Hunting: The Tide is Turning

[DavidDent]

I have noticed the tide has turned quite dramatically in favour of Hunting. I urge everyone not to forget this issue at the ballot box and don't let the Tories fudge it. Make sure to you aren't voting for someone like Anne Widdecombe: just because they may be Conservative doesn't mean they are pro Hunting.
I had an argument by email with her over the Guards Busbies. I have a small fashion company and was at the time buying some furs from the Cree in Canada. They mainly derive income from Fur trade and Hunting tourism to this day; and hence their areas like Saskatchewan are still a wilderness:
Hunting of any kind can only exist if habitat is protected, so its the best line of defence against habitat destruction.

Her retort was unbelievably ignorant; she did not know who the Cree were; yet she was happy to ban bearskins. The skins come from an ancient treaty with the Cree to supply them. They are from bears that have to be culled anyway rather than Grizzlies or Kodiaks.

So don't assume Tories to necessarily be pro Hunt.
I am also concerned they may fudge the issue once in or not want to commit to repealing it.

Having said that Labour in bringing in bans on both Hunting and Smoking have followed in the footsteps of none other than the Nazis. Yes they banned both too; and the origins of modern animal rights ideology and even the very phrase came from Heinrich Himmler.

Here are a few useful links to read more about that:
http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494

This is Mark Almond professor of history at Oxford who points out the dangers of banning either before they did so:
http://huntfacts.org.uk/hitler.htm

Animal Rights is an insidious ideology. It sounds okay to those who like animals so have sympathy with it. However undermining it is the idea that enlightened people do not kill animals, for any reason. That means anyone who hunts, wears fur, eats meat, etc is not enlightened , and therefore inferior. It therefore is committed moral elitism and ultimately racism. Hence you get these Labour MPs coming out with phrases like 'barabaric' and 'savage'. The Nazis did the same; and we know where their moral superiority led.

The Labour Party were in receipt of a £million donation from PAL, run by Tony Banks sister, linked to IFAW, a dreadful US animal rights organisation who you can read about here:

http://www.highnorth.no/news/pfriend.asp?which=81

The world Conservation Union actually repeatedly rejected applications for them to join so they have no credibility in the real Conservation world yet have directed UK Government Policy. The organisation has always used dodgy propaganda including using snuff movies:
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm

The tide against hunting has turned and most people are now pro hunt and sick of Animal Rights; especially after it was revealed that PETA did this:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/shockingphotos.cfm

So to me Labour have been compromised and nobody should ever vote for them again until all links with animal rights groups cease.

The change in public opinion has been the result of years of educating the public as to the conservation benefits, the heritage, the Libertarian argument, and the fact it remains the only discriminate method of control. Make sure now the politicans don't forget about it.

Most people agree with good animal welfare and good Conservation practice; those are a completely polarised view from the twisted logic of Animal Rights which must never taint politics again.

 

[nona1]

Personally I think there are far more important issues to consider when placing your vote than the candidate's position on hunting. This is more important than their views on the economy, NHS, law and order, immigration, the environment, etc etc etc....?

 

[combat_claire]

That is why I am totally baffled why the Labour campaign in Norwich North thought this would be a winning strategy!

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/20/so-whose-idea-was-this/

 

[DavidDent]

Personally I think there are far more important issues to consider when placing your vote than the candidate's position on hunting. This is more important than their views on the economy, NHS, law and order, immigration, the environment, etc etc etc....?

There is NO more important issue in voting than a Government who thinks it responsible for morality. People in Britain did not vote for smoking bans and hunting bans: they did indeed vote on issues like education transport and the NHS: all those things are in a far worse state than ever and the government have spent a huge amount of parliamentary time passing three thousand laws and taxes designed to remove peoples freedoms; all of which have created a vast bureaucracy which needs massive taxes to support. They have done this sneakily so people like London drivers, home sellers, smokers, and other naughty people have to pay ridiculous taxes indirectly.

How many huntsmen does it take to ensure a fox is caught without undue suffering?
Answer: one huntsman , 600 mps, massive NGO's like the RSPCA, thousands of hunt monitors, thousands of policemen to police us rabble when we complain too close to parliament etc etc.

