U.S.-based, but many with international footprints—has been growing rapidly and now includes more than 140 names, including additions in the last several years of Polo Ralph Lauren, JC Penney, Overstock.com, Benetton Group, BCBGMAXAZARIA, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger and Foot Locker.
In 2005, investigations revealed that raccoon dogs were being skinned alive in China and that the fur was being marketed internationally. Since then, The Humane Society of the United States has revealed raccoon dog fur on unlabeled, mislabeled or falsely advertised jackets for sale by many of the top names in fashion.
-30-

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization — backed by 11 million Americans, or one of every 28. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty — On the Web at humanesociety.org.


http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications...urn_040609.html

They haven't thrown blood or paint on them because they know they'd get trounced. They're cowards. I've lived amongst these dregs of humanity. Courtroom shenanigans are different.


The H$U$ coupled with facts is pretty much an oxymoron. They like any other anti group that lies, cheats and steals trying to force their emotional wants on others. They have no integrity with anyone who knows their agenda.

Not very hard to find the truth Grace. You couldn't have looked very hard.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118546/Republic...ral-Issues.aspx


May 20, 2009
Republicans Move to the Right on Several Moral Issues
No change in Democrats’ attitudes about what is morally acceptable
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- According to Gallup's annual "moral acceptability" measure, updated in May, Americans have inched to the right on a handful of the 15 issues rated, including divorce, use of animal fur in clothing, gambling, and embryonic stem-cell research. Public opinion about the moral acceptability of the other items is essentially unchanged, with no significant increases in support for traditionally liberal positions.

fipbqvte5kkmfucqxyoeea

Despite these slight changes, a majority of Americans continue to view divorce, gambling, and embryonic stem-cell research as morally acceptable, and acceptance of using animal fur for clothing has only strengthened. The death penalty, premarital sex, and medical testing on animals also meet with Americans' approval, ethically.

Only about half of Americans consider having a baby outside of marriage, as well as gay or lesbian relations, to be morally acceptable. Nearly as many say these actions are morally wrong, making them the social issues tested on which there is the greatest disagreement.

Abortion, cloning (whether of animals or humans), suicide, polygamy, and extramarital affairs are all viewed as morally wrong by solid majorities of Americans.

Reciting what H$U$ claimed 4 & 5 years ago doesn't change the 2009 stats which Gallop found in their polling of AMERICANS Grace. The Gallop poll is American specific.

In retrospect, maybe it makes sense. Americans and their values are going to hell in a handbasket. Kids going on shooting rampages, cat serial killers, fathers throwing their babies out of car windows, mothers drowning their kids, mothers killing their 2 year olds and riding around town for a month with the body in their trunk, mothers putting babies into microwaves, crime at an all time high, etc. Fur becoming more acceptable is further proof peoples' morals have gone to goddamn hell.

Actually the North American continent was founded in Christian principles and human exceptualism which built a compassionate caring society where fur meat & animal use was the source of our economic values. Is it the loss of our morals more in tune with not practicing the moral conduct of a God fearing & God loving society then those who practiced stewardship of animals that included sheep herding, and leather manufacturing along with offering hamburgers to our population? I provide fur to the market place but I certainly wouldn't be carrying anyone's baby around in the trunk of my car . However the gallop poll does suggest that the general population sees fur as a good source of clothing and I doubt that they are interested in kiling children either although a few vegans have been known to watch their children slowly starve to death.

What IS further proof that society is going to hell in a handbasket is the utter absurdity of animal rights and the animal rights industry. It takes a truly vile person to want to eliminate animals from everyone's lives and force them to be vegans.

you have got to be fucking kidding me grace? Did you honestly just make a comparative statement of these activities and wearing fur? Maybe you need to delve a bit deeper, when people wore fur and fought roosters and dogs and ate meat and didnt try to equate a rat with a boy and they had some fuckin common sense, the crime rate was much lower than it is in our civilized society.

I can't believe you have tried to make a comparison between the crime rates through history, do you even have data to compare? For a start the population has risen so how can you compare?

Society evolves and one thing that was deemed unacceptable over a hundred years ago in the UK was cock and dog fighting. It was deemed uncivilised in a civilised country and IMO ( along with many many others) it enjoyed by uncivilised people who continue this practise hidden away in the shadows.

