Since the beginning of time, people have clothed themselves in furs. In cold regions such as Finland, furs were a means to keep oneself warm. Animals were hunted both for their meat and their furs. Later on, furs started to be worn mainly for fashion purposes. Simultaneously, hunting turned into organised fur farming.

In Finland, the need to wear animal furs in order to keep oneself warm has disappeared, and nowadays almost all furs produced go abroad. Fur farming is a profitable industry and an important employer in western parts of the country. Finland has expressed its support for the industry on several occasions, even if more and more European countries have decided to ban it.

Most Finns support the fur industry’s continuation in Finland, so it is unlikely that the legal situation will change in the next few years. Nevertheless, the industry has been experiencing negative publicity in the past few years, and the number of people wanting to abolish it has started to grow. This paper concentrates on the movement against the Finnish fur industry. Why and how is the fur industry being attacked? How has the activism affected the industry?

The focus of this paper is current fur farming and activism by animal rights campaigners, especially during the past two or three years. In light of the developments of recent years, suggestions are also proposed concerning the future of the fur industry. In the paper, the terms “fur industry”, “fur farming”, and “fur production” will be used more or less interchangeably. If not specified, these terms will always refer to Finland’s fur industry.

Fur Farming in Finland

According to Animalia¹, the leading Finnish federation for the protection of animals, the captivating of animals for fur purposes in Finland started at the beginning of the 20th century with foxes, followed by mink farming in the 1930s². Fur farming reached its peak in the mid-1980s, when there were over 6000 fur farms in Finland. However, due to the recession of the early 1990s, the number of fur farms dropped drastically; the number nowadays is around 1000. A great majority of the fur farms are situated in western parts of Finland, near the coast³ (Animalia, Turkistarhauksen).

A mink on its hind legs in its cage being fed by a fur farmer (Picture source: STKL-FPF15).

For decades, Finland has been one of the major fur countries of the world. Some figures are presented in Turkistilojen talous ja alan merkitys sekä tulevaisuuden näkymät Suomessa [Economy, Importance, and Future Prospects of the Fur Industry in Finland] (Karhula, Latukka, and Rekilä 9): In the early 1980s, Finland provided 60% of the world’s fox pelts and 20% of the mink pelts. In 2006 the percentages were far lower, but still impressive: 20% of the fox pelts and 5% of the mink pelts.

The fur industry also provides employment for a significant number of people in Finland. According to the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association, the industry employs about 17,500 people⁴, and the industry’s annual exportation revenue accounts to an impressive 300 million euros (STKL, Turkistuotanto).

In the past few years the industry has run into difficulties and average pelt prices have been low. Recently, however, the trend has been upwards. Sales went up by 119% in 2010 (Koivikko), and the average mink pelt price was fifty euros in early 2012, while the corresponding number only three years previously was around twenty euros (Helsingin, Maaseudun). It would seem that the industry is starting to boom again.

Finland’s policy concerning the fur industry can be regarded as exceptional, since on most matters Finland follows the same path as its neighbouring Scandinavian countries. In Sweden and in Denmark, fur farming has been made impossible through legislation⁵. In Europe, countries that have illegalised fur farming or made it impossible include Great Britain, Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland and Croatia. The Netherlands has also strongly restricted the country’s fur farming. However, Finland does not intend to illegalise fur farming, and has always been active in trying to prevent such intentions in other countries (Suhonen 4-5).

Fur farms began to be certified in Finland in 2005. The optional certificate can be gained if the farm meets sufficient requirements concerning, for example, the animals’ wellbeing and breeding. Approximately 50% of Finnish fur farms have gained the certificate thus far (STKL, Turkistilojen). While the certificate is optional, it is always beneficial to a farm’s business to have an official certificate to draw buyers.

Why is the Fur Industry Controversial?

It would seem that a great number of people in Finland depend on the fur industry; moreover, the fur industry is very lucrative to Finland. In that case, why has the industry aroused so much controversy, especially in recent years?

The fur industry is disapproved of in Finland by animal protection federations and other people for several reasons. The Finnish Federation for Animal Welfare Associations⁶ lists the reasons why their associates wish to make the industry illegal. They state that minks and foxes are still wild animals, forced to live in small cages (0.8 square metres for one fox and 0.255 square metres for one mink) and are not able to follow their natural instincts in captivity. The foxes are unable to dig and hide in a den box. Minks have an urge to swim, which they cannot do in fur farms. Raccoon dogs are forced to give up their hibernation, and the mother and the father are not able to take care of their cubs together, as they would in normal circumstances (SEY).

Contrary to the fur farms, Finnish zoos are required to make sure the animals have as natural an environment to live in as possible. For example, in a zoo, two fox families have to have at least 1000 square metres of living space. This is roughly 999 square metres more space than what foxes in fur farms have (Oikeutta eläimille, Yleistä).

Oikeutta eläimille¹, a federation for the protection of animals, adds that due to the small living space and non-stimulating environment, fur-bred animals often become deranged and engage in erratic behaviour⁷. The animal protection federations criticise fur farmers for feeding the animals with extremely fatty food, partly consisting of carcasses of fur animals, in order to produce shiny fur. Oikeutta eläimille also criticises the inhuman way of killing the fur animals with electric shocks or by using gas (Oikeutta eläimille, Yleistä).

The Finnish Federation for Animal Welfare Association points out that fur farming is not healthy for the environment due to the nitrogen and phosphorus effluents, and ammonia emissions spread by the animals’ manure. The effluents and emissions are dangerous for the local environment: local forests and water areas get contaminated. The association points out that all fur farms in groundwater areas were to be removed by 2005 (SEY), followed by new directives in Finnish law on water areas in 2004. Nevertheless, some farms have remained in their places. As of yet, the fur farms have not been removed by force. The association also states that fur farming has a negative, indirect effect on the environment; it consumes enormous amounts of non-renewable energy sources, and the chemicals used in the handling of the furs are unhealthy for the environment (SEY).