This has nothing to do with the welfare of a British mammal: if it had anything to do with animal suffering the poisoning of milions of highly intelligent social mammals in our cities in the shape of the humble rat would be banned and terriers and ferrets do the job instead.

This has always been about social control.
And that is the issue you should be voting on.
Whether you think the government should decide over you on issues like personal morality.

To me a government that wishes to surpress individual freedoms on issues clearly not to do with basic consensus morality is one to be feared.
As I said, as far as I am aware the only government ever to ban smoking in public places and foxhunting, and on the same agenda that the government were responsible over the health morality and destiny of the individual and the nation, were the Nazis. The war on terror has undoubtedly also been used as a precedent to further curtail individual liberties even down to wearing a burkha. I don't recall any such strategy in the years of terror of the IRA.

I would also question any government concerned about immigration (have you seen the citizenship tests? Ridiculous)when for example horse racing would have been in a desperate state without stable staff from Czech republic Mauritius Poland etc. Funny nobody is talking about the two million British citizens who have left the country under Labour.
Thes era people who have left because their quality of life has gone due to freedoms and standard of living being eroded.

It is all about control. What we have had under Labour is not capitalism and its not socialism. It has been corporate communism: the same vision again as National socialism. They Corporation shave bloomed under Labour and remember that was the vision of the Nazis too; a corporation-state alliance. The state responsible for the strength and joy of the nation and using examples to set precedents in which to have an excuse to interfere in every aspect of our lives. If we tolerate this it won't be long before we are being charged for how many tissues we are using to wipe our backsides and having cctv to monitor it. Already the TUC conferences have for several years been discussing banning stiletto shoes in the workplace; I kid you not.

When they first came to power one of the first laws passed that went unnoticed by all apart from those immediately affected and some very shrewd legal experts was the banning of fur farms in the UK. This was done on the grounds of 'public morality'. No testing of this perceived public morality was ever tested, the ministers did not even visit fur farms, and the law was passed. It set an extremely dangerous precedent in the UK law and God knows what a governement like the BNP could now do with such a 'public morality' precedent.

What we need is a Libertarian revolution in the UK and the only party that can give us the traditional freedoms we fought a war to protect are the only party who should at least have libertarinaism in their ethos: its the Conservative party.

We need to see the bigger picture. The problem is when we vote on issues like the NHS and education and security is as Jefferson and Franklyn said:
"Those who sacrifice a liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both"

And that is what we here should be voting on. If you think smoking should be banned on health grounds (non existent btw: the widest ever study by the WHO showed clearly passive smoking not to be injurous to health) for example, do not be surprised when the same concerned state ban horse riding on the grounds it is abusive to the animal and dangerous for the rider.


Get these swines out now; before they ruin the economy futher, take more liberties from us, and use other excuses to tax us to pay for the vast bureaucracy it justifies to police us naughty citizens for our own good.

 

[Beagle]

combat Claire

There is no mystery about “why the Labour campaign in Norwich North thought this would be a winning strategy".

It seems clear to me that it would be reasonable to assume that the poster reflects the current funding priorities of the Labour Party & has nothing to do with the supreme social & economic importance of foxhunting in & around Norwich, let alone the possibility of its candidate winning the by-election!

As I understand it, the Labour Party has received substantial donations from PAL, which, it has been suggested, is run by the late Tony Banks' sister & is linked to, & ultimately funded by, IFAW, the US animal rights organisation.

One wonders how this aspect of Labour Party funding fits in with its plans to ban non-residents and overseas-domiciled individuals from making direct & indirect donations to political parties - not to say the fact that it is apparently also in receipt of substantial donations from Swaraj Paul & Lakshmi Mittal.

Beagle

 

[Scratchline]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! :grin: :grin:

 

[Scratchline]

I have noticed the tide has turned quite dramatically in favour of Hunting.

Tide turning? PMSL The most recent poll shows that 59% of those polled are LESS likely to vote for a candidate who supports the return of this blood sport! You just drowned lol lol lol

 

[Scratchline]

That is why I am totally baffled why the Labour campaign in Norwich North thought this would be a winning strategy!

