Beauty Without Cruelty International headquarters initiated the anti-fur and trapping movement in England way back in 1959. Later it spread to other countries and has been taken up seriously by many organisations world-wide. Although Beauty Without Cruelty is totally anti-trapping, for years the organisation worked on the so-called humane trap standards and has influenced Governments particularly with regard to a so-called international trapping standard being promoted by ISO. Beauty Without Cruelty also approached the Director, Food & Agriculture, Bureau of Indian Standards concerning India’s stand. A detailed representation based on general, procedural, scientific and legal grounds was submitted pointing out how important it is that India votes against the proposed standards, particularly as it would be in keeping with our country’s laws prohibiting trapping under The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended up to 1991).

If from the wild, fur of animals is obtained illegally and through terribly cruel trapping methods. Standardising traps can never be the answer — abolishing them is — therefore approving specifications would be like condoning trapping, an action no different to accepting so-called humane slaughter. Traps and snares are laid in forest areas only to be checked days or weeks later. Meanwhile the trapped creature caught in the powerful jaws of the trap (may not even be a fur bearing animal in which case is “trash” for the trapper) suffers intense pain, broken bones, terror, starvation, exposure to elements, etc. often resulting in hideously chewing its own trapped limb in a bid to escape. A trap can not distinguish between a companion and wild animal as a result of which many dogs that have wandered into forest areas have met with gruesome amputation and death. It is the same all over the world: fur is synonymous with cruelty for vanity.

In 1982 fox tails were found to be hanging in most vehicles. Investigations revealed the animals were illegally killed for their tails. The Maharashtra Forest Department was therefore alerted by BWC and in Mumbai alone they confiscated about 1000 fox tails.

In 1997, BWC approached the Director, Food & Agriculture, Bureau of Indian Standards concerning India’s stand to vote against the proposed standards of the so-called “humane trap” being promoted by the International Organisation for Standarization.

In 2019 and 2020 hundreds of barbed wire snares laid down in forests by poachers killed or seriously injured scores of tigers, hundreds of leopards and other wild life that suffered and died in agony. Even within Rathambore a tiger was not spared following which the forest department became alert. Concealed on the ground, in foliage or placed near the eggs in nests, snares aim at trapping unsuspecting wild birds and animals. A snare cuts into the body of the creature and the more it struggles the deeper it cuts. It usually suffers amputation and bleeds to death. Earlier poachers used creepers and bamboo traps, now they utilize binding wires used for construction work, wires from solar fences and bike clutch cables because they are cheap, effective and easy to hide. Poachers also using handmade bombs and a box containing those that were confiscated exploded at night in the locked office of the Forest Department at Pune.

The Bhavariya and Pardi tribes of Madhya Pradesh use steel jaw-traps – for tigers too. The trap consists of teeth-like jagged edges held together by springs and linked to a round pan. It is firmly buried in the ground and covered by dry leaves. To ensure that the animal steps on the trap, cut branches and bushes are laid on either side of its presumed route. When the animal steps on it, the jaws open and quickly clamp shut over its paw. The more it struggles the deeper the jagged edges of the jaws cut into its flesh, sometimes down to the bone. There is no way the animal can escape unless it chews off its paw which some have done in desperation. If left undetected and not killed by the poacher, the animal dies of fear, pain and hunger.

In July 2012 an attempt was made to poach tigers by placing jaw traps in the Biligiriranganathaswamy Tiger Reserve (BTR) Karnataka. The six poachers arrested were from Odisha and upon interrogation revealed that they first hid themselves inside a small cave in the forest reserve and studied tiger movements. They then strategically placed jaw traps, activated only in the night. The modus operandi was to pierce the trapped animal’s eyes with a sharp object and smash its head. The poachers were also involved in selling wild animal pelts.

Such cruel, metal jaw traps, that slam down on the animals’ limbs and cut deep, have been used by poachers hailing from Madhya Pradesh too. In 2002 these jaw traps laid by them were first found placed in the Nagarahole National Park. A year later, poachers who set up these traps at the Bandipur National Park got arrested. In 2008 again, two poachers were arrested after the staff of Veeranahosahalli forest area recovered jaw traps. And, in 2011 it was suspected that a tiger at Bandipur National Park died due to being caught in a jaw trap.

85% of furs are obtained from “farms” or “ranches” as they are termed are undoubtedly also products of cruelty. The animals are specially bred only to be killed through strangulation, gas or electrocution. For example rabbit fur is used for a wide range of products like footwear, handbags, caps, hats, coats, mufflers and gloves. These items are commonly seen displayed by shops in hill stations and at Kashmir emporiums.

Some times cat fur/skin items are also found in shops. Although it is more likely that they are from China, in India certain tribes kill cats. Periodically people inform BWC that they have seen gypsies stalking cats in cities. In 2014, a lad from Kapurthala (Punjab) wrote about cats being hunted with the help of dogs and sticks and that his inquiries had revealed that they were killed for making medicines.

Cat meat is a delicacy for gypsies such as the Narikoravas living in Chennai. They catch mainly pet cats in nets, drug and stuff them into plastic gunny bags. During 2015 cat flesh was found to be passed off in chicken biryani sold on roadsides, and a large number of cat skins were recovered from their colonies. These gypsies not only clandestinely butcher cats for meat and fur, but in 2016 they were invited to net pigeons at the airport.

