Fur Coats?

[Melensdad]

Dont buy it, they may do this, but the main reason for the animal is the skin, fur etc. the by product is the meat for other animals.

Still wrong.............

I guess I don't understand why the animal has to be used for food to justify the harvesting of the animal. I don't care if they use it for food, for dog food, for fertilizer, or if they just throw it away after they harvest the pelt.

Seems to me using the logic of having to harvest it for food would then logically make it immoral to harvest corn for ethanol instead of for food? Afterall, starving people could have been fed with that corn instead of turning it into fuel for us to drive to the shopping mall.

I'm not advocating inhumane treatment, but there is no reason to suggest food is the only noble use.

 

[ddrane2115]

Corn does not have feelings and does not hurt when you harvest it. Using the leftovers for fodder is a good use of the by-product. Using an animal ONLY for its pelt is a waste in my mind. It is also inhumane, especially when most fur can be manufactured.............

I would never back the idea of using an animal only for it's pelt. The use of the by-product in food for other animals is a weak argument, I see this as a way to get rid of what is not used in a way to provide a small amount of $$, verses disposing of it.

The rescue we volunteer at takes dead farm animals, the farmers are more than happy to give it to us, since even burying it is more costly.

 

[ddrane2115]

<<<<or if they just throw it away after they harvest the pelt.>>>>


this is the part we that care for animals have a problem with.

 

[Melensdad]

<<<<or if they just throw it away after they harvest the pelt.>>>>


this is the part we that care for animals have a problem with.

I care for animals too, have 4 in my house. Had an opossum on the porch last night that wouldn't go away and that I could have easily have killed, but didn't see it as any threat and didn't see the need to kill it, I just wanted it gone. However I don't have a problem with farming a species for its pelt. Personally I think its great that they do use most/all of the animal for various products like 'mink oil', fertilizer, etc. But I simply don't believe it is necessary for that to happen to justify the practice of animal farming for the pelt.

 

[Av8r3400]

So, even though the entire animal is utilized, pelt and carcass, it is still wrong? No one has explained how it is different to cattle ranching where the meat is the prime purpose and the pelt is secondary. I see no difference what so ever which is the prime reason. Should all these farm raised (fur bearing) animals be euthanized and destroyed, then?

DD and DZ, I sincerely respect both of you and your opinions, I'd just like to understand them better.

 

[dzalphakilo]

Where does the meat "go" from a fur farm?

Anyway you cut it, if the general population didn't buy fur, I'd guess the fur farm wouldn't exist.

Part of my issue also lies with some of the idiots I know that are out there running these farms.

willie mentioned about pets and what the difference would be. Well, I've dealt with the dumb ass idiots who think if they get two dogs, hey, they have a business for breeding. Just two weeks ago we got a complaint from a lady in New York who was passing by in our area that went to see a "kennel". People don't realize we have no LE authority, and that we or those complaining must involve the local law to investigate. Let's just say it wasn't a kennel, but a shit house with over twenty puppies neglected, living in filth and not eating properly. The people "closed" their shop down right away when we showed up. Up in Galax Va, over 100 dogs were just shipped to various parts of the country for the same reason. Guess what happened to those dogs? I have no clue because those people didn't break any laws.

Now, is this the same with fur farms?

I sincerely don't know, but knowing people and how they want to make a "quick" buck, I don't doubt it.

I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur. Where does the meat go? My point being is that cattle, unlike fur, primary purpose is for human consumption.

Remember my views on killing an animal? I don't have an issue with animals being killed.

Heck, there are people who have known me for five years down here and can't believe I hunt or actually own a gun.

As far as what to do with the animals in existing farms, I'd use them all up to make fur products and stop the breeding.

Added to the fact that I've noticed that most people I've met, who haven't spent a day "out in the woods" but have over a $1000 fur coat can be some real idiots, however rich enough to buy a coat that they only need to "show off".

 

[Melensdad]

Anyway you cut it, if the general population didn't buy fur, I'd guess the fur farm wouldn't exist.
. . .
My point being is that cattle, unlike fur, primary purpose is for human consumption.

So if human consumption is the key point, then lets go back to ethanol where we are taking a valuable food crop that could be shipped to starving people but we, being the selfish consuming Americans, have chosen to turn it into fuel of our cars so we can go out to the mall to buy fur coats to cover our fatasses. How is ethanol production morally acceptable?

I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.

Interestingly tobacco is used in many medications and huge amounts of medical research, but the primary income most farmers draw from tobacco is the production of smoking tobacco. Tobacco companies exist with the sole purpose of selling a product for income. Many American find the primary income generator of tobacco farming to be repulsive but it is still (for now) legal.

I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.

