(25/10/2001) Fur farm attack act of ‘eco-terrorism’

A break-in at Crow Hill Mink Farm in the early hours of 24 October is described by the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) as "an act of eco-terrorism and extreme cruelty to the animals".

The BFTA says: "By driving these farmed mink out into unfamiliar countryside ­ to fend for themselves in the wild ­ these eco-terrorists have committed an act of extreme cruelty. The chance that these farmed animals will survive in the wild is almost zero. There is no benefit for the animals that are used to safe, comfortable housing, daily care and a regular supply of food. And there is no benefit for the local community where there will be great concern about the knock-on effect to the environment as the few surviving mink frantically search for food."

The police have confirmed that the break-in is being treated as a criminal investigation and local people are being urged to contact a hotline at Lyndhurst Police Station with information.

The Crow Hill mink farm is one of 13 farms forced to kill animals unnecessarily because of a ban on fur farming that will come into force in 2003.

The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) says: "Fur farmers are producing for a thriving world market without any kind of subsidy. They prosper or fail on the high quality of their animals and consumer demand. Yet the Government claims this legitimate farming activity allegedly offends 'public morality', even though no one knows what 'public morality' means in this context, not even those who are responsible for the new law.

"The Government is also at odds with public opinion on this issue. A recent poll found that the overwhelming majority of people support the farming of animals for any purpose provided there is good animal welfare."

The BFTA says: "Ironically, the ban will have little effect on world supply as British farmed fur production contributes less than 1% to the market. But the cost of this ban will be measured in the adverse effect it will have on rural areas - often high unemployment areas - where the drift of people away is causing deep concern, especially now following BSE and the foot and mouth disease crisis

"There will also be a high cost to society generally in having set a potentially dangerous precedent for criminalising other farming activities without proper justification."

The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill completed its parliamentary stages in November 2000, despite strong views voiced against it by Conservative MPs, including former ministers, and peers. The main thrust of opposition was around the principle of the Bill in that it criminalises a farming activity that is well regulated and covered by national and European law. Douglas Hogg MP and a former agriculture minister, condemned the new legislation as "offensive and illiberal".

-ends-

Issued by the British Fur Trade Association.
25 October 2001
Press contact – Andrea Martin
e-mail press@britishfur.co.uk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes to editors:

The Act banning fur farming in England and Wales became law in November 2000. It provides for a compensation scheme to be introduced at a later stage. Farmers may close down their farm during the winding-down period, but must cease before the ban comes into effect in 2003.

Papers prepared by civil servants for the Government indicated that the total of compensation would be around £1.6m. However, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament the Government agreed that there would be negotiation and consultation with interested parties and that loss of income over an unspecified number of years also will be taken into account.

Taylor Nelson Sofres plc carried out a second wave of national opinion research which was commissioned by the British Fur Trade Association on 5-9 September 2001 and, indicated in brackets, a first wave on 23-27 February 2000. The results are based on a representative sample of c.1000 of adults 16+.

Question: In principle, I find it acceptable that animals are kept on farms for any purpose, provided there is good animal welfare. Agree 82% (81%), Disagree (of which 3% disagreed strongly) 8% (7%), DK 1% (2%)