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/07/20/so-whose-idea-was-this/

And the Tory reasons for a repeal are of course........Cow Tipping???! ROTFLMAO

"Jonathan Crispin MP for Pindon Village in West Sussex disclosed how levels of crime in the village had increased following the ban in 2005. He mentions how "machinery has been vandalised, pimping is on the increase and there's been a lot of cattle tipping". Cattle tipping (also known as bovine toppling) is the purported activity of sneaking up on a sleeping, upright cow and pushing it over for fun. Pindon is one of several villages to have reported an increase in cattle tipping over the past four years and the increase is presumed to be a direct result of the ban on hunting."

Direct result? lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 

[Bunce]

Typical pro hunt propaganda.

Note Cameron is in on it too

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s1i56043

 

[Bunce]

The Tories revealed today that their main priority during the recession will be to launch a campaign to repeal the ban on fox hunting. Conservative Shadow Justice Minister Egbert Garnier said the ban on hunting with hounds, which came into force in February 2005, was "monstrous high-handed tyranny" He added "it's about time we re-branded the sport and brought it back to combat the depletion of traditional values of discipline and hierarchical order".

Leader David Cameron was enthralled by Mr Garnier's pledge and said "I suppose it's better than starting wars all over the place" suggesting that the savage pastime may accord with the needs of rural communities by helping to reduce the feelings of stress and aggression during times of economic and emotional hardship.

Jonathan Crispin MP for Pindon Village in West Sussex disclosed how levels of crime in the village had increased following the ban in 2005. He mentions how "machinery has been vandalised, pimping is on the increase and there's been a lot of cattle tipping". Cattle tipping (also known as bovine toppling) is the purported activity of sneaking up on a sleeping, upright cow and pushing it over for fun. Pindon is one of several villages to have reported an increase in cattle tipping over the past four years and the increase is presumed to be a direct result of the ban on hunting. Janet Marquette who lives and works in Pindon believes that "Townies don't understand the effect the ban is having on those who live here. It's like making the city folk give up their gym memberships." Except we'd all get fat.

A proposed bill to repeal the the Hunting Act is due to be presented in Parliament next week. It is likely to coincide with protests from both pro and anti-hunting groups which are rumoured to take place in Parliament Square and outside Harrods.

Police are also prepared for attempts by the pro-hunting lobby to sabotage football matches at West Ham and Stamford Bridge after being told by a pro-hunt spokesman that "hunting is as important to us as football". However, London football fans refuse to be fazed by the rumours, so it seems, as we approached one West Ham supporter who merrily chanted "I don't care, I don't care, I don't care if you come round here, i've got my beer on the sideboard here, I don't care if you come round here. As long as you leave your muddy boots outside".

 

[DavidDent]

Oh those would be trolls then.
Having a keen interest in wildlife - I must add at this point I do not Hunt and am actively involved as a serious Conservation and indigenous peoples rights lobbyist, and will be staging an exhibition in support of a serious Conservation organistation soon - the species known as the troll interests me.

They aren't very bright and are prone to aggression; and perhaps that may be because like most pack animals they have to prove themselves. They are also timid creatures with little courage and hide in the dirt when they attack and you never see what they really look like.

lol btw your computer numbers have been reported to the Internet Crime Squad for the pathetically abusive emails to my website. Refrain from doing this as it will only get you into trouble and a visit from the Police.


You will find few serious conservationists now who do not see that hunting in many forms is an ally of Conservation of habitat objectives.

If you truly care about animals then leave an insidious fascistic and outdated ideology before the hate consumes you; and join the battle to prevent habitat destruction for unsustainable development.


I will not respond to any further replies by trolls here as I do not engage in discussions with those who are incapable of rational debate and are ignorant of modern Conservation thinking.

 

[A1fie]

DD - Love it!

 

[CorvusCorax]

QR, DD, I find your posts fascinating, I do hope you hang around.

 

[soggy]

Oh those would be trolls then.

You could call them that.

We prefer to call them fcukwits. As it just seem more apt.

 

[combat_claire]

The key part of your post was that the article was taken from THE SPOOF, you know that satirical newspaper, hardly the most accurate source of reporting. *rolls eyes*
personally I prefer Deadbrain, much wittier articles.

 

[combat_claire]

Having been leafleting in Norwich North I can tell you that fox hunting is not a key priority for the constituents. No matter the source of the money, they'd have stood more chance of scooping up a few votes by telling Norwich how they will improve things that actually have an impact on their day to day lives.

Will be interesting to see how the results pan out, especially given the number of independent candidates.

