A Disconnect: Pelts vs Pets

My newspaper is open on the table in front of me. On the left page is a story about  trappers  bemoaning the fact that there is a general decline in their target species, whether it be beaver, mink or bobcat. “The price for lynx pelt – about $70.00 – is “disappointing” considering the amount of work required to catch and process the animal,” the article says.

It continues. “Fur remains popular with increasingly affluent buyers from Russia and in China – the fur industry there is worth $22 billion – but the vagaries of fashion and waning economic growth in those nations have depressed prices for pelts for the past several years.”

On the facing page is a human interest story about a puppy whose face was severely damaged by corrosive acid thrown at him in his homeland of Iran. He was rescued and put up for adoption, hopefully “by someone in North America who could afford the care” and surgeries it required. A Vancouver woman did adopt him, she set up a GoFundMe page and raised over $7,000.00 to pay for the veternarian costs.

What is wrong with this picture? One animal is considered a ‘pet’ and thousands of dollars are spent to keep it alive. Another animal is seen as a pelt for someone to wear, so it is only valuable dead. There is a huge disconnect here.

I, of course, am on the side of the animal. Wearing pelts for fashion seems ridiculous in this day and age.  I saw a mink coat valued at $40,000 in a Vancouver store last weekend.  I wonder if the person who would buy such a coat might also be carrying a small dog under her arm.

Yes, a serious disconnect.

(Quotes were taken from the Vancouver Sun, January 28, 2019.