"Respect for Animals: Nothing is Wasted!"
When was the last time you skinned something you respected? As far as "not wasting" parts of an animal goes I think it is a justified choice in traditional cultures or for necessity in areas of the world on the remote side. However in a industrial and modernized nation or world, finding ways to use up all the parts only propagates the demand for animal products. Using animal byproducts only encourages and supports companies who use them. The argument that the meat is being eaten anyways and to not use the rest of the animal would be a waste undermines a central issue: it is not only the purchasing of meat that contributes to the demand for animal products!
"Fur, A Renewable Resource"
This is one of the most transparent lies used in the campaign. Why is fur still being considered a resource? A resource for what, warmth? Maybe in Nunavut. A resource for "eco-fashion"? Obviously according to the Fur Council of Canada. The sense that it is being called renewable is from the standard and perspective of those who are taking recent eco-minded buzz and manipulating it. The Fur Council has tried to make it seem like killing animals for fur has no consequences - like these animals don't mind they are being hunted, trapped or farmed. Just because a species is not endangered does not mean that anyone has the
right to go ahead and make that happen, let alone call a species or living beings sustainable."Environmental Activism"
The language used in this campaign is interesting because the truth is literally the inverse of the words and phrases used. The focus is explicitly put on the use of animals so that the extrapolation of their methods and goals is of course manifested in advertising. It doesn't take an in-depth look to see the immoral constructedness of the language: Earth-friendly, durable, recyclable, a gift of nature? Skinned animals have nothing to do with these things. I am intellectually insulted at the level of stupidity which this company has assumed of their potential customers. I thought at first this has to be a joke. Then reality sunk in that "A New Vision of Fur for an Eco-Conscious World" is being presented as that it is positive, respecting land, animals, cultures and people. The list of unacceptable advertising tactics and the twisting of eco-jargon goes on to include "Beautifully Canadian" and "Because fur is a part of our heritage". They've gone as far to call on our nationalism! Mine certainly has nothing to do with the Fur Council of Canada's nation-wide-fur-pride.
Also featured in the campaign is a counter attack on Peta - their slogans such as "Fur is Dead" obviously conflict with the Council's fiscal goals. One example of the methods being used which blatantly expose ulterior motives is in the rhetorical question "Do 'so-called' animal rights groups really help animals?". Well, yes actually they do Fur Council. Followed by "Judge for yourself...PETA KILLS ANIMALS".
WHAT?
If the Fur Council was asking us to make up our own minds and "judge for ourselves" than we would not be bombarded with their extreme and ludicrous advertising strategies. Is this an attempt to be subversive? Because it's not working. Maybe this will sway some of those who straddle the fence on the issue of fur, especially for the people who do not question what is being fed to them as well as their own beliefs. There are many ways to do your part in saving the environment, being eco-conscious and making a "green" choice: buying fur is not one of them.
