Friday 27 November 2015

Today is international Fur Free Friday.

Fur and Fashion

In the beginning of time man used fur to cover himself. There was nothing else available at the time until man discovered how to weave cloth from plant and animal by-products like wool. 
Once the weaving process has been perfected, man used less and less fur for clothing purposes. This is until fur became a status symbol.

In certain early societies animal pelts and their by-products took on mystical or spiritual powers when worn by hunters or the ruling classes. In European societies luxury furs became associated with social stratification. In the last two centuries, the growing middle classes in Western Europe and in North America have developed a love for fashion furs as a way of expressing their social status, or to give themselves an ultra-modern look. Since the 1980s questions have been raised about the ethics of using animal products as entire species may have been wiped out by fashion (Lee, 2003, p. 254). Despite the efforts of anti-fur activists and their sensitizing campaigns associated with animal cruelty, the popularity of wrapping oneself in a “sensual second skin” continues to persist. Could it be that some people still believe in a hidden form of “contagious magic” when attired in fur or leather?

The growing demand for luxury and fashion furs by the nobility, the upper classes and the new mercantile classes over the centuries led to the opening of new trade routes and the establishment of fur trade monopolies. Beginning in the Twelfth Century, German traders had the monopoly of the highly coveted fur industry as they had access to the finest Russian furs, particularly ermine (the white winter coat of weasels). They became known as the masters of the fur trade (Durant, 1950. p. 833).

Fur and leather garments have become available to the masses in the last century, thanks to the advancement in technologies for processing pelts. However, luxury furs still confer a super wealthy cachet. Since the early 20th Century, the rising classes with disposable income have been demanding fur coats and garments dressed or trimmed with fur thus opening the market for less expensive furs such as muskrat, wolf, raccoon, hare, lamb, and others.

Fortunes have been made over the centuries from the exploitation of fur-bearing animals to satisfy human needs and vanities. The technological sophistication and application of artistic skills in the treatment of pelts have opened the doors to seductive new designs and styles. It would seem that the controversies surrounding the plight of animals in the 1980s-1990s may have created havoc on fur farms, but according to Lee (2003) the bulk of the consumers turned away their heads in indifference (p. 247). Since that period of time faux fur has become quite popular as an alternative to using animal skins for dress. However, as Lee (2003) explains, some people will argue that faux fur is a plastic product made from petroleum, which consumes natural resources, and it creates pollution in the manufacturing state (p. 277). Modern marketing strategies, rapid communication about new trends through the mass media, collective tastes, and the social environment suggest that fashion furs continue to have staying power.

Beginning in the 1920s, fashionable women were wearing ankle length fur coats with a tight fitting bottom, large fur collars, and very wide cuff sleeves. Coats fabricated out of long vertical strips of fur were quite popular. This silhouette remained in vogue up until around the 1960s (Hansen, 1956, p. 101).

According to Dyhouse (2011), in the 1930s fox became one of the most sought after furs. Wealthy women and the glamorous film stars were usually seen wearing mega white or grey fox coats. For example, in 1932, Lili Damita was dolled up in fox in the movie, the Match King, and in 1933, Mae West and Gertrude Michael were wrapped in white fox in the film, I’m no Angel (Fur Glamor, 2011). The film stars loved to show off their full length ermine and white fox coats when attending the Oscars. In 1931, for instance, Marie Dressler looked fabulous in an ermine coat which she wore over her black lace dress. In 1935, Claudette Colbert had a luxurious white fur coat draped on her arm when she accepted her award from Shirley Temple (Chase, 2003, p. 18, 25, 121).

In the 1960s, animal right activists began a campaign to sensitize the public regarding the plight of animals and the cruelties they suffer at fur farms. Their efforts appear to have had an impact on the conscience of a number of consumers. In the 1970s, fur coats were beginning to lose their appeal. As a result, the fur industry suffered financial losses. In the United States, for example, a number of companies such as Antonvich International, Inc., Alper-Richman, Furs, Ltd., and Fur Vault, Inc., found themselves facing bankruptcy (Evans Inc., 1998; Schneider, 2012; Tortora & Eubank, 2010, p. 584).

A number of animals were facing extinction, particularly leopards. But, there are indications that the wealthy and powerful still had an insatiable appetite for these rare skins. In 1962, Jackie Kennedy wore a leopard-skin coat to meet with the U.S. Ambassador to Rome. In the same time period Queen Elizabeth II and the film star Elizabeth Taylor were seen wearing the spots (Lee 2003, p. 259). The pressures exerted on governments by animal right activists led to the passing of Endangered Species Acts in a number of countries. In the United States, Congress passed such an Act in 1973, and in 1979 the U.S. banned the import of leopard skins from Africa altogether (Lee, 2003, p. 254; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2011).