Animalia publishes posters to support their campaign of Fur Free Finland [in] 2025. This poster shows the cycle two winner of Finland’s Next Top Model Nanna Grundfelt holding a dog and asking: “What is the difference between an arctic fox and a poodle?” (Picture source: Animalia).

Animalia does not think that the fur industry is an important provider of employment in Finland – for most of the farmers fur farming is a secondary occupation. The majority of fur farmers are closing in on pension age, and “they already knew the risks concerning the industry before deciding on it”⁸. Animalia also thinks that the state should financially support the fur farmers’ transfer to other businesses (Animalia, Turkiselinkeino). Animalia thinks that like several other European countries, Finland should shift to illegal fur farming through a transitional period. They strive for a “Fur Farm Free Finland [in] 2025”⁸.

The Finnish philosopher Elisa Aaltola and the environmentalist reporter Veli-Risto Cajander wrote in their 2005 article that Finland is lagging behind other countries in both legislation and publicity regarding the current state of the fur-farming industry. Since 2005, though, the fur industry has gained substantially more (negative) attention, so the latter claim about publicity may no longer be relevant. Aaltola and Cajander criticised the fact that the conditions in Finnish fur farms do not meet the minimum standards of animal protection legislation. They pointed out that due to the fact that there is most often only one person to take care of thousands of animals, sick or hurt foxes or minks are rarely properly taken care of – in the inspections in 2000, only 30% of the farms were certified as following the animal protection law. In 2011, 61% of the fur farms under inspection were recognised not to follow the animal protection law of the European Union (SEY). Aaltola and Cajander think that “an ethically aware society should recognise the intolerability of the situation⁸ [of the fur industry in Finland]”.

In addition to the minority of activists striving to illegalise fur farming in Finland altogether, many people think that more efficient supervising of the fur farms would ensure the animals’ wellbeing. In other words, many think that the current Finnish legislation concerning fur farming is adequate, but that there are some individual cases where the law is not being properly followed. As mentioned above, it would seem that most Finnish fur farms do not in fact follow the law, and it might be that people who have negative feelings for the fur industry have based their opinion on fur farms violating the animal protection law. Some fur farmers are themselves concerned about how a few others handle their farms, and they have notified the authorities of these “rotten apples”⁸, as the fur farmer Esa Rantakangas calls them. He also encourages spontaneous visits to fur farms, so that people could see what the situation is really like (Huomenta Suomi).

How is the Industry Being Attacked?

Before the 21st century, the activism in Finland included mostly releasing minks and foxes from fur farms into nature. This sort of illegal activism is strongly criticised even by the opponents of fur industry, since the large number of predators in one area is harmful to other animals. Moreover, since fur animals have lived their lives in captivity, they are most likely not able to survive in the nature for long. Even though some instances of animal release still occur every once in a while, nowadays the activists try to raise awareness by other means.

Public opposition to fur farming in Finland can roughly be said to be of two kinds: the moderate and the aggressive approaches. The main representative of the moderate approach is Animalia. Animalia emphasizes that their association engages in “strictly legal activities” and wishes to illegalise fur farming by 2025. They support illegalising via a transitional period, adding that all fur farms should immediately be inspected and no transitional period allowed for those fur farms that have violations (Animalia, Turkistarhaton).

Animalia’s main focus is to influence politicians and political parties, and to attract support from well-known Finns in order to promote their cause. Animalia encourages individuals to vote for candidates and political parties who are against fur farming in elections, and also to contact Members of Parliament with reference to fur farming (Turkistarhaton). In 2010, when Animalia started their Fur Farm Free Finland [in] 2025 campaign, they published a list of 100 names of Finnish public personalities who were supporters of their campaign (Eskola).

The aggressive approach, the one that is mostly shown in the media, focuses on raising awareness. The approach can be said to be practised by another animal protection federation, Oikeutta Eläimille, as well as by other parties. They object to the fur industry by, for example, bringing into publicity video material and photographs from Finnish and foreign fur farms, a practice not supported or carried out by federations such as Animalia. Campaign material in the form of small posters or stickers by Oikeutta eläimille are often encountered in public places in Finland’s largest cities. It has been a trend in recent years of these activists to publish extensive video material collected from dozens of fur farms every now and then, the latest release dating from spring 2011.

The Finnish Fur Breeders’ campaign included this picture with the text: ”Besides furs, they also want to forbid you from having many other things”8. (Picture source: STKL-FPF15).

The 2009 Campaign of the Fur Farmers

The fur farmers started a campaign of their own in 2009, criticising the activists and defending their occupation. With their campaign they “wish to openly bring up the fact that it [the fur industry] is only one form of animal production among others [including, for example, poultry farming]”⁸. They emphasized that the same ethical questions apply to the other production forms as well, and that the fur industry was simply easier to attack because it is a small-scale industry compared to most other animal production forms. They think it is irrelevant what is done after the death of the animals; the main focus should be on how the animals are treated while they are alive (STKL, Turkisalan 1).

The campaign pointed out that the communication of the animal rights activists always involves misrepresentation. They mentioned cases where Norwegian activists have exaggerated the number of fur farms from which they have collected video material, or when they have distorted material. The fur farmers also said that it is ridiculous to claim that people working in animal production were not devoted to or interested in the animals’ wellbeing (Turkisalan 1).

The campaign defended the industry by stating that the law nowadays prevents any fur farm from being harmful to the environment. They also pointed out that the industry is a very important employer; the unemployment rate of the communities that have fur industry is generally lower than other communities’ in the same region (Turkisalan 2).