As is typical, you never get it. I wasn't equating throwing a baby out the window to wearing a fur coat goddamnit. Let's take the 1950's or 60's for example. Were kids having a shootout in our schools? Were kids taking guns to school and shooting/killing each other? Did mothers drown their babies in tubs, lakes, cut off their arms, or cook them in microwaves? Was there road rage? Morals today aren't what they were in yesteryear. Divorce statistics, abortion, murder, robberies, animal abuse, you name it. People just don't give a shit.

We used to take guns to school and hunt on the way home for game Grace. We were more in tune with life and death then folks are today. We respected life a lot more for our human family because we looked upon humans as special and animals as food & help mates. Raising animals to a pedestal & devaluing humans hasn't made humanity better but worse.

We didn't have people whose agenda was to ban owning animals either and who put animals ahead of people. They don't give a $hit either and are part of the problem.

Exactly. Except animals were also companions back then too, not just helpers around the farm.


Donnie


Are you saying it's the ARA movement's fault for mom cooking her baby in a microwave? I would think teaching humanity to value ALL life, not just human life, would be a good thing.

Thats a nice outlook but its not what the animal rights industry is about and that includes those with the more toned down soft sell rhetoric. The goal of the leaders is all the same - no more animal use and that includes pets and eating meat.

The joke's on those who believe that the animal rights industry respects all life.

[color="#FF0000"]You mean you haven't caught on to the ideology that the ARA folks are claiming that if a lab rat could save the life of millions of children ,that they haven't put animals on a pedestal greater then humans? There is bound to be a negative impact when ARA types devalue humanity to the point where they can openly claim that humans are a cancerous blight upon the planet.

To this day our animals are not companions but owned property which we privilege with good care Grace. They are certainly not companions nor should they be in my opinion.

Animals are also companions to many of us in the present day but Grace buys far too much of the animal rights industry schlock and propaganda. I still own mine. They're not my children nor am I their guardian or pet parent.

yep

Grace


Donnie


Donnie, if the prisons were filled with ARA's and ARA related crimes, I'd see your point. Otherwise, you have none.

And you're entitled to your opinion. I tend to doubt the statistics reflected below are of people who view these housepets as property and not companion animals.



The following statistics were compiled from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey.

Dogs

There are approximately 74.8 million owned dogs in the United States
Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog
Most owners (63 percent) own one dog
Twenty-five percent of owners own two dogs
Twelve percent of owners own three or more dogs
On average, owners have almost two dogs (1.7)
The proportion of male to female dogs is even
Ten percent of owned dogs were adopted from an animal shelter
On average, dog owners spent $219 on veterinary visits (vaccine, well visits) annually
Seventy-five percent of owned dogs are spayed or neutered
Cats

There are approximately 88.3 million owned cats in the United States
Nearly 34 percent of U.S. households (or 38.4 million) own at least one cat
Fifty-six percent of owners own more than one cat
On average, owners have two cats (2.3)
More female cats are owned than male cats (73 percent vs. 63 percent respectively)
Eighteen percent of owned cats were adopted from an animal shelter
Cat owners spent an average of $175 on routine veterinary visits
Eighty-seven percent of owned cats are spayed or neutered

What I feel about my pets comes straight from my heart, not from AR lit or hearing "propoganda and schlock". You think reading or hearing about shit makes me feel what I do for the animals in my care? As far as your owning them vs. being their guardian, what's the difference without bringing legalities into it? I don't care one way or the other but I don't view my animals as disposable, nor as an inanimate object as many do who value them less than their autombile. That's what I have a problem with. I care less about semantics.

I do think it influences you more than you realize.

After years of hearing bull$hit from the animal rights industry and animal prohibitionists many people begin to think there's something to it. You know what Hitler said about repeating lies long enough and loud enough and people will start to believe it. Most people have no idea how easily they can be manipulated with calculated propaganda and they continue to support organizations and people who are the enemies of anyone who owns an animal.



Mine aren't disposable but I don't go over the top and anthropomorphize. The animal rights industry is trying to push the guardian language as just another means of incrementalism in their goal of animal prohibition. They're vile people but they're not stupid.

The point is that when human life and belongings and denote humans as a cancerous blight upon the earth then humanity is so devalued ,then yes I do have a point.

Honestly Grace?? If all it takes to put an ARA behind bars for four years for simple trespass & peaceful demonstration the jails would be filled. However the ARA who are put behind bars actually do more then simple trespass and peaceful demonstration.

the difference is that you should be free to feel about your pets exactly the way you want to. You should be free to do with them as you please. BUT I should have the same right.

Thats the way it should be.

Your friend is right about animal rightists perversion.