Regarding the plight of animals, Goddard (2011) explains that Canada presently has some of the world’s best regulated, best managed, and ecologically sustainable “humane trapping and farming practices.” Several provinces now have acts governing the treatment of animals (see, for instance, Ontario Nature, 2011; Nova Scotia: NS Endangered Species Act, 2011).

Despite the efforts of animal right activists since the 1960s to develop a public awareness regarding the plight of animals and to question the wearing of fur, there are still segments of society who refuse to shed their glamorous, sexy animal skins. Fashion furs continue to symbolize wealth and prestige, but they are no longer restricted to the super wealthy. In the October 2000 cover of American Vogue the heading proclaimed, “Fabulous Furs: The Look of the Moment” reminding readers that the fur coat is still an essential element in many closets (in Lee, 2003, p. 249).

The fur industry has become a major global economic industry since the opening of vast Asian fur markets in China, Korea, and Russia. We can therefore assume that the demand for North American animal pelts will continue to increase in the future. Goddard (2011) predicts that fur prices will likely continue to hit record-highs, and according to Mark Kaufman Furs NY (2011), the overall increase of 12 percent on the cost of skins in 2011 means that “the consumer will see a 50% increase on the fur portion of the garment in 2012.”

100 MILLION+ fur-bearing animals, including man’s best friend and feline companion, are brutally murdered without mercy for the barbaric and cruel fur trade every year at the hands of industry with no respect for life. This annual count does not include rabbits, which the United Nations reports to be at least 1 BILLION killed each year solely for their fur, which is used in clothing, as lures in fly-fishing, and for trim on craft items, even trinkets.

China is the world’s largest supplier of animal skins and the mecca of the dog and cat fur trade, a largely unknown animal protection issue.  More than 95 percent of China’s finished fur garments are exported for sale overseas, and more than half are sold in the United States.

No federal humane slaughter law or restrictions exist to protect animals and killing methods are gruesome, resulting in unbearable torment and excruciating deaths of innocent animals who watch their fellow cage mates as they are brutally killed in front of their innocent eyes.

The globalization of the fur trade has made it impossible to know where fur products come from.  Even if a fur garment’s label says it was made in a European country, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered elsewhere – in a majority of the cases, on an unregulated Chinese fur farm.

Contrary to fur industry propaganda, fur production destroys the environment. The amount of energy needed to produce a real fur coat is approximately 20X more than needed to produce a fake fur garment, nor is fur biodegradable due to the chemical treatment applied to stop the skins from rotting. The process of using these chemicals is also dangerous because it causes water contamination.


 You be the judge.

Sunday 15 November 2015

Air, Water and Soil pollution

Human activities release a variety of substances into the biosphere, many of which negatively affect the environment. Pollutants discharged into the environment can accumulate in the air, water, or soil. Chemicals discharged into the air that have a direct impact on the environment are called primary pollutants. These primary pollutants sometimes react with other chemicals in the air to produce secondary pollutants.
A wide variety of chemicals and organisms are discharged into lakes, rivers and oceans daily. Left untreated, this sewage and industrial waste has a serious impact on the water quality, not only in the immediate area, but also downstream.
The eight classes of air pollutants are:
• oxides of carbon,
• sulfur,
• nitrogen,
• volatile organic compounds,
• suspended particulate matter,
• photochemical oxidants,
• radioactive substances and
• hazardous air pollutants.
Oxides of carbon include carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2).
All these pollutants have some effect on the environment that we live in. Most of them are Toxic to human and animal life on this planet.
Yes, these pollutants do occur naturally in the environment and are essential for our survival, but what make them toxic, is the concentration of the elements that make them toxic. Like the saying goes "too much of a good thing is not always good for you" This is the case when these elements gets concentrated, the benefit becomes a threat to the environment.
We need to look at a better way of disposing of the concentrated elements that we as humans release back into the environment. Researchers are working on solving this exact problem. The question is, will the solution come too late?


Sunday 8 November 2015

About the environment in Schools

Education is key for the future generations to enable them to progress forward in life. They learn mathematics, science, history ECT. at school, but there are very little education on the intricate workings of nature.
I know that the curriculum touch on some aspects of the natural workings within nature, but too little to have a lasting impression on the youth of today.
The interactions between the environment and the living organisms in nature are so much more than mere words on paper that the children learn. When there is a chance then field trips should be arranged to do more investigation by the children about these interactions and the effects when these interactions are interrupted.
The mere fact that there is a lack of environmental education at our schools results in the destruction of the environment and the animals that live in it. The interaction of humans with nature is that of destruction and a limited future for us all.
Examples of lack of education and research into the effects on nature: On an Island there were a plague of rats that were brought there by sailors unwittingly. The rats started to feast on the breeding sea bird population’s eggs and thus reducing the sea bird population drastically. The government of the Island decided to bring in outside help to deal with the rat plague. Without doing proper research, feral cats were brought onto the island to deal with the rat problem.
Because of the abundance of food in the form of rats, the feral cats bred to increase their numbers to deal with the abundance of food. A few hundred cats over time became a few hundred thousand cats. The rat population was decimated and the rat problem kind off solved. But now there was a new problem. Because the rats became scarce and the amount of cats was more than the food supply, the cats started looking for other food sources. As we all know, cats catch birds and the cycle of reduction in the sea bird colony increased.
A single problem was resolved but another problem was created by the lack of knowledge and research. Now millions of feral cats are being killed in attempts to resolve the second problem.

