The Fur Trade

B

Blue_UK

Drifting Mind
Valued Senior Member
I have been recently thinking about the use of animals for their fur/hide.

Protesters complain for a numbers of reasons the most significant of which is animal welfare - that is - animal cruelty.

However, assuming that animals where farmed in reasonable conditions and killed humanely what issues would still remain? The following thoughts are based on the assumption that animals are kept well.

All too often the antis will present you with pictures of skinned animals with comments such as "this is what's left from your coat" or such. This is one tactic I do not understand - all animals look pretty gruesome on the inside. Perhaps a picture of the remains of a Christmas turkey can be used as evidence against eating turkey! I do not see the significance of the fact that a skinned animal does not look very nice.

Perhaps the message is that the process is somehow 'wasteful'. What about the diamond industry - how little produce is gained per ton of rock? Certainly, I do not think that an animal would live happier if more of its body parts were to be more used at some point in the future!

We already farm animals for pleasure - either for pets or for meat. Most of the animals we bring into this world would not have otherwise lived so it's not as if we are denying them a life (and even if we were, I'm sure nature would not be as caring as a good farmer).

I think the major reason antis exist is because they look at their cat Mr. Noggins and are filled with horror at the thought of someone making a pair of gloves out of his brethren. I do not believe this is a valid reason - I think that a free-range fur farm humanely managed would be no different to any other type of non-veg. farm.
 
well said. very few people are morally consistent. it cracks me up every time I hear people talk about dolphins getting caught in tuna nets. what about the tuna!

I, for one, subscribe to a form of social contract ethics, and thus do not attribute morals, intrinsically, to animals. I believe the only way morality applies to animals is through human empathy.
 
Because they already exist!

Seriously, that's sci-fi! Although I'm sure it'll be plausible one day, it will definitely mean $$$.

Good point, Cato, about the social contract. I often say something similar, but a little more depraved (I won't say here!).
 
My honest opinion is that I could care less about the suffering of animals, and that leather is one of the things that makes this life better.

Next question?
 
My leather jacket is my constant companion; no other material on the planet does what it does for me. This, of course, undermines any objections I might raise against vanity furs, but to me the prestige of wearing fox just isn't impressive; it's not like the old woman actually went out and caught the fox.

The idea, though, of raising relatively small animals like sable or mink in cages specifically for a small vanity market does seem rather wasteful. And Oregon still has nutria running amok here and there. Nothing like a giant rat under your right front tire, eh? Whose idea was that, anyway? ("Oh, Gladys, that's such a beautiful nutria stole. Wherever did you club it down?")

What's next, a discussion of down pillows?
 
Blue_UK said:
I have been recently thinking about the use of animals for their fur/hide.

Protesters complain for a numbers of reasons the most significant of which is animal welfare - that is - animal cruelty.

However, assuming that animals where farmed in reasonable conditions and killed humanely what issues would still remain? The following thoughts are based on the assumption that animals are kept well.

All too often the antis will present you with pictures of skinned animals with comments such as "this is what's left from your coat" or such. This is one tactic I do not understand - all animals look pretty gruesome on the inside. Perhaps a picture of the remains of a Christmas turkey can be used as evidence against eating turkey! I do not see the significance of the fact that a skinned animal does not look very nice.

Perhaps the message is that the process is somehow 'wasteful'. What about the diamond industry - how little produce is gained per ton of rock? Certainly, I do not think that an animal would live happier if more of its body parts were to be more used at some point in the future!

We already farm animals for pleasure - either for pets or for meat. Most of the animals we bring into this world would not have otherwise lived so it's not as if we are denying them a life (and even if we were, I'm sure nature would not be as caring as a good farmer).