 

[Scratchline]

We prefer to call them fcukwits. As it just seem more apt.

More apt for say, people who do not post anything about the topic being discussed! My little damp squib x

 

[DavidDent]

Yes But 'fcukwits' are just one species of the order. The far more verminous kind are the species known as 'cnuts'; that would be the ones who bombard one with abusive intimidating emails and no doubt attack pony club children.
A great shame you don't have NSPCC monitors to video evidence of such abuse.

What is interesting is if they had any kind of rational argument or objection one could deal with it in a reasonable manner; but they do not. Their arguments against hunting are non existent, based on an insidious speciesist and racist philosophy biological ignorance and a sociopathic, politik of envy mindset. Again rather like the brownshirts the Nazis used to do their thuggery.

Yes I would love to stay around.

I was brought up in a new town in south wales bordering a rural area and revelled as a child in being able to enjoy the countryside studying great crested newts, mustidae, owls, voles, kingfishers etc. It was beautiful place to grow up. The farmers and the Hunt I found were the people who kept things as they were. Compulsory purchase orders and development to create a hideously ugly urban connurbation destroyed all this, and its architects the socialists working hand in glove with corporations destroyed it all. The streams and marshes were poisoned and there are no great crested newts, and concrete and housing estates supposed to be the new dream but actually were compeltely dehumanising spread over the landscape and left no room for wildlife. My beloved newts are all gone.

At the same time intensive arable crops like rape sprung up. Now no doubt some arable crops are needed but it seems insane to me to try to force Wales into it. Our beautiful countryside and its wild life is down to using the land primarily for sheep. It seems a tragedy to me that the marketing of mass produced fabrics made from synthetics and ecologically abusive cotton production to provide ugly and cheap clothing wiped out a traditional British cottage industry in quality wool and tweed. Tragic that when one gets two great big bags of wool form shearing a sheep it isn't worth anything. So in my clothing range I was determined to try to re invent tweed in designs with edge for modern women. The fact is wool and tweed and other animl produce is infinitely renewable, and the pratice acts as an economic barrier to development. One sees this everywhere, and my partner who has a quaternary science masters and doing a PHd in sustainability shares my passion. One of her areas of study for example has been south east asia and when one sees a traditional sustainable industry generating several billion for rural indigenous popluation in terms of water monitor lizard leather, keeping the habitat untouched, having to make way due to IMF pressure to 'develop' and then seeing marshes drained and forests felled to provide cheap photo copying paper for the west , one gets mad. Not only at people who insist the third world must develop, but also at those who have with a hideously warped morlaity and little understanding of conservation or traditional ways of life condeming things like such lizard leather or fur, one then realises the animal rights lobby are directly contributing to habitat destruction. The destruction of forest then causes far more damage to the climate than a few car exhaust fumes (which are in my opinion being exagerated for taxation purposes).

BUT it is actually even more insidious than that. Remember that soya for example is the staple of the vegan. It was incidentally also the Nazi dream to feed the Reich; yes, it was their vision. See how the social engineering fits together? State- Corporation- animal rights philosophy.

Oh yes you may , say, but that was years ago. However, essentially what we have seen is the same ideas come to frution through the world banks and corporations in alliance with left wing politics and animal rights ideas. It may not have the uniforms and the overt racism, but it is the same vision of social enginerring and the same dire ecological consequences.

Judge for yourself the state of Argentina re the habitat destruction leading to the virtual extinction of the Jaguar:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3622108.stm

This would not have happened if the traditional industries of free ranging cattle and fur farming - nutria rex rabbit and chinchilla - had been supported. It was industries like Monsanto that developed the idea with soya.