The campaign criticised the European countries that have illegalised fur farming, saying that the reason behind the illegalising was that fur farming was contrary to public morals, not the animals’ wellbeing. This, according to the fur farmers’ campaign, is “a dangerous way of thinking that leads to the despotism of a minority”⁸. They think that if fur farming was illegalised in Finland, it would only move to other countries where the legislation and animal wellbeing would be very different (Turkisalan 2).

Oikeutta eläimille responded to the fur farmers’ campaign by spreading posters with the claim: “Fur farmers are violent not only towards the animals, but also towards people who defend the defenceless. Fur farmers are all set to shoot these people, an action which they have already taken”⁸ (Uusi Suomi, Raju). The claim refers to an event in the late 1990s when a fur farmer started shooting at activists who had trespassed on his farm; the activists left the area before potentially being harmed.

Spring 2010: Material from Fur Farms Released

One of the photographs published in 2010 showed a fox with an eye infection. (Picture source: Oikeutta eläimille).

Animal rights activists attacked the Finnish fur industry in both 2010 and 2011 by publishing extensive video and photograph material shot in Finnish fur farms. The material from 2010 included photographs and videos from twenty-nine different Finnish fur farms. The material was displayed in the Finnish television show YLE A-studio⁹; it strongly suggested that sick and hurt animals were not properly taken care of and that the animal protection law was not being followed in many aspects. The animals had open wounds and acted erratically. After the video material was published, Evira, the Finnish Food Safety Authority, stated that there was reason to believe that all the fur farms in question had had violations and all the farms were to be inspected immediately (Helsingin, Evira).

The published material raised the question of how sick animals are treated. During the controversy, Laura Hänninen, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine from Helsinki University, was interviewed. Ms Hänninen commented on the state of the animals shown in the material, stating that some of the animals are in such a bad state that they ought to have been put down, and by no means should the sick animals have been kept in the same cages with healthy animals (Helsingin, Sairaat).

The Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association’s executive manager, Tuula Dahlman, responded to the controversy on behalf of the association by saying that the activists’ material was solely based on individual cases; the animals shown in the material were under surveillance and were undergoing drug treatment. Ms Dahlman said there is a sort of infirmary in every fur farm, an easy target for the activists, which is why the material showed sick animals (Sairaat).

Also extremely discussed during the 2010 controversy was the fact that Oikeutta eläimille claimed that one of the twenty-nine fur farms belonged to the Board Chairman of the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association. Material from the farm in question included injured minks fighting each other, with one of the minks missing an ear. The association provided the location and general information on the farm to back their claim (Helsingin, Oikeutta).

The Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry later said that all twenty-nine fur farms had been inspected between 22 February and 5 March 2010. Five were found to have had violations. This included partly broken cages and animals which were insufficiently taken care of. Animals in a state to be put down, however, were not found. These five fur farms were given a date by which the violations were to be resolved (Ministry), but the farms were not punished in any other way. In addition, the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association’s own veterinarian inspected twenty-eight of the farms and found violations in six of them. Three of those six were certified; they lost their certificates due to the violations. However, they were able to reapply for their certificates after a six month waiting period (Helsingin, Kolme).

Besides the obvious condemnation by fur farmers, the activists faced another type of criticism during the controversy as well. Esa Kääntee, a veterinarian, disapproved of the way the material was published. According to Mr Kääntee, the activists broke the law when they did not report the fur farms immediately to the authorities (Helsingin, Eläinlääkäri). According to Mr Kääntee, due to the way the material was published, the fur farmers had enough time to clean up before the inspections. He was the veterinarian to inspect the farm of Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association Board Chairman Ulf Enroth – finding it to be completely impeccable.

The 2010 material release resulted in raised awareness to the industry. The matter was extensively discussed in the media and led to demonstrations against the fur industry in the Finnish cities Helsinki and Tampere.

The 2011 Material Release

Material published by Oikeutta eläimille in 2011. Top: mink with an ear wound; center: mink with an open wound; bottom: a dead fox left in its cage. (Picture source: Oikeutta eläimille).

Almost precisely one year later, Oikeutta eläimille struck again. This time the material shot was published on the television channel MTV3 by 45 minuuttia¹⁰, and the material was more extensive than ever published before. The activists had visited an impressive number of eighty-three different Finnish fur farms – comprising about eight percent of Finland’s overall fur farms. The material was shot between May and November of 2010, and included partly the same fur farms as the year before (Turkistarhauksen).

The material showed animals in extremely bad shape: missing limbs, bad eye infections and gingivitis, open wounds, hind leg paralysis, deformities, animals engaged in erratic behaviour, and even carcasses filled with worms and animals eating each other. The material suggested that sick animals are not taken care of or put down when the situation requires it. The activists had visited some of the fur farms twice. Some extremely sick animals (missing limbs) were in the same physical state when the farm was visited for the second time (Turkistarhauksen).

45 minuuttia also interviewed Annikki Latvala-Kiesilä, a supervising veterinarian, by asking her opinion on the material. Ms Latvala-Kiesilä stated that several animals in the material ought to have been put down. While the material released showed animals suffering due to violations against the law, some of the animals in the videos and photographs were, nonetheless, being taken care of according to legal requirements. As Sanna Hellström, veterinarian of Korkeasaari zoo, stated in the program: ”What terrifies the viewers in the material might actually be completely lawful”⁸. She also expressed her amazement at the fact that the required conditions for the animals in fur farms and in zoos are so different, referring to the much larger living space for minks and foxes in zoos (Turkistarhauksen).