I think the major reason antis exist is because they look at their cat Mr. Noggins and are filled with horror at the thought of someone making a pair of gloves out of his brethren. I do not believe this is a valid reason - I think that a free-range fur farm humanely managed would be no different to any other type of non-veg. farm.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point of the 'antis', as you call them, let me try to educate you.
The main issue is that killing animals is cruel, for any reason, just as it is to kill humans. Farmers, be it for fur, food, leather, etc, that raise animals so that they can then be slaughtered justify this by claiming that we humans need these animal products. This simply isn't true, we want these products, but we don't need them.
Moving on. In discussing the fur trade you must understand that animals raised in cages are never free to do as they wish, be it run, eat, hunt, mate, etc. Being raised in a confined space is against an animals natural instincts. They are kept fed until such a time as they are ready to be killed for their product, be it painlessly or otherwise. Denying any living creature it's freedom is inherently cruel. In that sense it is in an animals own interest to be free in the wild, even if that ultimately results in it being killed by a predator. Would you lock your child in your basement until it was old enough to look after itself just in case your child was hit by a car or attacked by another child? Animals used for their fur that are caght in the wild are more often than not killed in very painful ways, this of course is cruel for many reasons.
The skinned animal pictures you mention are somtimes of animals that are skinned while they are still alive. This raises the issue of laws that protect animal rights. In some countries laws are in place to protect basic animal rights, restrict and control the way animals are used for fur, food, etc. In other countries (such as China), there are no laws to protect animal rights, which is why 'antis' constanly bombard the media with sickening images of animal suffering, to educate and anger the public into action.
 
wsionynw said:
You seem to be missing the point of the 'antis', as you call them, let me try to educate you.
The main issue is that killing animals is cruel, for any reason, just as it is to kill humans. Farmers, be it for fur, food, leather, etc, that raise animals so that they can then be slaughtered justify this by claiming that we humans need these animal products. This simply isn't true, we want these products, but we don't need them.
Moving on. In discussing the fur trade you must understand that animals raised in cages are never free to do as they wish, be it run, eat, hunt, mate, etc. Being raised in a confined space is against an animals natural instincts. They are kept fed until such a time as they are ready to be killed for their product, be it painlessly or otherwise. Denying any living creature it's freedom is inherently cruel. In that sense it is in an animals own interest to be free in the wild, even if that ultimately results in it being killed by a predator. Would you lock your child in your basement until it was old enough to look after itself just in case your child was hit by a car or attacked by another child? Animals used for their fur that are caght in the wild are more often than not killed in very painful ways, this of course is cruel for many reasons.
The skinned animal pictures you mention are somtimes of animals that are skinned while they are still alive. This raises the issue of laws that protect animal rights. In some countries laws are in place to protect basic animal rights, restrict and control the way animals are used for fur, food, etc. In other countries (such as China), there are no laws to protect animal rights, which is why 'antis' constanly bombard the media with sickening images of animal suffering, to educate and anger the public into action.
Click to expand...

i'm cruel to my dog :( all you "antis" come protest outside my house! why? because i keep him in a confined space (my house and garden) because i don't let him hunt or sniff other dogs' crotches or hump people because etc etc...

the so called "antis" should then own a pet because it's against it's natural instincs to be told what to do... perhaps not has "cruel" as getting killed just to keep my precious feet warm... but there is a link and i'm just making a point out of your point... i can think of a lot of things we don't need, should that deny us the freedom of having it? you might say "it's not directed to animals" but what about the stuff you use such as cars or whatever that destroys the environment and the future populations of this planet...

i find it funny how people like to feel noble and morally correct by "omg free willy" and then they drive a diesel engined car, cheats with the taxes etc... if you want to be moral then you need to take distance from everything that is "wrong" if one can ever decide what is right and what is wrong... then just exile to some cave somewhere and live like a hermit...

there is too much choose and pick in the moral department to then just ignore the rest... people are hypocrites :(
 
alexb123 said:
This might help you change your mind.

**Warning** This link contains some very nasty footage of animanls being skinned alive.

http://www.peta2.com/takecharge/swf/fur_farm.swf
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm for animal experimentation to advance scientific knowledge and agree there is a lot of hypocrisy and over the top lunacy from animal rights protesters, but seeing animals live for a deal of time after their skin has been removed makes me think how could someone be so fucked up as to even contemplate such an act just so some cheap tart can feel important.
 
