Nostalgic Pushhead

I don't like fur... seems pointless and wrong to raise and slaughter animals just for *fashion*.

That said, I hate PETA, they're a bunch of whackos.

I'm okay with leather, since, I assume its from cows we're eating anyway. If thats not the case, I'll change my position.

And in cases like the nutria... If they're overpopulated and need to be killed off, why not put them to use?

Viti

In mink farming, the minks are an important part of the whole food industry. They eat all of the heads and feet and guts and other gross leftovers from the chicken packaging industry...then the mink carcasses are used as protein in dog and cat food.

Also, unlike synthetics, fur is renewable and reusable, so to me that is far more practical and less wasteful than other forms of fashion.

Viti

I needed a dress coat, and found a vintage stroller length wool coat with a huge dark mink collar for 30 bucks on eBay! I had looked for just a wool coat all over town and at Burlington etc (I have a gorgeous vintage fox collar I thought I would attach) and the best price I found was 110.00...needless to say I am thrilled with my bargain.

I also found a company that uses recycled fur wraps and such to make fur trimmed hats, gloves, scarves etc...renew, reuse, recycle isn't that as "green" as it gets?

brighid

I am in the same camp as Mageth. I do not find a problem with wearing certain kinds of fur, but I do not support the killing of endangered species for their pelts, or other body parts (coyote, tiger, leopard, etc.). I do not have a problem with mink(for the same reasons Lady Shea has stated), rabbit, or as has been noted nutria. I do not have a problem with leather either.

I think PETA does a disservice to the movement for the humane treatment of animals with its “scare” tactics and almost fundamentalist fervor.

I don’t know enough about the anti-fur movement to comment more accurately about the nature of it, the motives, or any reasonable or unreasonable claims it makes. I don’t doubt that both sides of the fur and anti-fur brigade employ misleading propaganda rooted in some form of plausible truth. It’s the job of reasonable people to research both sides and come to their own conclusions based on evidence, not emotion.

I do feel that animals should be treated and harvested humanely. I try to support businesses that practice those principles.

I have thought about purchasing a fur, especially to help keep me warm during the frigid winters in my part of the woods. Unlike synthetic fabrics fur is (as Lady Shea has stated) recyclable and renewable.

I do think it is possible for the people of Louisiana to capitalize on the nutria overpopulation. If one could acquire adequate furrier, e-commerce, web site and distribution knowledge (which the only terribly difficult part might be the furrier aspect) one might be able to sell those furs (if they are well designed and attractive.)

Brighid

mike_decock

I think wearing fur is okay (granted it's not an endangered species). If I was living in a colder climate, I'd probably wear one of those Russian Fur Hats.

-Mike...

brighid

I thought it might be helpful to post a few sights from both sides of the argument to help familiarize people with what each side has to say.

Here is one site that outlines some of the anti-fur and animal protection laws in various countries:

http://worldanimal.net/fur-legislation.html

Another (although I have not reviewed any of the sites):

http://www.ad.com/Society/Issues/Ani...hts/Fur_Trade/

An interesting article from the fur position, regarding the destruction of Native cultures and their economic abilities:

http://www.fur.ca/archives/speeches%5Clynge-e.asp

"In this part of the European world, the indigenous peoples' voice is like someone crying in the desert. They need to be able to uphold life the way life has always been upheld in the Arctic: by apprehending and killing wild animals, eating their flesh, using their skin, trading the by-products for the commodities that cost money. In and through it all, honouring the basic principle of a sustainable and responsible use of nature's resources. And paying attention to modern-day sensitivities about animal welfare, using the best available technology and as humane hunting methods as possible in actual practice."



The Socio-Economic Impact of European Fur Farming (pro-fur)
http://www.iftf.com/socio.asp


Brighid

Mageth

brighid:

A minor point of clarification: coyotes are not an endangered species (they may be endangered in some areas). But their fur is not much use or in demand, anyway.

brighid

Maybe it is wolf I was thinking of ... sorry about that. I mentioned it because I know a woman with a substantial fur collection and I had thought she had made mention of coyote as one should wouldn't buy again because of the low populations in the wild (at least in our area) but I could be mistaken. Thank you.