45 minuuttia also interviewed fur farmers. Tuula Dahlman, executive manager of the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association, stated that the current law ensures the animals’ wellbeing. According to her, the certification system is a reliable way of telling if the fur farm treats the animals and handles everything well. She said that people who had visited fur farms were very happy with what they saw. What might be improved, according to Ms Dahlman, is added supervising of fur farms by the authorities. The reporter Hanna Takala commented on Ms Dahlman’s statement by questioning the ability of the authorities to supervise thousands of animals on a regular visiting basis to the fur farms. She added that material was also filmed from several certified farms, which indicates that the certification system does not ensure the animals’ wellbeing at all (Turkistarhauksen).

Lasse Joensuu, a fur farmer, stated that the supervising system had improved to such a large extent that the animals’ wellbeing is a fact. Mr Joensuu said that the material was purely based on individual cases. Ms Takala responded to this by stating that, almost without exception, the material showed animals suffering from at least eye infections on every farm. Ms Takala noted that if every single animal is checked each day as the fur farmers claim, there would not be animals as sick as the material indicated (Turkistarhauksen).

Ms Takala drew attention to the fact that similar material was published the previous year, but “after the general discussion on the horrifying state of the industry, the fur farming went on like nothing had happened”⁸. According to Ms Takala, despite all the negativity associated to it, the Finnish fur industry is doing better all the time. The total sales of the accounting period before the airing of the programme were almost a half billion euros (Turkistarhauksen).

In 45 minuuttia, Matti Aho from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry said, after seeing parts of the material, that “In animal production the animals always suffer. The question [with the fur industry] is how much suffering is allowed”⁸. According to Mr Aho, the fur industry differs from zoos so greatly that the state of the animals of the two cannot be compared to each other (Turkistarhauksen).

What was also revealed in the ramifications of the material being published was that a Board Member of the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association, Esa Rantakangas, and the Board Chairman of Turkistuottajat Oyj¹¹, Jorma Kauppila, were neglecting the animals’ wellbeing in their farms (Turkistarhauksen). Immediately after the airing of the programme, Esa Rantakangas blamed individual farmers for not properly taking care of the animals, calling these fur farmers “rotten apples”⁸. Jorma Kauppila made similar statements, adding that some fur farmers needed to “catch up”⁸. One week after the airing of 45 minuuttia, the programme showed the fur farmers in question material filmed exclusively from their farms. The two admitted to their mistakes, stating that there had indeed been malpractice also in their farms (Takala and Rahkola).

After the material was published, The Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association inspected thirty of the total of eighty-three fur farms, finding serious problems in only one of them, but some defects in over half of them. In addition, Evira instructed local administrations to take care of the inspections of their area (YLE, Yli puolella). The eighty-three fur farms were given general orders and remarks. Just as in 2010, the controversy aroused enormous discussion in the media and demonstrations. The demonstration in Helsinki, for example, gathered hundreds of people together to protest against fur farming.

The 2011 Open Day on Fur Farms

Demonstration against fur farming in Helsinki on 23 February 2011. (Picture source: Vesa Moilanen).

Due to the negative publicity the fur industry had been experiencing, fur farms from all over Finland decided to be open to the public on 15 October 2011. A total of eight different farms in seven municipalities were included in the arrangement. Visitors had to sign up in advance and they were allowed to take photographs. According to Max Arhippainen from the Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association, these photographs would reflect the truthful situation better than the material published by activists (Turkistarhat avaavat).

The open day attracted great curiosity. Some fur farmers had to turn down a second busload of curious people, since only a few dozen visitors can be allowed on a fur farm at one time to ensure that the animals do not get agitated (Helsingin, Häkin). The fur farmers planned on redoing the successful open day the next year. They think that being open about their industry is the way to change public attitude towards fur production (Turkistarhat avaavat).

Animal rights activists published material from the open day as well. This material shows animals having similar problems as in the material filmed in secret: eye infections, gingivitis, foot flaws, and erratic behaviour. The findings were astonishing, according to Oikeutta eläimille, since the fur farmers had had time to clean up their farms well before the open day (Turkistarhojen avointen).

Even though most of the fur farms on the open day were recognised by the visitors to be taking care of the animals according to legal requirements, not all visitors were satisfied with this. A student expressed her concern over the small size of the cages (Helsingin, Häkin) and the executive manager of Animalia, Kati Pulli, stated that while everything on the farm she visited looked completely legal, it was not enough for the association, since Animalia thinks that the current law does not ensure animals’ wellbeing; Finnish fur farming should be abolished altogether (Useat).

The Fur Industry and Politics

Finnish politicians and to some extent political parties can be divided into supporters and opponents of the fur industry in Finland. The Greens of Finland and the Left Alliance have declared their wish to end the fur industry in Finland (Animalia, Turkistarhaus). After the 2011 controversy, the Green League demanded that banning the fur industry in Finland be included in the 2011-2015 government platform (Vihreät). The Social Democratic Parliamentary group has also expressed that there need to be changes for the better. It can be said that the rest of the main political parties, five of them overall, are supporters of the industry. Parties that have publicly expressed their support for the industry include the Centre Party, the True Finns, and the Swedish People’s Party of Finland (Animalia, Turkistarhaus).

Generally the Parliament’s attitude towards the fur industry has been positive. During the term 2007-2011, the government decided to protect the fur industry by, for example, including the fur industry in a programme through which the industry would gain financial help (Turkistarhaus). According to Animalia, this sort of practice differs extensively from the ones of other European countries (Turkistarhaus). In 2011, the government made plans to research possibilities to financially aid fur farmers voluntarily willing to change their occupation (YLE, Koskinen). According to the Minister of Agriculture, Jari Koskinen, this system is highly unlikely to be fulfilled due to the bad economy. The Minister deemed fur production to be a good countryside livelihood (Koskinen).