Maxi said:
i'm cruel to my dog :( all you "antis" come protest outside my house! why? because i keep him in a confined space (my house and garden) because i don't let him hunt or sniff other dogs' crotches or hump people because etc etc...

the so called "antis" should then own a pet because it's against it's natural instincs to be told what to do... perhaps not has "cruel" as getting killed just to keep my precious feet warm... but there is a link and i'm just making a point out of your point... i can think of a lot of things we don't need, should that deny us the freedom of having it? you might say "it's not directed to animals" but what about the stuff you use such as cars or whatever that destroys the environment and the future populations of this planet...

i find it funny how people like to feel noble and morally correct by "omg free willy" and then they drive a diesel engined car, cheats with the taxes etc... if you want to be moral then you need to take distance from everything that is "wrong" if one can ever decide what is right and what is wrong... then just exile to some cave somewhere and live like a hermit...

there is too much choose and pick in the moral department to then just ignore the rest... people are hypocrites :(
Click to expand...

You've gone slightly off subject there, we are just talking about the fur trade. I do understand the points you're trying to make, but you need to consider them fully.
I have two pet cats, I didn't buy them from a cat breeder, they came from broken homes. I disagree with breeding animals for pets in the vast numbers that we currently do, just so people can feel entertained or have a dog to show off. I take care of my cats because that is in their best interests, since a feral existence would be almost impossible. I don't decide to kill them and sell their fur.
The 'antis' are trying get people to make a few steps in the right direction, and it's working. The animal rights movement is growing all the time. And since you mention diesel engine cars, it's worth noting that car manufacturers are taking alternatative fuels more seriously. Soon the public will have more choice to own a 'green' car, or a gas guzzeling 4x4. Here in the UK there is a big push to make recycling compulsory for all households. The trend has started... :m:
 
alexb123 said:
This might help you change your mind.

**Warning** This link contains some very nasty footage of animanls being skinned alive.

http://www.peta2.com/takecharge/swf/fur_farm.swf
Click to expand...

Whatever, blah blah blah … the poor animals. I will admit that men could have suffocated them or broke their necks first. Peta and other animal lovers are always talking about how cruel people are to animals. There are some people that get off from torturing animals, but most people are not any crueler than some of the carnivores that exist in the wild. Have any of you seen a video of African wild dogs attacking their prey? They eat their prey when they are still alive, unlike most of the other predators in Africa.

I would have liked to see a video of that bear lover and his girl friend being attacked in Russia or Northern Canada or where ever it was. I am sure that some of you know what I am talking about. The man was another animal lover that believed the cute teddy bears were his friends. The show was on the Discovery channel a couple of weeks ago. The man would actually walk right up to the bears and say, “ How are you big bear. You’re my friend.” What an idiot. He deserved what he got. I’ve noticed that a lot of Peta members have personalities that are similar to the guy that was eaten by the bear. Some of them may not be as stupid as the guy and his girl friend, but a lot of them believe that we should be different than the other omnivores on this planet simply because we are human. Would a hungry bear show any mercy to a human? I think not. The bear would rip us apart.

Peta members also like to use the words "humane treatment of animals" in their sentences. I hate when people use the word humane. The word is supposed to describe compassion, but human beings are the cruelest life forms on this planet. People should spend more time worrying about the well being of humans instead of worrying about the poor animals that are being slaughtered for food and clothing.
 
q0101 said:
Peta members also like to use the words "humane treatment of animals" in their sentences. I hate when people use the word humane. The word is supposed to describe compassion, but human beings are the cruelest life forms on this planet. People should spend more time worrying about the well being of humans instead of worrying about the poor animals that are being slaughtered for food and clothing.
Click to expand...

If humans are so cruel then why should we worry about the well being of humans? Surely we get what we deserve?
The point is we can be compassionate towards animals, and if we value life at all then we have no justifiable reason not to be compassionate towards animals. Think about it for more than ten seconds.
 
Giambattista said:
And anyone who disagrees with my feelings on the matter deserves to die.

Fuck off. :mad:
Click to expand...
Oh, sure, that's really mature: agree with me or die. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top