I'd guess the primary income producer at a distillery is drinking alcohol, and accidents while drunk driving and unwanted babies are both consequences of drinking.

I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.

I'd guess the primary income producer at a dairy farm is butter and milk. Both are known to be leading contributors to heart disease, the #1 killer of humans.

I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.

I'd guess you are right, and I don't see a problem with that.

 

[dzalphakilo]

Bob

There is an old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I think you're a better man than to use the fact that we already make waste and cause death as a society by what we find acceptable that it makes everything else "ok".

People can make choices, however most of us are lazy.

Personally, I don't see the need for breeding and killing animals for a product that people don't need. That's just me and my opinion.

And how much does tabacco put in your pocket?

I'm fully aware that people make their own decision to buy the prodcut (tabacco).

Guess it all comes down to the almight dollar, that sir is a fact of life.

Did I mention that those three girls were real bitches? I guess the question is was it the bitch that wanted the fur or did the fur make the bitch?

 

[Cityboy]

Bob

There is an old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

That's just like:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?"

isn't it?

 

[dzalphakilo]

That's just like:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?"

isn't it?

Guess that would depend on the cause.

Hayduke was always a favorite character of mine.

 

[Cityboy]

Guess that would depend on the cause.

Hayduke was always a favorite character of mine.

Never heard of Hayduke and had to Google it. The results kept coming back as "Eco-Terrorism", "vandalism" and "property destruction".

Was Hayduke like those PETA people who "freed" all those minks from the mink farm somewhere, and those "freed" minks then proceeded to run onto an interstate highway and get smashed into mink-grease?

Or those greenies that burn Hummers at the dealerships in the name of clean air?

Or the ones that burn down houses under construction that then cause forest fires?

Sorry DZ...gotta poke ya for that one.

 

[dzalphakilo]

George Hayduke was a fictional character in the novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" written by Edward Abbey .

The character was a former SF medic who served in Vietnam and ended up living in Utah. The character wasn't what you could call politically correct, and had a distrust for the goverment. Yes, the character knew explosives really well

Reading the book motivated me to go out Utah and see the beauty that Mr. Abbey wrote about. I ended up loving the area so much that I went out year after year exploring the area and I found it truely amazing and beautiful.

 

[Junkman]

................
I'd rather eat a sandwich made with whole wheat bread, a thick slice of tomato,onion, pickles, swiss cheese and mustard- than a Quarter Pounder any day.
I have a mental clarity and more energy now at 47 than I did when I was 37.
That is why I won't eat or use anything animal..except for cuddling my doggie .. she's good for my health and state of mind
Besides, pork and beef made me feel like my gut was going to explode.
I cannot digest most meat properly, hence- the radical diet change years ago.

Where do you think the milk for that Swiss cheese came from..... some fat ass???? As for more mental clarity, now, vs. when you were 37..... I sure would have like to see what type of mental state you were in back then in comparison to now.......

Cant we all just get along?

Why............

 

[fogtender]

As long as any life exists, we have to kill life to survive.

Doesn't matter if you eat corn, meat or an apple, something had to die to keep you alive. We minimize eating vegitables because we don't view that as a life... but it is... Those gals wearing grass skirts, the shame they must feel from killing a growing, thriving life form that we only pay attention to when someone else wants to build a dam, put in a windmill farm or drill for oil.....

That should make a bunch of you feel some remorse now.....

 

[dzalphakilo]

As long as any life exists, we have to kill life to survive.

Doesn't matter if you eat corn, meat or an apple, something had to die to keep you alive. We minimize eating vegitables because we don't view that as a life... but it is... Those gals wearing grass skirts, the shame they must feel from killing a growing, thriving life form that we only pay attention to when someone else wants to build a dam, put in a windmill farm or drill for oil.....

Won't get an argument from me there.

My question is if Miss Skurka is going to die if she dosen't get that fur coat?

Again, it comes down to dollars, not life or death in this instance.

 

[Junkman]

Won't get an argument from me there.

My question is if Miss Skurka is going to die if she dosen't get that fur coat?

Nope........... Bob is .......

 

[fogtender]

Nope........... Bob is .......

Nope, you have to carry it to the next step....

By having that fur coat, you have stopped the killing of whatever it was that those furs ate when they were alive.... By having a "GREAT" fur coat, that has ended the constant strugle of whatever those furs were eating daily with no remorse for their victims....

The circle of life is always bigger than the end of our nose!

Way to go BOB!!!

 

[dzalphakilo]

Nope, you have to carry it to the next step....

By having that fur coat, you have stopped the killing of whatever it was that those furs ate when they were alive.... By having a "GREAT" fur coat, that has ended the constant strugle of whatever those furs were eating daily with no remorse for their victims....