In 2011 the question of fur production was in the public eye in connection with the parliamentary elections¹². Animal rights activists were adamant to find out where the candidates stood on the issue of the fur industry. Animalia published a list of candidates who had come out against the fur industry (Animalia, Eduskuntavaalien) in order to encourage all voters who opposed the industry to pick their candidate from the list. The list included hundreds of candidate names, which is an indicator of the rising awareness of the fur industry in Finnish politics.

A former Prime Minister of Finland, Mari Kiviniemi (Centre Party), is very well known in Finland for her support for the fur industry. She has often been seen wearing a fur in public events, and she makes positive statements about fur farming in Finland. During her 2007 election campaign, Ms Kiviniemi received financial support from the Finnish fur farmers’ auction house Turkistuottajat Oyj. After receiving attention due to her positive views on fur production, Ms Kiviniemi laughed at the issue and called herself playfully “Mink Mari”⁸ (Uusi Suomi, Kiviniemen).

On the left: the original Centre Party campaign poster of 2011 with the text:
"Do you want to change Finland? So do I"⁸. (Picture source: MTV3).
On the right: a vandalised version of the campaign poster with the text:
"Do you want animals to be kept in small cages? So do I"8. (Picture source: Ylioppilaslehti).

In 2011, animal rights activists all around the world were furious at the incumbent Prime Minister due to her comments and behaviour. In Embassies of Finland in London, Stockholm, Tallinn, Madrid, Amsterdam, Vienna, Copenhagen, Petrozavodsk, Athens, and Oslo, people demonstrated against the fur industry and demanded Ms Kiviniemi’s resignation (Oikeutta eläimille, Mielenosoituksia). Activists in Finland also sabotaged the Centre Party’s 2011 election campaign. Posters with a picture of Ms Kiviniemi, blood dripping from her mouth, with a text: “Do you want animals to be kept in small cages? So do I”⁸, started spreading in Finnish cities. The poster was a redone version of the original Centre Party campaign poster, which displayed Ms Kiviniemi and a text: “Do you want to change Finland? So do I”⁸. The Centre Party pressed charges due to the vandalism (Impiö).

Ms Kiviniemi is not the only Finnish Prime Minister to have gained negative attention from the animal rights’ activists. Matti Vanhanen, the incumbent Prime Minister in spring 2010, criticised the material published by activists in 2010 and strongly supported the continuation of fur production in Finland, which aroused a flow of negative comments from fur industry opponents.

The controversy of the Finnish fur industry was also clearly visible during the 2012 presidential elections¹³, some of the candidates having strong opinions on the matter. Paavo Arhinmäki of Left Alliance and Pekka Haavisto of the Green League declared their wish to abolish fur farming in Finland. Mr Arhinmäki stated in his blog (Arhinmäki) that fur farmers neglect animals’ wellbeing and constantly break the law, whether they were certified or not. He also stated that he does not think that fur farming is possible without causing unnecessary pain to the animals. Mr Arhinmäki emphasized the whole Left Alliance’s negative attitude to the fur industry, official since June 2010.

Representing the other end of the pole was Timo Soini, candidate of the True Finns, who wrote in his blog that banning the fur industry in Finland would mean people losing their jobs, with the industry moving to countries such as China, where the animals would not be as well taken care of as in Finland. Mr Soini wrote that it is “an unfortunate fact that many fur animals are better and more regularly taken care of than some children”⁸ (Soini).

The issue of the continuation of the fur industry was a popular question during the presidential elections. Many people wanted to vote for a candidate who supported the abolition of fur farming, and others deemed it important to choose a candidate that supported the continuation of the industry in Finland. The two second round candidates were asked their views on the matter (YLE, Ehdokkaat), the question being one chosen by the public. Mr Haavisto stated his support for banning the industry within a period of transition, saying that it was unnatural to lock the animals up. Mr Niinistö, on the other hand, stated that it is good that fur production provides livelihood for families, but that the wellbeing of the animals is also important.

Legislation: Past and Future Developments

The Finnish fur industry follows the Animal Welfare Act (247/96)¹⁴, set to protect animals from suffering and pain. In addition, there are several European Community regulations that give further orders. More detailed guidelines on fur production were offered by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1996 and guidelines on, for example, breeding by the Council of Europe in 1999 (STKL, Lain).

The most recent change in the legislation concerning fur production took effect in 2010. The regulation concerned the size of the cages, decided on in 1999. Every fur farm needed to change the size of their cages to meet the new regulations within an 11-year transition period from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2010. All fur farms started after August 1999 already needed to meet the new regulations. The regulation states that a grown fox’s cage needs to be 0.8 square metres in size (compared to 0.45 square metres before), and a mink’s cage 0.255 square metres in size (compared to 0.2 square metres before). The regulation also states that only two fox cubs can be kept in a 1.2 square metre cage instead of three, and that there needs to be a den box for minks and European polecats² year around (Evira).

In 2004, new directives focusing on, for example, keeping water areas clean were included in the Finnish law. Therefore, Finland’s Environmental Administration started to look after the matter of fur farms in groundwater areas. Fur farming was to shift completely away from these areas, and each fur farm in a groundwater area needed to apply for an environment licence to continue fur production (Turkistarhat pohjavesialueilla). Some fur farms still exist in groundwater areas, and the aauthorities have taken measures in the past few years to press on the setting of manure bottoms or shifting farms to new areas. The repairs of farms in groundwater areas have been financially aided by the Environmental Administration and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (YLE Keski-Pohjanmaa, Turkistarhat).

