Skins shall not RIP

one of the billion fur stores across the world. Pic: azam

Suddenly the news media, facebook and twitter updates of many animal people was abuzz with a news item where PETA- the organisation better known for its hardcore animal rights activism was found playing Santa to needy and destitute human beings.


Donations to the needy, that's a noble cause?


Well, yes indeed it is. But not when you donate stuff that you would not like to wear or endorse yourself with, neither would the hundreds of employees at PETA or the millions of their members would volunteer to.


So what exactly are they donating?


Its is recycled FUR- skin of animals most of which is ripped off even when the animal is alive.


Is it then 'unethical' to be donating recycled FUR among the poor, isn't it much better than just throwing it off?


Well if you ask the receiver, he wont mind. He is happy and thankful because he is in need.


But FUR is not just an ordinary piece of clothing.
It is a wildlife product and could well invite a penalty or imprisonment or both in many countries if found in possession. PETA's actions can send a wrong signal to the ethics of animal protection & conservation of wildlife.


If it is acceptable to donate animal products like animal fur in USA, is it acceptable to donate elephant ivory, rhino horn, tiger skins, mongoose pelts and deer antlers in India and Asia?


I come from northeast India where a majority of the population in this region is below poverty level, their economic condition is far worse compared to the homeless in the US. Some of their ancestors were head hunters, not anymore but animals they do hunt. Wildlife they do kill. Since India's independence the Wildlife Protection Act is applicable to each of these places, on both those with homes and also the homeless. Despite that wildlife is at risk, animals are killed including the largest mammal on earth, not for tusks alone but also for meat.
One elephant's flesh can feed a village and many villages for days.
There have been several instances when elephants were found dead, poachers managed to escape.
Should the PETA formula apply to these people?
The elephant is dead, how about donating it among the villagers?


Indeed, it has been a longstanding debate at CITES regarding what to do with stockpiles of wildlife products.
If giving away fur costs is acceptable, why not also sell and distribute wildlife stockpiles and other wildlife and animal stock?


It might also be acceptable then to give away shahtoosh shawls obtained by killing Tibetan Antelope.
It can be justified on the same grounds to distribute meat to poor people as is the norm in religious festivals.
Where does one draw the line on what is acceptable for usage of animal products?
After all, some of us are very vocal in opposing sustainable use.


Or maybe the real difference and the acceptability threshold lies in the varying standards laid down in  the West and those employed in the East.
Donating furs is acceptable in US for homeless people but doing the same would amount to outrage in India.
Imagine what would be the reaction in the West if people started distributing their old shikar trophies of tigers and lions in India.

Many of us do not talk about these issues because we have our purse strings tied to many of the big groups that indulge in such antics. Apathy comes together with ignorance and vested interests.

Comments and opinions invited.

__________________

PETA Gives Away Fur Coats To Homeless

Group Says Those Without Are Only Ones Who Need Them

Read more: http://www.wlwt.com/news/29953256/detail.html#ixzz1g9gyewFq