B

Viti

They are hunted as pests in most agricultural areas (I grew up in Colorado where the ranchers shoot on sight). Coyotes are one of my favorite animals because of their adaptability...while wolf and other wild predator populations diminish, coyote populations have actually increased even with efforts to eradicate them. Coyotes live in all climates and habitats including cities. They are not endangered at all, they are, in fact, considered a pest animal by many. Don't mean to derail my own thread, but I admire these animals many consider "mangy rat-dogs"

Their fur is wonderful, though I would probably choose not to wear it, but to make rugs, pillows, or comforters...thick and beautifully colored.

The problem is the anti-fur people have effectively killed the market. It is not "PC" to wear fur, though it is making somewhat of a comeback...PETA is still hard at work making people feel like kitten killers.

brighid

Nutria background information:

http://www.gsmfc.org/nis/nis/Myocastor_coypus.html

Nutria were intentionally introduced into North America, for their fur. They were extensively marketed as the next "mink" to gullible buyers. At one point, breeding pairs were sold for up to $2,500 a pair (Jackson, 1994). However, for various reasons, nutria fur never caught on in the United States.

Nutria were first introduced into the Gulf of Mexico near New Orleans in the early 1930's. It's believed that all the individuals released during this first introduction were recaptured by trappers. In 1938, between 12 and 20 nutria imported from Argentina were introduced into Avery Island, Louisiana by tabasco tycoon E.A. McIlhenny (Griffo, 1957; Lowery, 1974; Jackson, 1994; Trillin, 1995). These reproduced prolifically. Many escaped from captivity or were released, and rapidly multiplied in the wild. The first specimens of nutria appeared in the Louisiana fur market during the 1943-44 season. In the 1945-46 season the number of nutria trapped reached 8,784. Griffo (1957) reported the number of nutria present in Louisiana to have reached 1,000,000 by 1957. By the 1969-70 season 1,604,175 nutria were trapped in Louisiana alone (Lowery, 1974). Presently, they are more important than the muskrat in Louisiana's trapping industry (Whitaker, 1988; Choate et al., 1994).

Other nutria sites: http://lamer.lsu.edu/topics/exotics/nutria1.htm

Payment by Louisiana for captured Nutria: http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com...age/nutria.htm

It seems Nutria didn't catch on as well in America as in Europe and leather and synthetic fabrics have been more favored, adding to the decline in desire for fur. It is possible that the anti-fur campaign had a significant affect on this industry, but it seems the major decline happened in the 80's and this decline in market desire for fur may have significant links to the poor economic times of the 80’s.

Can someone show that the anti-fur campaign is wholly, or in largely responsible for the decline in fur. It seems more likely that in certain niche markets (like San Francisco) it had an impact, but other factors such as price, economic shifts, and affordability of leather and synthetic fabrics may have had a more significant impact.

I'll see if I can find any trend information.

edited to add: Information on the decline of nutria:

The price of Nutria pelts have fluctuated since the first
records have been kept concerning their economic development, whichbegan in 1944/45(see table 1). During that year, 436 pelt were trapped, at $.50 per pelt for a total value of $218. In 1953/54, 160,654 pelt were trapped, at $2.00 per pelt, for a total of $321,308. In 1963/64 1,304,267 pelts were trapped at a price of $1.50/pelt, for a total of $1,956,400.50. During the 1980,s and
early 1990's, the price of Nutria pelts had dropped back down by a dollar, which rendered Nutria trapping a business with very little
to no profitability. Thus, what has ensued is an overpopulation of
Nutria, to the point where their natural vegetation has been
depleted, forcing the Nutria to invade the sugarcane and rice
fields of southern Louisiana and Texas, therefore causing great
damage.

Dollar loss by the trappers causes their buying power to be
reduced. This also contributes to the negative effects on the local
businesses in Louisiana communities.

Nutria pelts have decreas due IN PART to negative public opinion toward fur products in general. (emphasis added.)

Brighid