PETA member gets wrapped up at show.

Kinda chuckled to myself when I read this piece.

So! Straight to the point. Is raising and killing animals just for their fur a bad thing or not?

You read fashion columns, Herc??

Overall, I can't say I really object to things like the raising of domestic mink for garments any more than I'd object to the raising of cattle for Big Macs. Where I think PETA-types might have a point is where, say, the last of the jaguars are dying to become someone's coat. Farming animals is one things - killing them in the wild for no good reason is another. I wouldn't wear fur myself, but as I am a meat-eater, I can't really throw stones at those who do.

Frankly, though, I wish all the animal rights people would devote some of their energy to human rights first. Once those are sorted out, we can turn our maudlin concern to beasts.

You betcha! Major league babes in the fashion world!

Actually I picked up the link on another site and thought it would make a good side-track to all the Iraq squabbles.

I agree, hunting a rare animal for it's hide is not only wrong it's poaching.

I think much of the broo-haha is about the conditions these farmed animals are kept in.

Yes, you're right - and, as an individual, I tend to buy free-range eggs, eschew McDonald's, and, as I mentioned, refrain from buying fur. However, in terms of activism, I'd rather devote what spare time and energy I have to creating brou-haha about the conditions our human prisoners are kept in, for example, or the grounds under which many people are imprisoned throughout the world in the first place. It's just a matter of priorities, I guess.

Isn't PETA the ones who recently put up an exhibit dipiting the holocaust and comparing it to a beef slaughterhouse?

Whatever they say, I believe the opposite.

I have zero respect for PETA.

People Eating Tasty Animals. Yum!

--cheers

I have zero respect for PETA's methodology, and I think that they are often too extreme in their message, as well, but I do think that there are some good messages buried in there. As Brunie mentioned, a lot of this has to do with the conditions that animals are kept in.

As far as fur is concerned, I don't buy it, because it seems ridiculous and wasteful to me to kill a large number of animals that I'm not going to eat to make a coat when I could just as easily buy a gorgeous coat made out of some other material. Fake fur is good enough for me.

What do they do with the rest of the mink anyhow? Dog food?

Actually there's not much meat on a mink, but you may be right with the dog food. Usually farmers utilize everything they can.

I also love to see animal activist protesting while wearing leather shoes.

Most of the documentaries I've seen on mink show very good living conditions. After all they want the fur to be in good shape. I beleive it was the way they minks were killed that disturbed people. An electrode up the wazoo and BZZZZZZZZZPPP.

From Wertz:


and from Brunie:


I agree with the previous posts that the actual wearing of fur (while not some members' preference) is not wrong. But to address the issues involved (hunting, breeding and wearing), I think it important to look at the roots and history of people wearing furs.

I doubt that anybody needs to be reminded that early human ancestors wore furs to protect them from the elements. While PETA can moan all they like, it was instinctual and natural to kill animals for their hides. While we do have alternatives to this now in cotton and other weavable materials, there still is nothing unnatural or malicious in the wearing of animal hides.

So what about our excessive hunting of animals -- sometimes to the point of near or total extinction -- and breeding of animals specifically for their hides?

To this I think we have to look into early civilizations and the addition of the trappers to the "hunter-gatherer" way of life. As we settled down, people could rely on others to provide for them through a system of fair trade. But some trades, however, found they had a distinct advantage over others -- trappers and farmers included.

While I'm not certain of the exact times in history that farming and herding came about, the herding practices of farmers allowed them to essentially breed their revenue in a continuous cycle. Before this, a farmer meddling only in vegetation would place his wealth at the whim of the weather, wild animals and parasites. It was simply to profitable to breed animals for food than not to. Similarly, as people settled into complacency, trappers found it profitable to engage in the perpetual hunt not just of animals, but of revenue.

Really, it was only a matter of time before the two got together as we see them today.

While I can see the nobility in Wertz's assertion that killing animals in the wild is "for no good reason," it was, at one time, done for very good reasons. I think it should still be permitted to hunt animals in the wild, but that it should not be allowed to endager the survival of any species. Furthermore, while the practice has arisen from our instinctive and natural proclivities, I agree that whether the animal is being killed strictly for it's hide or not, all of the animal's "potential" should be utilized (ie: clothing, food and whatever else there might be). It seems much of the objection is to the farming of animals to kill them for fur. I would like to think such objections could be minimized -- and should be minimized -- by the killing of animals to use not only for clothing but also for food and any other purposes that I am as yet unaware of.
Personally, I'd be surprised if there were any companies that killed animals and didn't pursue the full potential of the killing. It doesn't serve the corporate interest to simply kill an animal for it's hide and I'd say the only people who do so are the poachers who do so with, say, leopards and elephants. Early American expansionists perpetrated the same acts on the Buffalo whereas the Native Americans used the animal to it's full potential. This is what I advocate a return to, with the notable addition of turning a profit rather than the simple trading done amongst Native American tribes.

Some animal rights activists may dislike and find distasteful my reference to "turning a profit" but I can't personally conceive of how a corporation might only kill a few animals for even trade in such a large and connected society. To engage in mass killings and mass production is the only avenue for profit or survival for them.

The only issue I feel that remains might be the living conditions, but the argument there would be what good is would it do to house a cow in the penthouse when all the while it's final destiney is to be knocked in the head and sacraficed to the god of Golden Arches? Little to none, I imagine.

People don't have to agree about eating animals or wearing the hides of animals. But I don't see that there is any justification to claims that it is immoral or wrong. Had it not been in large part the killing, eating and wearing of animals our civilization -- and for that matter species -- might not be where it is today. If you don't like it, don't eat or wear animals. But don't presume to wage some kind of war against the practice or those who support it (whether through direct participation or monetary support through purchase of goods).

Abs like Jesus said:


Well, I could sort of use the same argument with humans. What good does it do to give terminally ill people decent living accomodations, when they're just going to die anyway? It's not that I disagree with your stance on animals entirely. I'm a meat eater, and I think that's natural, but I don't think that the industry is necessarily natural, and if we must mass produce animals for food, I would think that we could at least do it as humanely as possible.

Hercules said:


Err, I'm not trying to be overly analytical here, but it really depends upon the reasons why a person is protesting. One can be against fur and still be okay with leather. Also, there are a lot of synthetic fibers that look like leather. Birkenstock puts out quite a few shoes like this, and it can be difficult to tell the difference.

Hare Krishna

I would assume that when they say "Fur is Murder" then they're protesting the killing of an animal for an article of clothing.

You missed the part about the "pleather" stuff.

Nope! I didn't miss it. I don't give the PETA folks much credit

While I wasn't really trying to put forward a "noble" argument, I was essentially saying the same thing that you are. By using "the last of the jaguars" as an example, I meant to imply that killing endangered species or even those with dwindling numbers was the crime. This was also sorta implied by the "for no good reason" qualifier. While I appreciate that we, as a species, have obviously depended on animal fur for warmth during the course of our history, we now have very viable alternatives to skinning muskrats - and I, personally, would prefer a coat of wool to one made from hundreds of cute little rodents - never mind a half dozen leopards.

Hunting in general is rather a different issue. Culling, I believe, is still important to the survival of some species and I'm told that various sporting authorities closely monitor the populations of deer, squirrels, etc. and that the duration of various hunting seasons are determined by such scrutiny. Is anyone more knowleadgeable about this than I?

I want to be able ot JUST afford a fur coat

Understood. I can only afford muppet fur.

wearing fur is only bad for the animals.