Though the fur industry has been in the limelight in the past few years more than ever, there have not been any indications that the law in Finland concerning fur farming is to change. Law initiatives by Members of Parliament to abolish or to restrict fur farming are made every so often, but they have not passed. When Norway’s Federation of Veterinarians started fighting for the abolishment of the fur industry in Norway, Finland’s Federation started making similar comments, although they have not taken an official stand. Matti Aho from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry estimated (Turkistarhauksen) that upcoming regulations on fur production, if there are going to be any, should concentrate on animals’ wellbeing, rather than on cage structures and other such factors. Mr Aho refers to the increased amount of public discussion due to the videos and photographs released in 2010 and 2011 to support his estimate.

The Future of the Fur Industry in Finland

According to a February 2011 poll conducted by Think If Laboratories Ltd, assigned by the television station MTV3, most people would allow the continuation of the fur industry in Finland (Kysely). Only 27% of Finns supported abolishing fur farming altogether. The poll was conducted between 2 February and 14 February 2011 – days before the most extensive material breakout of Finnish farms in history. The poll was answered by 2,748 people. A similar poll from 2009 revealed that eight Finns out of ten would allow the fur industry to be continued in Finland (Uusi Suomi, Murskaava), a proportion that had remained the same for ten years. This would suggest that the number of the industry’s supporters declined due to the 2010 material release, and was most likely even more declined in spring 2011. Some sources suggest that only 52% of Finns would allow fur farming (YLE, Tutkimustuloksia), but no official records exist from 2011 or 2012.

All speculation aside, it would seem that most Finns are not against the fur industry, though the number of opponents appears to be larger when animal rights activists strike with material releases. Evidently the opinions tend to neutralise after the speculation has gone out of the public eye. The strongest opponents form only a small minority which is not powerful enough to abolish the industry altogether. If the material continues to be filmed by activists showing a similar neglect of animals’ wellbeing, no doubt the negative attitude will increase.

On the other hand, the exportation proceeds of fur production have also risen in recent months. No government in times of economic crisis is likely to ban a lucrative industry that is an employer in the countryside. Then again, as more and more European countries lean towards ending fur farming, especially after Denmark took the leap, Finland is about to remain the only supporter of fur farming. If and when Norway makes fur farming illegal, Finland is going to be in an awkward position and under pressure to go into that direction as well.

It is another question altogether if the fur farms will start to follow the current law, since most fur farmers have been found to be committing violations. While the Finnish Breeders’ Association thinks that inspections should be more frequent to ensure that everybody is taking care of the animals, Evira deems it impossible to inspect every farm even once a year (YLE Keski-Pohjanmaa, Evira). The repercussions to fur farmers committing violations have usually not been severe, which probably does not motivate offence-free behaviour. The animal rights federations strongly believe that the industry will be banned in the next three decades, while the fur farmers believe in the continuation of their livelihood. In light of recent developments, both parties will most likely be disappointed. As there has recently been no development in politics towards ending the industry, Animalia’s target date of 2025 would seem to be overly optimistic. On the other hand, while negative material on the industry continues to be released and more and more European countries are disapproving of fur farming, it is also unlikely that the industry will be able to continue indefinitely in Finland.

The Battle Continues

In 2012, the Finnish fur industry is doing better than in many years due to its recently increased exportation profits. While the industry is going strong in Finland, many other European countries, Great Britain and Sweden included, have ended it, usually stating that it is unfeasible to think that fur farming does not cause excessive pain to animals.

The activism against fur farming is both aggressive with material releases, and moderate with appeals to politicians. The most active supporters of the cause are animal rights federations, most notably Animalia and Oikeutta eläimille.

The fur industry has gained a great deal of negative attention in recent years as a result of animal rights activists publishing material from Finnish fur farms in 2010 and in 2011 that shows fur farming in a bad light. The issue has divided citizens and politicians into two camps: the industry’s supporters and its opponents. The opponents usually refer to moral and environmental matters that talk against the industry, and the supporters think that the industry is a good employer, and that the current law ensures the animals’ wellbeing, if it is followed.

The number of opponents has always been much smaller, though it has started to increase due to the material releases. The animal rights activists will certainly only get louder in promoting their cause in years to come. There have already been some changes in the legislation concerning fur farming in Finland, and it is most likely that the industry will face some changes in the future, whether the supervision is enforced or the industry made illegal.

Notes

1. Animalia is the most well known, though not the largest, federation for the protection of animals in Finland. It has many public figures as its supporters, including Finnish politicians and celebrities. The federation collaborates with authorities and federations for the protection of animals worldwide. Another quite well known federation for the protection of animals in Finland is Oikeutta eläimille [Rights for Animals].

2. Nowadays the different fur animals encountered in Finnish fur farms include the blue fox (the arctic fox), the silver fox (the red fox), the raccoon dog, the mink, and the European polecat (known also by the names “polecat”, “black polecat”, “forest polecat”, and “fitchet”); the blue fox and the mink are the most common. This paper refers generally to foxes and minks, if special attention is not laid on raccoon dogs or European polecats.

3. Fur farms commonly exist alongside cattle or dairy farms in the countryside of western Finland, where there are a great number of them. As the fur industry has started to boom in 2012, there has been talk of setting up fur farms in Southern Finland as well, to take over empty pig or broiler houses (Maaseudun).

4. This figure is quite large, considering Finland’s population of about 5,400,000 people.

5. If fur farming has been made impossible by legislation, it means that the requirements set on the animals’ living environment are so extensive (large cages with opportunities to dig actual ground, etc.) that fur farming is no longer lucrative. So in reality, fur farming is still legal and possible in countries such as Sweden.

6. SEY is Finland’s biggest federation for the protection of animals, but is not generally well known.

7. Erratic behaviour usually implies, for example, animals jumping endlessly in place for lack of activities. They might also start eating each other or developing an unnaturally timid nature.

8. Translation by the author.

9. YLE A-studio is a current affairs programme by Finland’s national public service broadcasting company, YLE. The programme airs twice a week on the television channel YLE TV1, which is the most watched channel in Finland (Finnpanel, Kanavien). A-studio is one of the channel’s most watched programmes (Finnpanel, Katsotuimmat).