It is now clear to all serious Conservationists that sustainable traditional land management must be supported as a barrier to habitat destruction, and climatoligists like my partner Eliza has seen it first hand by spending time with the Sami and in Argentina and Patagonia. We hope to visit the latter next year to seek the elusive Patagonian Puma while she does some glacial study. The wilderness there is the result of traditional animal farming and hunting. We shall also visit Greenland to source furs for my label from the Inuit, who haver been the disgusting target of racist abuse from animal rights organisations just lately. "Neanderthal" was mentioned in the run up to Canada's hosting of the winter Olympics. Actually, the EEC ban on sealskin is quite clearly a breach of article 22 of the Rio Declaration on the environment; something I would also applies to UK foxhunting. Thank fully the principle Conservation organisations like the IUCN and WWF see hunting more postively and even have their own hunting intiatives such as big game hunting in Cameroons and sable hunting reseves in Siberia. Again the quaternary scientists who have now proved the overkill theory of mammoths completely false now shows the whole concept of hunter as destroyer completely erroneous.
There is an Inuit saying that only hunters truly care about their quarry. That applies to fox hunting too. If we wiped foxes out there would be no fox huting. That is not the aim.
The Hunter and the Conservationists are now staunch allies and animal rights and corporate communism finished; the latter has caused an unprecedented recession.

So I have spent years fighting these animal rights ideas and organistations and have a great deal of expose on them. For example one of the biggest organisations was the brainchild of a group of American lawyers who saw animals as a vast area of financial expansion if they could ensure animal 'rights' as an issue for the law.

So trolls, realise that while I will not address your statements here, and that every post I have ever made in an animal rights forum has been deleted quickly while yours are allowed to stand, I would advise you to realise that you are not speaking with a die hard hunter but with someone who has studied and devoted their life to the countryside and the widlerness and animals. In all the hunts I have ever been on as an observer, I have never witnessed anything cruel. Nor have I ever come across the snobbery you perceive. I though that may have been because we are Wales and we haven't got 'posh' people, but I have also in the last ten years seen many Hunts now and certainly no snobbery or elitism. It is my testimony that wherever there is hunting, habitat and wildife flouruish, and wherever I see animal rights ideas, I see urban connurbation and corporate destruction.

As for those of you who Hunt, I would like you to know you have the support of many other Hunting cultures and traditional animal based economies around the globe and at some point all of us and the conservationstys are going to have to get together and fight the insidious evil of animal rights phiosophy and its vast corporate financial tentacles. Now, which is going to be the first Hunt to have some of my Inuit, Cree, Sami and Evenk friends invited on a FoxHunt to stage a show of soldiarity? And watch the racist abuse from the animal rights lobby exposed then.

I wondered even about starting a lobby group.
How does
"Alliance for the Protection of Cultures of Hunting and their Environments"
APACHE

This would have the added Academic support of many Anthropologists and Conservationists whose views are polarised from animal rights philosophy; and could campaign to support hunting where it is the victim of unwarranted attack by urban law makers and corporate greed. I would love to see it happen; but the problem is that while the antis are united (with huge finances and indoctrinating and intimidating) , we are fragemented. That can change. Animal Rights has gone on too long unchalleneged and politicans fear to attack it for fear of beings seen as nasty to cuddly animals.
It is now, as people are beginning to sicken of it as poltical correctness gone mad, time to challenge it and destroy it.

 

[DavidDent]

btw I mention my partner's work here because she was the completely unwarranted subject of one of the abusive emails from one of the antis here.
Of course it is easier to suit the mindset of these people to believe that a woman who models fur or supports hunting as a Conservation ally is a money grabbing bimbo 'out for what she can get' rather than a respected quaternary scientist and climatoligist studying sustainability.

 

[Scratchline]

ZZZZZZZZZZ! Wake me up when you have finished ZZZZZ....

 

[Darkly_Dreaming_Dex]

Thankyou DD for the most thought provoking posts i have read in a long time. I am actively involved in countryside conservation AND i hunt yet so many of these "trolls" would consider it impossible for me to practise both.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

i think the trolls don't realise just how many folk who support hunting also are all for conservation, the 2 go together in my eyes. just goes to show the ignorance of the knowledge of the custodians that care for the rural scene.

 

[soggy]

More apt for say, people who do not post anything about the topic being discussed!

Such as one like yourself?

 

[soggy]

Yes But 'fcukwits' are just one species of the order. The far more verminous kind are the species known as 'cnuts'; that would be the ones who bombard one with abusive intimidating emails and no doubt attack pony club children.
A great shame you don't have NSPCC monitors to video evidence of such abuse.

What is interesting is if they had any kind of rational argument or objection one could deal with it in a reasonable manner; but they do not. Their arguments against hunting are non existent, based on an insidious speciesist and racist philosophy biological ignorance and a sociopathic, politik of envy mindset. Again rather like the brownshirts the Nazis used to do their thuggery.