The circle of life is always bigger than the end of our nose!

Way to go BOB!!!

Uhm, your breeding the animal in the first place for the fur

People who buy that fur will not die if they don't have it.

Let me guess, you got your seal skin at Macy's?

My point is that on average, people who go into a department store and spend big bucks because it's fur don't need that product to survive. They have money, so they can buy it. Supply and demand. They buy the product, so people will supply the product. That's what it all comes down to, period.

 

[fogtender]

Uhm, your breeding the animal in the first place for the fur

People who buy that fur will not die if they don't have it.

Let me guess, you got your seal skin at Macy's?

Naw, it was clubbed to death out on the West Coast of Alaska, the meat thrown to the sled dogs, the fur was cured by having it pissing on (uric acid used for tanning), then it was hand sewn by the local slave labor and given to me as a token gift for two cases of fine "Hooch"... Pretty much the traditional way....

You mean you can buy those in a store? What a concept! Do you cruise the fur isles often at Macy's?

 

[Melensdad]

Uhm, your breeding the animal in the first place for the fur

Why would you presume that?

Why would you not presume that the fur was trapped by a trapper who is trying to eek out a living off the land?

Why would you presume (by default of your statement above) that the native species would not overpopulate without that trapper, become diseased and/or starve?

Why wouldn't you consider his life a noble life and why do you hope to snuff out his living simply because he sells his skins to someone else who then processes them into a coat?

You previously implied that it is OK for someone who lives off the land to use the animals/skins to make their livelihood, but now you want to deny that very same person their right to make that livelihood and you, by default, want to interfere with scientifically sound wildlife management practices.

Further, people seem to imply that "need" for fur should be considered. Why? Why not argue that people don't need gas guzzling cars? Or that soccer moms don't need 4x4 SUVs? Or that people don't need champaign on New Year's Eve? Or that people don't need Starbucks Coffee, Coca-Cola or Hershey's Chocolate bars to survive?

 

[fogtender]

Or that people don't need champaign on New Year's Eve? Or that people don't need Starbucks Coffee, to survive?

Ok, you had me onboard til there....

 

[Melensdad]

Ok, you had me onboard til there....

Many people consider those things "excessive" and certainly many would argue that they are unnecessary for survival. So if fur is not necessary then why not just list all the unnecessary things and ban/outlaw all of them? And the jobs that go with them!

I simply don't understand the logic of it all. We have 4 dogs as pets in our house. . . in parts of the world they eat dogs. Should we ship our dogs to the people who "need" them to survive? Some people need to trap fur bearing animals to make a living, why should we not support them by buying mink ear muffs, ermine coats, fox stoles, beaver capes, coyote trimmed parkas, etc?

Sure, 'fake' fur can be made, but a "turkey" can be shaped out of TOFU and served for Thanksgiving dinner . . . doesn't mean it is as good as the real thing . . . and I sure would not give 'thanks' if someone tried to pass off TOFUrkey to me for a holiday feast!

 

[dzalphakilo]

Naw, it was clubbed to death out on the West Coast of Alaska, the meat thrown to the sled dogs, the fur was cured by having it pissing on (uric acid used for tanning), then it was hand sewn by the local slave labor and given to me as a token gift for two cases of fine "Hooch"... Pretty much the traditional way....

You mean you can buy those in a store? What a concept! Do you cruise the fur isles often at Macy's?

Not that it may mean anything, but I find your meathod in obtaining the seal skin acceptable IMO.

 

[dzalphakilo]

Many people consider those things "excessive" and certainly many would argue that they are unnecessary for survival. So if fur is not necessary then why not just list all the unnecessary things and ban/outlaw all of them? And the jobs that go with them!

Because killing an animal shouldn't be done just for a whim per what the consumer wants.

What effect on the economy would outlawing "fur breeders" have on the economy?

I said "fur breeders", not trappers.

Bob, did the fur whatever you bought your wife come from a "fur breeder"?

 

[dzalphakilo]

Why would you presume that?

Why would you not presume that the fur was trapped by a trapper who is trying to eek out a living off the land?

Why would you presume (by default of your statement above) that the native species would not overpopulate without that trapper, become diseased and/or starve?

Why wouldn't you consider his life a noble life and why do you hope to snuff out his living simply because he sells his skins to someone else who then processes them into a coat?

You previously implied that it is OK for someone who lives off the land to use the animals/skins to make their livelihood, but now you want to deny that very same person their right to make that livelihood and you, by default, want to interfere with scientifically sound wildlife management practices.

Bob, I can't beleive a smart business man like yourself would ask such a confounded question.

Supply and demand.

I have no problem with a fur trapper making a living (harvesting the animals from it's natural habitat). I do have a problem with people "growing" animals that will be destroyed for the whims of some people.

