Are you Fur Real?

The use of real fur in fashion has, in recent years, sparked huge protest from various extremist groups, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in particular. But the presence of fur in the fashion world can be contested in numerous ways.

Animal Rights extremists argue that there is no need for designers to use real fur in today’s world when there are such realistic and “ethically correct” imitation furs that can be used.

This is the argument hurled at Blackglama’s new fur campaign headed by Liz Hurley. She has been on the receiving end of some harsh criticism from PETA claiming that “her wardrobe is now as dead as her career”.

With groups such as PETA on the war path you may ask why designers still insist on using real fur when it is so blatantly going to attract such extreme protest with the splashing of red paint, wine, or any other “ethical” substances over any fur garments worn in public.

Maybe these extreme animal rights activists are demonstrating a valid argument and the existence of such realistic fur imitations has made the need for real fur redundant, making the use of real fur in fashion ethically unacceptable.

However, when considering the debate surrounding fur, we must go back to our caveman roots and remember that in those early days, real fur was used for survival to keep warm. There were no ethical issues in those simpler times. So if the cavemen of our primitive world thought it natural to use the animal’s fur, why do we have a problem with it now? And if Liz Hurley wishes to regress to those prehistoric times then who are we, or PETA, to judge?

But perhaps it’s all merely a publicity stunt nowadays with phrases such as “there is no such thing as bad publicity” being coined in the minds of many of those who are hungry for exposure. With well known celebrities such as Natalie Imbruglia heading PETA’s own anti-fur campaign, we must consider the obvious publicity that these situations induce. So we must ask, is this all a PR stunt for the models and the fashion industry that animal rights activists are playing into? Or are groups such as PETA just as aware of the benefit of such publicity as everyone else?

A Dog is for Life, Not Just for the Battery Lifespan

On one hand, the Nintendogs virtual pets are great for those fad loving kids who are easily bored and will lose interest in a real life pet once the novelty wears off. So in that sense they are effective in fulfilling that initial short-lived desire for a pet.

On the other hand, they mislead the owners of these gadgets into believing that owning a pet is less involved and a lot simpler than it really is. Although you have to clean up the pooch’s poops on the console, it fails to include pet care, vet visits, medication costs, and general taming; therefore failing to provide an accurate experience of owning a pet dog. What about the true cost and chores of owning a pet?

If having a pet dog was as simple as the Nintendog suggests then we would all have a cute little odourless puppy in our home that rolls over when we tickle its collar and wags its tails permanently with joy. But this joyful experience of owning a pet dog is vastly different from the reality which involves a muddy, smelly pooch running around on a mission of destruction.

It therefore projects an unrealistic or rose-tinted view of owning a dog that can lead to people upgrading to real life pets without being fully prepared or informed about what this will entail.

In a society where 26 page documents are released informing pet owners on how to entertain and mentally stimulate your pets so ensure their mental stability, it seems ludicrous to simultaneously be “dumbing down” the reality of owning a pet. Surely we are being sent contradictory messages.

If the Nintendogs are meant to be an accurate depiction of a live pet dog then surely the same animal welfare rules should apply and owners should make every effort to ensure and monitor a mentally stable pet, but the software just does not accommodate for the mental support for pets. So, for a hassle free, clean and tidy alternative for a real life pet, Nintendogs offers a simple virtual imitation. But do not be fooled into thinking that owning a real life pet will be quite as simple.

What’s Your Pet Peeve?

In a new code of practice facing pet owners, cat and dog owners are advised as to the ways in which they should care for their pets. The new code contains obvious and excessive instructions that are to be imposed on pet owners when caring for their pets. The obvious being the well made observation that pet owners should feed their pet’s everyday; the excessive being the need for the provision of "entertainment" and "mental stimulation" for their pets under new government advice.

The article tells owners that suitable toys and "entertainment" should be provided for their cats and that they should “ensure that your cat has enough mental stimulation from you and from its environment to avoid boredom and frustration.” According to various sources, a lack in mental stimulation, even when coupled with sufficient physical stimulation, can result in a mental imbalance for pets. Maybe this revelation is all a PR stunt to trigger a rise in the number of pet psychiatrists; or maybe it is just another step towards the ever more present Nanny State.

Whatever the reason for these revelations, it strikes me as ever so slightly excessive. When was the last time your vet told you to hold regular entertainment activities for your pet? Ok cats and dogs are suitable for keeping as pets due to their tame nature and adaptability to the home environment, but that doesn’t mean they need mollycoddling 24/7 like a child. Cats especially can amuse themselves outside without having their owner set up a puppet show for them in order to stimulate their mind.

Providing a decent shelter, taking them to the vet when they are sick, and generally providing care should be sufficient. Without doubt, stories of animal cruelty are disturbing and unacceptable and need to be stopped, but there is no need to go to the extreme and treat them like a child.

Legislation should be targeted at the ignorant abusers who are incapable of providing care to animals. It just isn’t necessary to tell already caring pet owners how to further pamper their animals. Instead they should be inflicting greater punishments for those who abuse animals, and raising more money for saving those animals found deserted or mistreated.