What does a person outside the industry not realize when it goes about fur farms?
Mike Moser: The first thing that strikes is the smell. Second – what you see. Of course, agriculture has its smells and it's normal. But fur farms are different. The cages have a wire floor so that the droppings fall down. The droppings accumulate under the cage, food is folded out from above from a passing tractor. In summer, both rotate in the heat – and you have to remember that we are talking about carnivores. The smell is monstrous, flies fly everywhere. I would never live near such a farm and research show that people do not want such a neighborhood.
What can you see?
Rows of frames, sometimes 50 next to the other, with animals in a very small space. Most of them are terrified. It's an overwhelming view.
How were you part of the fur industry?
I have worked for the fur industry for about 11 years, in the International Federation Federation, as well as as director of the British Fur Traffick Association. I trusted what the industry convinced of: that existing regulations are sufficient to avoid animal suffering and provide them with well -being.
What made you change your thinking?
Over the years of work, I visited fur farms throughout Europe, China, Russia and North America. I saw in what conditions animals lived and it was completely different from what the fur industry claims.
Even on “good” farms that work in accordance with the regulations, animals suffer. You can't escape it. You can't look at the animal who spends his whole life in a small, wire cage and think that he has a happy life.
Was there a specific moment when you decided to leave the industry?
Gradually, I gained more and more doubts, I started talking to scientists studying animal welfare. I stopped believing in what I told about Ferm.
But I also remember one specific moment that shook me. I was at the fox farm in Finland. I saw thousands of animals there, some of the average quantities dogbecause selective breeding increased their size. I looked at one of them, sat in a cage with his paws rolled up under him. He looked at me with resignation. He was visible that he was aware of his situation. It touched me very much. When I was back at home, my dog sat next to me, a large, good labrador. I looked at him and I remembered that fox. I thought, “It's not right.” The next day I made a notice.
And you began to talk about what he knows about the farm.
While working in the association, I often discussed with the Humane Society International organization. I argued with them in debates in parliament, on television. But I believed more and more in their message than my own. When I left, they offered me to support their campaign to ban the sale of fur. And I felt excited – something I didn't experience working for the industry. Now I have been supporting these activities for 5 years.
Why did you support the campaign on the ban on breeding in Poland?
I have a very big sentiment to Poland, my grandmother came from Poland. But I am involved in campaigns to ban breeding and selling fur because what I believe in. When I worked for the industry, I repeated empty messages and ready messages. Now I speak with passion and conviction, with honesty. I made a mistake, going to the fur industry and I am trying to fix it now. It's okay to change my mind – I did it and I'm happy about it.
Farm owners see the same as you – the suffering of animals in cages – and they do not give up their activities, and they are even ready to do a lot to keep it. Why?
It is very important question. On the one hand – many breeders I met were nice, kind people. So part of the answer is that they believe, look after these animals, care for them as they can. On the other hand, I saw many farms that were conducted in a bad way and there are certainly a lot of breeders who do not look at anything but profit. There are probably more those ready to use animals without restrictions today.
In addition, business is in the reverse today and the farms that remain, are more and more often very large farms, 40,000, 50,000. animals. Their owners do not have contact with bred animals on a daily basis.
What if instead of binding – to tighten the requirements for breeders, to improve the conditions on the farms?
The fundamental fact of animal welfare is that they must be able to show their natural behaviors. This is not possible when they are kept in cages and the industry knows it. Minks are water and ladies, they run in nature, copy, hunt. They do the same foxes, they are social, they like to play. In the cage, none of these things is possible, they are barely able to move in them.
Therefore, as long as animals are kept in cages, there can be no question of their welfare. And the farms cannot function without cages, because mink and foxes are predators, territorial animals, wandering. The only method of profitable fur farming is keeping animals in cages in great density. And life in a cage will always be suffering for them.
But on the part of the industry we hear that if the animals were treated badly, the product – the fur – would be of poor quality, so they must take care of them.
It's just not true. There is a market for all types of fur, even those derived from non -certified farms, which are poorly managed. You also have to be aware of the fact that there are two categories of fur trade. The one that is supposedly organized, which has industry associations, provides material for fur coats. And there is trade in cheap furs, often from distant Asia, sometimes used for hats, accessories, elements of clothes. And we don't know how exactly they come from. This cannot be controlled and preventing the sale of animal fur that was abused. But it should also be added that this is a decreasing market.
Breeders often say that if we introduce a ban on farms in Poland and all of Europe, this business will move, for example, to Asia, where there are even less possibilities of control of well -being.
I have heard this argument dozens of times. What do I think about it? First of all – fur farms that I saw in Poland and Europe did not differ significantly from those in other parts of the world, including Asia. It is also an absurd argument: that we cannot stop bullying animals, because someone is even more cruel.
Years ago, it was legal to hunt and kill animals for ivory, its market bloomed. We were aware of the damage and we rightly banned the ivory trade. After this ban, the market may not disappear, but it decreased sharply. I consider hypocrisy that after the ban on breeding animals for fur in Great Britain you can still trade them with us. Now I support the growing movement for the ban on selling fur.
You mentioned that this market is already shrinking.
Pulling credible data about this business is almost impossible – I know something about it, because I worked exactly on this in industry organizations. But we see things that indicate the end of the fur market. 22 countries in Europe banned breeding of animals for fur and the next ones will do the same. We know that three of the four main auction houses were closed. They close or move tailoring plants from Europe, as do retail stores. But also outside Europe, production and demand fall, even in China.
So maybe you can wait for the market and consumers to decide that they do not want fur?
And why not demonstrate as your leadership? Its definition for me is making decisions for the common good. Were it not for the laws and bans, then we would probably still have people who kill dying species and cause other damage to the community. There are plenty of things that were once acceptable, but societies and governments decided that they should be stopped for the common good.
I think that the ban on sales is something inevitable. By allowing trafficking in fur, we give permission to cruel to animals.
On the part of some Polish fur breeders, we hear that the ban on their business is the first step to ban on breeding hens and cows, and even a ban on the sale of meat or dairy products.
This is of course a great tactic if you want to defend animal breeding for fur. But the truth is that these two things are very different. First of all – the conditions on the farms differ. Chickens can be bred on a free range, for foxes – as I mentioned – the only possibility is cages. Secondly, there is a matter of how much we need a given product. And there is no need to wear fur today if you want to have warm clothes – there are countless alternatives, natural and synthetic. So mixing these things is hypocritical.
In the Polish parliament, we talk about the ban on fur farms. If you were at the meeting of the parliamentary committee on this subject, what would you say Polish politicians on this subject?
That we have 2025 and facts They are clear: we know that it is impossible to ensure the welfare of foxes and minks that are kept in small cages throughout their lives. Animal abuse is the only way to maintain the activities of such farms. That's why I would say politicians: ask yourself questionWhy are you still supporting it? Why do we still have fur farms nowadays? The more that the majority of society supports such a ban.
I would also say that they are facing a chance to do something good. That in 20 or 30 years you can be remembered as those who finally stopped animal farms for fur – or as those who continued to agree.
Mike Moser For 11 years he worked for the fur producers industry, he was the Director of Standards in the International Four Federation and the Supreme Director of the British Fur Trafficking Association. Moser was in Warsaw in mid -February and at a press conference together with organizations defending animal rights, he appealed to Prime Minister Donald Tusk to ban animal breeding for fur in Poland.