Since we're going on analogies here, what's the difference between someone growing animals for fur and people that raise dogs to fight? The same denominator (sp?) is money.

I guess it all comes down to what you find acceptable.

Apologies, still having issues "seeing" all the post. I have to go "the long way around" to see who's posting what, so my responses may not be in order.

 

[fogtender]

Not that it may mean anything, but I find your meathod in obtaining the seal skin acceptable IMO.

The fact that my Seal Skin hat did come from the West Coast of Alaska and was a hand made gift really isn't the point. Many people assume that because you are wearing a fur, that it had to come from a "Fur Farm", which isn't the case most of the time. In Alaska, I don't know of anyone that farms fur, there was years ago (but that died off when they couldn't feed the minks whale meat any more... picky little devils...).

In Anchorage during Fur Rondy, they have the annual Fur Auction where trappers sell furs. Every year there is a handfull of the "Anti-Fur" faithfull standing accross the street freezing while the Auction is a success each year.

Anyway, there is no way I would wear my Seal Skin hat outside of Alaska, too many people have no clue to what it is and besides, the furry Beaver trim really is too warm now that Global Warming is in full swing down there... I get tired of telling them that the seal skin is circus raised and died of old age, and that the beaver drowned in the pond and was recycled....

 

[dzalphakilo]

The fact that my Seal Skin hat did come from the West Coast of Alaska and was a hand made gift really isn't the point. Many people assume that because you are wearing a fur, that it had to come from a "Fur Farm", which isn't the case most of the time. In Alaska, I don't know of anyone that farms fur, there was years ago (but that died off when they couldn't feed the minks whale meat any more... picky little devils...).

Don't hold the lower 48 to what you've expereinced.

I even have a piece of clothing that I picked up outside of White Horse that I know didn't come from a "fur farm".

Sad to say, in sunny N.C (I just got done mulching some leaves outside about an hour ago), I don't really need that piece of clothing anymore.

However, just by looking, from the "fur commision", in 2006, there were 326 mink farms in the U.S alone.

I'm not against harvesting animals for their fur, only raising them in a farm enviroment and using them for the primary purpose of their fur. Utilizing the entire animal is only smart business (and good marketing) for the fur farmer.

 

[Cityboy]

I'm not against harvesting animals for their fur, only raising them in a farm enviroment and using them for the primary purpose of their fur. Utilizing the entire animal is only smart business (and good marketing) for the fur farmer.

I'm replying not because I care.....I'm just bored as hell sitting at my MIL's house till December 31. irate:

I guess people decide to be for or against an issue for different reasons. I quit hunting several years ago because I was bored with it, and I went mainly because I liked sitting around the camp fire in the evenings with my buddies and consuming adult beverages. Plus, toward the end, I'd killed enough deer over the years that I wasn't interested in field dressing them and dragging them back to the truck any longer. I let several walk on by because I just didn't feel like killing them. Then I quit drinking and lost all incintive to go to deer camp.

Conversely, I know guys who hunt and kill deer, but don't eat the meat. They do donate it to "Hunters for the Hungry" though. Whatever floats your boat, I reckon.

I do like to poke fun at hunters (and myself because I used to be one), and boy do some of those guys get pissed about it. I stirred up a bunch of poop at TBN once doing that. I added up how much per pound deer meat costs by the time the typical cityboy loads up his 4-wheeler into his 4wd pickup with his Weatherby magnum, climbing stand, hooks up the 30' camper, et al, etc., and heads to the woods to commune with nature.

I'm not against hunting, but I am concerned with the increasing number of idiots in the woods with high-powered rifles. Anyway -we are talking about Bob S hunting fur in it's natural habitat....The Mall, not deer hunting, but I digress.....

DZ - Those critters you are concerned about would not even exist in the first place if not for the fur farmers. They created, through breeding, these minks, rabbits, etc., specifically to supply the demand for their pelts. Were it not for the breeders, Skurka would not have been able to buy the fur coat and then start this thread -because subconciously he felt guilty about killing those poor, cute fuzzy little animals- and give my bored ass something to type about, and I would have to be in the living room with the rest of the inlaws.

So, for that reason, I have decided I am for the fur trade, especially beaver :string: today.

 

[Melensdad]

Bob, did the fur whatever you bought your wife come from a "fur breeder"?

It clearly makes no difference to me, but part of it is from an animal that is consumed by people on a regular basis and part of it is from an animal that is typically hunted/trapped. So (I'm guessing) that part of it was farmed and part of it was not.

She has a few other fur coats, one of which is clearly 'ranch' raised, but I believe most of the furs on most of the coats were trapped/shot, honestly never thought about it before.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

I believe its time this picture was posted . . .