Regarding the April 17 article "Designer's 'ecological' line slammed as 'green-wash' ": While it was very interesting to read Chie Imai's idea of mixing recycled synthetics with real furs, I felt the tone of the headline, and the coverage given to the response from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), were out of order.
I think the vast majority of intelligent people no longer harbor ethical objections to the use of fur. Ecologically speaking, it is far better than alternatives, and an animal doesn't care whether it is killed for meat or for fur. The issue is twofold:
• Welfare: Good animal welfare is essential for quality fur.
• Conservation: Many conservationists now are fully behind the argument that fur production not only is ecologically sound but also protects habitats, and they oppose animal rights organizations such as PETA.
What has sunk the case for PETA is its treatment of companion animals given to them for "rehoming." Coverage of Imai's assertions was biased by giving an organization that has committed appalling hypocrisy more credence than it deserves.
It would have been far better for the journalist to have shown the conservationist point of view. Celebrated Canadian Conservationist Bill Lishman, for example, is the husband of Canadian designer Paula Lishman, and they have put forward good arguments in the "fur is green" campaign being run by the Canadian fur council of which Paula has been appointed head. I trust that journalists in the future will give PETA less coverage with regard to what is an important and sound ecological case.