DD

Couldn't agree more if I tried.

I for one applaud your efforts and commitment.

SBB's

 

[RichardRider]

Enjoyed reading your post...richard

 

[CorvusCorax]

Me too!

 

[FinnishLapphund]

*insert bowing smileys*

Hear, hear.

There is animals activists in Sweden too. Their idea of wildlife conservation work seems to mainly be along the lines of how they claim to save American Minks from fur farms, by releasing them into the wild! In the wild, where the minks either die even faster and most likely in more painful ways than at the fur farm or they establish themselves, thereby causing the death of the animals that they have to kill to eat etc.

 

[Scratchline]

More apt for say, people who do not post anything about the topic being discussed!

Such as one like yourself?

Maybe it is not just your bottom that is soggy, but also your brain. Or maybe you need to pretend that I dont post about each topic when I post on a thread!

 

[Scratchline]

i think the trolls don't realise just how many folk who support hunting also are all for conservation, the 2 go together in my eyes. just goes to show the ignorance of the knowledge of the custodians that care for the rural scene.

So if you are anti hunting it immediately makes you an internet troll?!! Usual verbal tripe from you then lol lol lol

 

[DavidDent]

Yes I have been to mink farms too; you will never , ever , see better animal husbandry. Of course the mink are domesticated and have been in many cases for up to 80 years. The same is true of farmed fox of course.

To release such animals into the wild is totally irresponsible; most only leave the security of the farm because the sabs kick up a din and scare them. Most return, nervous exhausted and hungry. Those that do manage to survive the wild then become a nuisance to indigenous wildlife, some of whom have no defence against the mink and the resulting damage to eco systems is appalling.


Thank you all for your supportive comments. I think it high time these antis were exposed for what they are. There are three kinds:
1. The Paymasters. These are the corporate gangsters who have taken the idea of animal rights and used it to con money out of gullible urban people alienated from life in the country or wilderness. In a way these are the most evil because they are knowingly purporting to represent a body that cannot speak for themselves. Of course no predator would have any resepct for the rights of another animal so the notion is ridiculous. As we are just animals too to suggest somehow we are more enlightened than animals therefore should not kill them is an outright deception as it is what human beings have evolved to do as chief predator; it is therefore also the ultimate speciesm: it is patronising and using animals as a political football to build vast corporate empires. They then build propaganda machines which includes payment to people who produce snuff video of animals being butchered alive etc. They then also begin a process of indoctrination of children.

2. The Bandwagon spokesmen. These are celebrities politicians and media people who, realising the AR lobby have tapped into a streak of utter Disneyfied ignorance in lowest common denominator urban society, also exploit it. They then fuel the ignorance so again to me they are evil. One example of this is Glenys Kinnock on tv a few years ago being totally beaten by rational argument by the audience over fur, then said that her real objection was that furs wer obsceneley expensive. This coming from a woman who earns more on her expenses in a year than most of us see in ten. As these socialists and rich celebs do not actually want to disturb the sytem that makes them rich (the gap between rich and poor is greater now that in Dickensian times; animals become a good way of diverting attention from real social problems.

3. The Henchmen. These, like the Brownshirts of the Nazis are those without power who can gain respectability by pretending to care about animals and direct their venom nurtured by the politiks of envy. They receive their information from groups like PETA IFAW and spread it around the net, intimidate people, sab hunts and fur farms, etc. They also have a softer side and you see this in their street campaigns for which they are recruited by the paymasters. Their promotion to this kind of role can see them moderate forums and eventually gain work with a Group. These are those responsible for spreading venemous propaganda though it is easily proved false. These are the inadequates you see posting here. Any pretence that they care for animals is absurd because if they have nothing but hate for human beings it is very doubtful they can truly care for animals. They are Fascists.

4. The unwitting people, mostly young, taken in by these lies who just simply care about animals. Sometimes these people can easily be shown the truth. Through determined efforts many of these now see that hunting, even if they dont like the idea, is the fairest way to control the predator; that most of what they have heard about fur is complete tosh, and that the Paymasters are actually just building corporate empires using animals as an excuse. The PETA expose helped here. For those who still are fooled by the propaganda and don't realise they are being used, there is hope. Anyone who truly cares about animals will do so in a Conservation or Welfare framework.