When education is done properly, this problem of the rats could have been resolved in a different way, possibly. Lives are being lost on a daily basis due to our interference in nature and the balance that exist. When are we going to put the education system in such a state that we learn before doing? It is only through education and awareness that the environment and all its inhabitants will be able to survive into the next couple of centuries. Teach our children to respect nature and all that live in it. Teach them that every action, like the introduction of the cats, have consequences, not only on one part of nature, but on the bigger picture.

Saturday 7 November 2015

Corporate sponsorship

Standing together is the only way that we can make a difference.
I spent a lot of time in the corporate world in the past. When they evaluate a project for sponsorship, it is not about the project as much as it is what is it that the company can make out of it. Most of the sponsorship goes to advertising opportunities and the possible audience that might be reached for the least funds.
Nature and the environment is sometimes the last projects that companies would like to sponsor as the exposure possibilities are very limited. The animals can not be branded with the sponsors logos, so what would be the point of sponsoring projects that attempt to save endangered animals or even the environment.
Sometimes corporate's do sponsor conservation projects, but it would seem that the only time they do things like this is when there are proposals of making documentaries about the project that can be sold to networks, local and international, to give the sponsor the maximum exposure for their money.


Please note that the photo does not infer or imply anything, it is just an example.

Since 2012 I have been involved in the efforts to obtain sponsorship for a conservation project. Proposal letters have been sent out, business plans have been sent out, even visited a couple of head offices to hand in the proposal and business plans. Either no replies were received or "our funds for the next couple of years are already allocated" replies were received.

When I managed to get a foot in the door to see the relevant people, they viewed the business plan as well as the proposal and the reply was always "we can not see the commercial benefit for the company for the amount of money you request"

When asked if these companies can make donations towards the project instead of a sponsorship, the answer is always no due to the fact that it is not an organization registered in the USA.

In some instances, other organizations that were registered in the USA were approached to team up with the project in order to benefit both organizations, most of these organizations turned us down without even viewing our proposal, It would seem that some of these organizations fear losing their backing to a project that might put the organization out of the limelight in the USA and their support base.

Conclusion to the whole experience: Corporate's want the biggest bang for their buck and the cause is not truly important to them. They want the maximum benefit and returns on the "investment" that they make. It would seem that some companies are hesitant to even get involved with conservation projects to protect the future of their environment because it might not look good on the balance sheet.

You be the judge.

Wednesday 4 November 2015

River pollution

It is so easy to discard your chip wrapper on the ground and expect somebody else to pick it up.
You might say to yourself you are creating a job for a street cleaner, but you are fooling nobody.
Your little wrapper with the wrappers from millions of other people around the world land daily in the river systems.
These wrappers are usually made from petroleum based products that take ages to degrade. Some of the wrappers are lined with aluminium, and the chance of aluminium degrading is basically zero.
Many other products land up in the rivers daily including cool-drink bottles, food cans, oil bottles, plastic bags and so on. These pollutants pile up and become very unsightly to say the least.
When a storm break along the flow of the stream, all this rubbish is washed downstream and eventually land up in the ocean where the plastics pose a real threat to the animals living in the sea.
But these are not the only pollutants landing in the streams and rivers.
There are any chemicals spilled by accident in rivers. But most of these chemical pollutants are dumped into rivers on purpose. Many factories situated close to rivers use the river water to cool or flush their machinery. Once the cooling or flushing is done, the water is then returned to the river. But care is not taken to remove the toxic pollutants from the returning water. Some of these pollutants can have deadly affects on the aquatic fauna and flora.
Some of the pollutants that have a big effect on the Aqua Flora comes from the agricultural sector. Pesticides and fertilizers that are not absorbed by the plants flow into the ground water and also end up in rivers and the ocean. These can have effects beyond what we realize. Some of these chemicals are short lived and others stay in the system for years. Some of these chemicals accumulate in living organisms and become more concentrated the higher up the food chain. It becomes lethal at some stage and will kill the predator at the top of the food chain.
Governments have regulations in place to prevent some of the toxins from getting into the water systems, The problem is not the laws, it is enforcing those laws against pollution.
What is your view on the state of the planet regarding pollution?

Sunday 1 November 2015

Project SolarWind

What is Project SolarWind?