10. 45 minuuttia is a current affairs programme that airs weekly on MTV3. MTV3 is the second most watched channel in Finland, close behind YLE TV1 (Finnpanel, Kanavien). 45 minuuttia is one of the channel’s most watched programmes (Finnpanel, Katsotuimmat). The episode in question can be watched on MTV3 web page.

11. Turkistuottajat Oyj [Fur Farmers Ltd] is an auction house that sells a great majority of fur pelts produced in Finland.

12. The 2011 parliamentary elections changed the appearance of Finnish politics completely. A formerly small nationalist party, the True Finns, gained over 5% of the seats in the Parliament, becoming the third largest party. The Centre Party, used to sitting in the government, suffered a major loss and settled for taking part in the opposition. This also meant the end of Ms Kiviniemi’s tenure as Prime Minister.

13. Sauli Niinistö of the National Coalition Party was elected president for the term 2012-2018 after two rounds. Mr Niinistö had been the favourite candidate even before election campaigning had begun.

14. The Animal Welfare Act of 4 April 1996/247 states:”The objective of this Act is to protect animals from distress, pain and suffering in the best possible way. The objective of this Act is also to promote the welfare and good treatment of animals” (FINLEX 1).

15. The Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association (STKL-FPF) web site has restricted access. While one can go directly to the main page, the site does not allow direct links to any other of their pages. I have included PDF files of the pages of the association’s site used as a source in the text as appendices A, B, C, and D.

[Translations by the author].

Works Cited

• Aaltola, Elisa, and Veli-Risto Cajander. Tutkimustieto ja eettiset seikat puhuvat turkistarhausta vastaan [Research Results and Ethicality Make a Point Against Fur Farming]. Helsingin Sanomat. 29 Dec. 2005.

• Animalia. Eduskuntavaalien ehdokkaat, jotka haluavat lopettaa turkistarhauksen [Member of Parliament Candidates Who Want to Abolish Fur Farming]. Viewed 16 March 2012.

• - - -. Turkiselinkeino Suomessa [The Fur Industry in Finland]. Viewed 6 March 2012.

• - - -. Turkistarhaton Suomi 2025 [Fur Farm Free Finland 2025]. Viewed 8 March 2012.

• - - -. Turkistarhauksen historia [History of Fur Farming]. Viewed 6 March 2012.

• - - -. Turkistarhaus ja vaalit [Fur Farming and Elections]. Viewed 16 March 2012.

• - - -. Turkistarhojen aiheuttamat ympäristöongelmat [Environmental Problems in Connection with Fur Farms]. Viewed 6 March 2012.

• Arhinmäki, Paavo. Turkistarhauksesta on luovuttava [Fur Farming Needs to be Banned]. 24 February 2011.

• Eskola, Tanja. Sata tunnettua suomalaista tukee Animalian tavoitetta turkistarhattomasta Suomesta [One Hundred Public Personalities Support Animalia’s Objective of a Fur Farm Free Finland]. Animalia. 3 (2010): 4.

• Evira. Finnish Food Safety Authority. Turkiseläinten häkkikoot suurenevat [Fur Animals’ Cages Become Larger]. 21 June 2010.

• FINLEX. Valtion säädöstietopankki [State Databank on Statutes]. Animal Welfare Act 247/1996. Page 1 (PDF).

• Finnpanel. Kanavien katseluosuudet ja viikkotavoittavuus [Viewing Share and Weekly Reach]. Viewed 21 March 2012.

• - - -. Katsotuimmat ohjelmat kanavittain [Each Channel's Most Watched Programmes]. Viewed 21 March 2012.

• Helsingin Sanomat. Eläinlääkäri moittii turkisaktivisteja [Veterinarian Reproaches Fur Activists]. 19 February 2010.

• - - -. Evira: Kaikille kohuturkistiloille pitää tehdä tarkastus [Evira Orders All the Fussed Fur Farms to Be Inspected]. 19 February 2010.

• - - -. Häkin pieni koko suretti yhä turkistarhan avointen ovien vierasta [A Visitor Still Concerned about the Small Size of the Cages on the Open Day on Fur Farms]. 23 February 2011.

• - - -. Kolme turkistilaa menettää sertifikaattinsa [Three Fur Farms to Lose Their Certificate]. 9 March 2010.

• - - -. Maaseudun Tulevaisuus: Turkisala kovassa nosteessa [According to Maaseudun Tulevaisuus Newspaper, Fur Industry is Rocketing]. By Vesa Ranta. 27 January 2012.

• - - -. Oikeutta eläimille: Turkistarhaajien johtajan tila yksi kuvatuista [Oikeutta eläimille: One of the Fur Farms Filmed Owned by a Manager in Fur Farm Industry]. 18 February 2010.

• - - -. Sairaat turkiseläimet eivät saa tarhoilla erikoishäkkiä [Sick Animals Not Put in Special Cages in Fur Farms]. By Mikko Välimaa. 1 March 2010.

• - - -. Vihreät: Turkistarhauksen kielto seuraavaan hallitusohjelmaan [The Green League Wants to Include Banning Fur Farming in the Next Government Platform]. 18 February 2011.

• Huomenta Suomi [Good Morning Finland]. MTV3. 17 February 2011.

• Impiö, Janne. Keskustan vaalijulisteita tärveltiin verisin vastinein [The Centre Party’s Campaign Posters Replaced With Bloody Equivalents]. 11 April 2011. Kaleva.

• Karhula, Timo, Arto Latukka, and Teppo Rekilä. Turkistilojen talous ja alan merkitys sekä tulevaisuuden näkymät Suomessa [Economy, Importance, and Future Prospects of the Fur Industry in Finland]. Helsinki: MTT Talouskeskus, 2008: 9.

