FUR FARMING 

J. E. Oldfield, Professor Emeritus
Department of Animal Sciences
Withycombe Hall 200
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331-6702 

INTRODUCTION

Two primary issues dominate discussion of animal welfare on fur farms. The first issue -- confinement -- is not unique to fur farming. Animal rightists contend that mink, despite more than a century of domestication, remain essentially "wild" animals and therefore should not be confined in pens.

The second issue is euthanasia. Animal rightists contend that furbearing animals are harvested using inhumane methods such as electrocution or cervical dislocation.

DISCUSSION

Through its national association, the Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, the fur farming industry has established a program of humane care guidelines to encourage proper animal welfare practices. The guidelines were developed in consultation with veterinarians, animal scientists, and other experts. Specific topics addressed in the guidelines include farm management, physical accommodations (site, sheds, pens, nest boxes), food and water (nutrition, feed preparation, feed distribution, watering systems), health and disease control, environmental quality (sanitation, water quality), transportation of live mink, and euthanasia.

Industry Certification Program

Under the coalition's merit award certification program, fur farms meeting all industry standards are certified after inspection by an independent veterinarian to verify compliance with industry standards. Farms must be reinspected and recertified every 3 years. About 95 percent of domestic mink production takes place on certified farms that meet industry standards and have passed veterinary inspection.

Euthanasia

Industry guidelines with respect to euthanasia follow the recommendations of the 1986 American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia. The guidelines prescribe the use of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide bottled gas for mink and lethal injection (pentobarbital sodium or secobarbital/dibucaine) for fox. The AVMA has recommended these methods as more humane and more aesthetically acceptable than most alternatives.

Compliance with industry standards is lower for fox farms than for mink farms because the recommended lethal substances for euthanasia are difficult to obtain. Federal drug regulations require that such substances be used under the supervision of veterinarians or other personnel registered with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. Since the services of such authorized personnel are frequently unavailable or too costly for fox farmers, some have found it difficult to comply with this standard. In such cases, the Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition's guidelines require that producers employ an alternative method considered humane by the inspecting veterinarian.

Although compliance with industry standards among mink farmers is high, it is not 100 percent. A small number of mink farmers continue to use euthanasia methods other than those recommended in industry guidelines. A handful of mink farmers use cervical dislocation because they believe the use of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide results in discoloration of the pelts. The AVMA cites as advantages of cervical dislocation that it: (1) will induce immediate unconsciousness, (2) does not chemically contaminate tissues, and (3) is rapidly accomplished. Its disadvantages, according to the AVMA, are that it may be aesthetically displeasing and that its use is limited to poultry, mice, immature rats and rabbits, and other animals weighing less than 1 kilogram. The method is not generally recommended for heavier animals. In cases where it is considered acceptable, its use is contingent upon the proper training of personnel.

Fox farmers who are not able to utilize lethal injection most commonly use two alternative methods -- carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide gas, or electrocution. The AVMA recognizes the use of gas for "small dogs" as rapid and painless, and without stress to the animal, when properly administered. The AVMA recognizes electrocution as humane if current is directed through the brain and advises against methods that direct current through the heart. Disadvantages of electrocution, according to the AVMA, are that it is hazardous to personnel, time-consuming per animal, difficult with vicious or intractable animals, and considered "aesthetically objectionable."

Public concerns focus largely on the matter of euthanasia; when people are informed of the humane practices utilized on the vast majority of fur farms, they generally indicate acceptance of farm-raised fur.

Research

The fur industry has conducted extensive research on public attitudes toward the use of fur. This research indicates that most fur users have relatively high comfort levels with the farm-raised product when information is provided about humane care methods.

Media spokespersons for the Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition confirm that in numerous radio and television interviews, many of which have allowed for viewer/listener questions and input, public acceptance of farm-raised fur has remained relatively stable.

Independent research appears to support the continued use of the current practices outlined in the Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition's merit award guidelines. The fur farming industry has actively maintained a program to educate producers and encourage compliance with industry standards. While continued research may result in new knowledge leading to changes in industry practices, today's practices are solidly based on accepted principles of veterinary medicine and the technical knowledge of recognized experts in furbearer science.

Outcome

Animal welfare groups are attempting to reform specific aspects of domestic fur production; the more radical animal rights activists seek to eliminate all human use of animals. Because many members of the public reject the no-animal-use view, animal rights initiatives often hide behind the more acceptable "animal welfare" issues.

To the extent that animal rights activists are successful in their ultimate goal of eliminating all animal use, there will be negative effects for producers, consumers, and animals alike:

• The cost of compliance with unrealistic and unnecessary government regulations will force producers out of business.
• Increased government regulation of agriculture will mean, over the short term, higher prices for the animal products that consumers enjoy. Over the long-term, consumers will lose the right to choose animal products at all, resulting in greater reliance on synthetic substitutes. This is particularly true for consumers of fur, since most alternatives to natural fur are petroleum-based synthetics.
• These changes may ultimately mean that some species of animals will become endangered or even extinct. As human civilization expands, the availability of natural habitat for animals diminishes. If natural habitats cannot absorb these animals and support them, the long-term survival of many species will be at risk.

REFERENCES FOR FURTHER READING

1. "Standard Guidelines for the Operation of Mink Farms in the United States," March 1989, Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, Ltd.^*, St. Paul, Minnesota.

2. "Standard Guidelines for the Operation of Fox Farms in the United States," March 1989, Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, Ltd.^*, St. Paul, Minnesota.

3. "Fur Farming in North America," March 1991, Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, Ltd.^*, St. Paul, Minnesota.

4. "1986 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia," Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 188, No.3, February 1, 1986.

5. "Animal Rights In the Words of Its Leaders," January 1992, Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, Ltd.^*, St. Paul, Minnesota.

^*Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition Ltd., 225 E. 6th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101

Last Modified: October 19, 2004