Although Beauty Without Cruelty had received an assurance from the Government of India that plans for mink farming were dropped, plans to specially breed other species of fur bearing animals were announced in 1981. A petition of over 150,000 signatures in protest (including 105 Members of Parliament each representing about 500,000 persons) was therefore submitted by BWC in 1982 to the then Prime Minister. Although the breeding of rabbits (which continues – more information available at http://www.bwcindia.org/Web/Awareness/LearnAbout/Rabbits.html) and Karakul lambs was not stopped then, no new animals were bred to be killed under the proposed scheme of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).

However in 1989, after 13 years of working on the issue from many different angles (including appealing to a Joint Parliamentary Committee set up for the purpose) BWC was able to achieve unimaginable success when the ICAR reluctantly gave in to our pleas and scrapped their Karakul lamb project. Karakul lambs imported from the former USSR were being bred for slaughter within 48 hours of their birth. In order to forestall Karakul lamb farming in the country, BWC purchased the entire flock of sheep which were shifted to Deesa in Gujarat where they lived out their natural lifespan.

When in 1988 the then President of India, R Venkataraman and his Secretary Gopalkrishna Gandhi (grandson of Mahatma Gandhi) visited USSR they were presented with Karakul lamb caps, but they refused to accept them because they were aware via BWC of the cruelty and killing involved. 

Then in January 1990, BWC presented the then Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh, a faux Karakul lamb cap with a request that he stop using his Astrakhan/Persian/Karakul lamb fur cap. In response, the late PM wrote “… As you can see I have been wearing it since the day I got it. Sometimes things are done without the awareness of the background. I have always stood for those who are voiceless. Therefore my decision to switch to an artificial fur cap as soon as I was informed of the cruelty involved. I thank you again…”

In 1990 Beauty Without Cruelty discovered that mink coats were being sold by furriers in Delhi and Mumbai. On making enquiries it was found that mink was imported into India, mainly from USA and Canada, as “rags” or “shoddy wool” or “pre-mutilated woollen rags”. Assurance was given by the concerned Government authorities that such illegal imports would be prevented.

Fake, faux or simulated fur as it is known and labelled, is the alternative but it may not always be vegan (synthetic) since it is also made from animal wool. However, there are many who do not like to wear this fur either as it reminds them of animals’ pelts. India, by far the world’s largest importer of faux fur, imports most of it from China, UK and USA. Fish fur denotes poor quality fur which could be from an animal or fake. Fish skin is the leather of fish, whereas, fur-bearing trout or furry trout is a fictional creature.

For decades the drummers of the Indian Navy at the Republic Day Parade had leopard skin trimmings on their uniforms although they now utilise fake fur.

The use of animal fur represents the murder of innocent animals and this is being acknowledged internationally, even by those in the trade. Why else did a female furrier take legal action against the organisation which put up a signboard graphically depicting a fur coat with blood trailing along with the words: It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat but only one to wear it? Animals are trapped, snared, shot, clubbed, strangled, gassed or electrocuted to death for their fur – and for human vanity.

Very many animal activists are seen publicly objecting to celebrities wearing fur by throwing things like flour on them; others have been appealing to people to stop wearing fur by informing them of the gory details of fur production. Meanwhile, more and more people are using simulated fur and proudly displaying buttons stating slogans such as “Make No Mistake, my Fur is Fake!” and “Worn with Pride, No Animal Died”.

In 2008, the Italian Association for Defense of Animals and the Environment has spearheaded a campaign urging Pope Benedict XVI (an animal lover reference a book for children “Chico and Joseph” based on himself and a live cat called Chico) to stop wearing an ermine-trimmed hat and cape.

The cost of an item should never be the criteria for judging whether it is of animal origin or not. Very cheap stuff can very well contain fur, silk, leather, e.g. Chinese made cat and dog fur knickknacks. After a long and vocal campaign focusing on Chinese fur products, supported by Sir Paul McCartney and others, in 2007 the EU banned trade in cat and dog fur. The law became effective in January 2009 following which in 2010 the USA also passed The Dog and Cat Protection Act prohibiting any trade in dog and cat fur.

In 2009 Israel was also seen to be moving in the right direction when two top retail fashion chains removed all animal fur items after an investigation confirmed that their garments contained dog, cat and rabbit fur. Almost all textile products are imported from China and those containing animal/real fur were often mislabelled as fake fur, thus deceiving importers, retailers and consumers. The International Anti-Fur Coalition pointed out that it was cheaper to produce animal fur than synthetic fur in China. Any way, four years later, politicians managed to continue postponing an anti-fur bill being passed. It would make Israel the only nation in the world to ban fur – rather almost ban it because the import of fur for religious traditions, like the Shtreimel fur hats (typically made from sable or fox fur) would probably be exempted. Eventually in June 2021 Israel became the world’s first country to ban fur sales, but although the government felt the use of skin and fur for the fashion industry was “immoral” they allowed exceptions for the use of fur in “scientific research, education or instruction, and for religious purposes or tradition”.