Of course. Your problem is that everyone doesn't view things or do things the way you view or do things. That's what this thing with determining what other people's values should be is all about. Hell you think people have been trying to tell you?

You value a cat as a pet. How is that a more accurate valuation than that of someone who values a cat as a meal? How is it more accurate than that of someone who thinks either of those are unacceptable valuations?

Understand that you DO objectify cats with your valuation, Grace....despite your denial. You just happen to place a very high value on them.

Grace

RF

If people viewed things the way I do, there wouldn't be any problems. There wouldn't be kids who bake puppies, or serial cat killers, or couples on their way to church tossing out a litter of kittens on I-95. Don't you see my way , my values, are supreme?


RF

Other people's values may be minimal or non existant, which usually is the problem. This has been recognized in the form of animal cruelty/welfare laws, which set standards and punish people who care less about the value of an animal.

RF

Pet is just a term for lack of a better one handy. I value my cats as my little cat babies. If me, my cat and the cat serial killer were in a sinking rowboat, and I could only save 1....
As far who's more accurate, me valuing my cat as a pet vs. someone who values a cat as a meal? My valuation is more accurate for the cat.


RF

Simple. They're wrong if they don't value the cat.


RF

Regardless, high values are a good thing when you consider the object's best interest. Smoking over a spit isn't one of them.

If I was starving on an Island filled with cats cruelty would not be a concern of mine but finding the right snare or stone to brain the suckers would be the most important consideration for me. Pragmatists make way better survivors then compassion freaks unless, they be hypocrites when it cones to the finality of not eating cat, in such circumstances.

Are you not compassionate enough to care for animals and people? Who doesn't give a shit? it's very easy to equate a group of people as "they". I'm coming late into this debate and it's been a few years since I've been on this forum, however, I see it's the same ole shit - animal vs people. LOL If you care about animals, you have to not care about people. I never could understand that way of thinking. Maybe you'd like to explain it to me.

One of the Chatham 3 - OPEN THE CAGES

Greetings, bsvila!
Did you have a previous name you posted under? Maybe Frankie could reactivate it for you or something.

Used bsvila. I just became a new member no big deal.


One of the Chatham 3 - Open the Cages

Its easy to equate a group of people as "they" because I've met so many of "them" over the years including the leaders of the "movement". Its not about caring for animals but taking it to the point they do and pushing aside people to do it. Not just pushing aside but hurting innocent people who've done nothing wrong. Pretend its not true if you wish.

Welfare I support. The utter idiocy of the AR movement I do not.

I don't find it so easy because within that group there are individuals and each individual has a different belief in the topic of animal rights. You cannot equate them all into one group even if they are all AR. Each has a different level within the AR movement. Some will only write letters, some will protest, some will go further and do direct action - some will do all three or two or one of the three. So "they" does not equate. Unfortunately you have met the wrong people in the movement if you believe that none of them care about the animals. Please - There are very few 'innocent' people on either side. I see you support animal welfare - do they not push people aside to get what they want? Who makes the decision that an animal can be adopted by a certain person?

One of the Chatham 3 - Open the Cages

The reader should note, if they haven't already, that firebombings of people's homes and cars, beating research firm executives with baseball bats, blackmail, threats against scientists' or executives' children, and other vile criminal and terrorist behaviors seem to weigh heavily toward the AR side.

Grace wrote:

Yet, you value a chicken as a meal more than as a pet. And I bet you claim that is the more accurate value also.

And what percentage of ARs do such direct action yet it has been attributed to all ARs. If you are discussing human suffering in those incidents, yes, animal suffering, no.

One of the Chatham 3 - Open the Cages

Well releasing lab animals and domestic mink and such into the wild doesn't seem terribly compassionate when it comes to those animals...

Domestic mink - that must be a new term. Do they pick them up and pet them and talk sweet nothings to them? Funny how 'domesticated' dogs and cats can survive in the wild isn't it. Please explain to me how these so-called domesticated mink cannot.

Of course, I didn't say that a domesticated mink cannot survive in the wild.

Let alone "funny", it isn't even remarkable that some dogs and cats can survive in the wild. But many won't. I have no doubt some released mink survive after their release. But neither do I doubt that many don't.

But since releasing them is more political statement than compassion speaking... who gives a shit eh?

One more thing, lab animals are not released into the wild. They are removed, evaluated, taken care of.

Then it isn't terribly accurate to claim they were liberated.

They simply switch caretakers; from 'bad' use to 'good' use...