• Koivikko, Kimmo. Turkistarhauksesta tuli huippubisnestä [Fur Farming is Great Business]. 14 April 2011. Kauppalehti.

• Kysely: Lähes kolmasosa kansasta kieltäisi turkistarhauksen [Poll Results: Almost One Third of Finns Would Ban Fur Farming]. 16 February 2011. MTV3.

• Maaseudun Tulevaisuus: Turkistarhoja ehkä Etelä-Suomeenkin [Maaseudun Tulevaisuus: Fur Farms to Southern Finland?]. 2 February 2012. Taloussanomat.

• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Metsä- ja maatalousministeriö). Kaikki turkistarhat tarkastettu [All Fur Farms Inspected]. 5 March 2010.

• Oikeutta eläimille [Rights to Animals]. Mielenosoituksia Suomen suurlähetystöillä turkistarhauksen kieltämiseksi [Demonstrations in Finland’s Embassies for Banning Fur Farming]. 21 March 2011.

• - - -. Yleistä turkistarhauksesta [Basic Information on the Fur Industry]. Viewed 6 March 2012.

• SEY. Finnish Federation for Animal Welfare Associations (Suomen eläinsuojeluyhdistysten liitto ry). Turkistuotannosta [The Fur Industry]. Viewed 4 March 2012.

• Soini, Timo. Turkistarhaus [Fur Farming]. 22 February 2011.

• STKL. Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association (Suomen Turkiseläinten Kasvattajain Liitto). Lain vaatimukset [Legal Requirements]. Viewed 17 March 2012. Appendix A¹⁵.

• - - -. Turkisalan julkinen puheenvuoro on havahduttanut [A Public Address By the Fur Industry Awakes People]. Viewed 9 March 2012. Appendix B.

• - - -. Turkistilojen sertifiointi [The Certification of Fur Farms]. Viewed 6 March 2012. Appendix C.

• - - -. Turkistuotanto tarjoaa työpaikan noin 17 500 suomalaiselle [The Fur Industry Provides Employment to About 17,500 Finns]. Appendix D.

• Suhonen, Eeva. Animalian syksy on turkiskampanjoinnin aikaa [Animalia Campaigns Against the Fur Industry in Autumn]. Animalia. 3 (2009): 4-5.

• Takala, Hanna, and Nina Rahkola. Turkisalan johtohahmojen tarhoilla kärsiviä eläimiä [Suffering Animals in Fur Farms Owned by Leading Figures in the Industry]. 23 February 2011. MTV3.

• Turkistarhat avaavat päiväksi ovensa uteliaille [Fur Farms Open for Interested for a Day]. 10 October 2011. Maaseudun tulevaisuus.

• Turkistarhat pohjavesialueilla [Fur Farms in Groundwater Areas]. 28 August 2008. Länsi-Suomen ympäristökeskus [Environmental Administration of Western Finland].

• Turkistarhauksen monet kasvot [The Downside to Fur Farming]. 45 minuuttia [45 minutes]. MTV3. 16 February 2011.

• Turkistarhoilla menee hyvin, tuotanto saattaa kasvaa [Fur Farms Are Doing Well, Production May Increase]. 30 September 2011. Aamulehti.

• Turkistarhojen avointen ovien päivän tarhoilla samoja ongelmia kuin kohuvideoissa – katso video! [Problems Similar to the ones in the Fussed Material Encountered on Open Day]. 22 October 2011. Tarhauskielto.

• Useat turkistarhat avasivat ovensa uteliaille [Several Fur Farms Open for Visitors]. 15 October 2011. Kaleva.

• Uusi Suomi. Kiviniemen käytös suututtaa – ”Sopimatonta hihittelyä” [Ms Kiviniemi’s Behaviour Awakes Anger: ”Inappropiate Giggles”]. By Teppo Ovaskainen. 7 March 2011.

• - - -. Murskaava enemmistö hyväksyy turkistarhauksen [Fur Farming Accepted by a Crushing Majority]. 21 September 2009.

• - - -. Raju provokaatio turkistarhaajille – katso kuva [Fur Farmers Intensely Provoked: See Picture]. 2 September 2009.

• YLE Keski-Pohjanmaa. Evira torjuu turkistarhojen vuosittaiset tarkastukset [Evira Rejects the Idea of Annual Inspections on Fur Farms]. 18 February 2011.

• - - -. Turkistarhat poistuvat pohjavesien ääreltä [Fur Farms Removed from Groundwater Areas]. 6 November 2009.

• YLE. Ehdokkaat vastasivat 29 yleisökysymykseen [Candidates Answer 29 Reader Questions]. 4 February 2012.

• - - -. Koskinen: Turkistarhaus hyvä elinkeino [Mr Koskinen: Fur Farming Is a Good Source of Livelihood]. By Petri Manssila. 23 June 2011.

• - - -. Tutkimustuloksia: tällaisia me suomalaiset olemme [Research Results: What Are Finns Like]. Viewed 17 March 2012.

• - - -. Yli puolella turkistiloista puutteita [Problems Encountered in Over Half of the Fur Farms Inspected]. 4 April 2011.

[Translations by the author].

Appendices

1. Lain vaatimukset (PDF)

2. Turkisalan julkinen puheenvuoro on havahduttanut (PDF)

3. Turkistilojen sertifiointi (PDF)

4. Turkistuotanto tarjoaa työpaikan noin 17,500 suomalaiselle (PDF)

Followup Report [PDF]

Top — Social and Gender Issues & Policy Papers Index — Index of All Finnish Institutions Papers — FAST-FIN Home

Last Updated 24 April 2012