What's the problem with fur coats?

[TrogL]

Sorry, my other flame war ran out of gas.

I'm a musician. Rich people pay for my music. Rich people wear fur coats. Rich people wear fur coats to my concerts.

The other day at a concert Ank was muttering something about wanting to throw paint on some lady's fur coat. I guess it's some sort of PETA thing.

I don't get it.

Wild mink are pretty much extinct. If mink were being raised in cruel and unusual conditions, I suspect the fur wouldn't be worth using.

Have you ever visited a chicken farm? Ank likes chicken.

[Frangible]

1. What I find shocking about fur is...

The sheer number of animals that have to die for just one garment. It just seems like a lot of life for one thing.

Also, with newer synthetic materials, you can get a coat that's better at managing heat, sweat, wind, rain etc than fur for a lot cheaper.

If someone wants to wear fur, that's their choice, it's just not one I'd make.

[stopthegop]

2. something I just realized..

is people who throw paint or blood on furs worn by older ladies never seem to have time to go to biker bars and throw paint or blood on the leather clothing of bikers...I wonder why?

[toddzilla]

4. possibly..

because fur coats are just pure vanity in most cases. and nobody i know eats minks that are killed to make them. I'm not into the animal rights movement, so i don't know anything about it other than obvious things. If you're wearing the skin of 30 animals just so you can show people how much money you make/steal, then it shows what type of person you are in general.

[stopthegop]

6. that's a bogus arguement (IMO)

animal skin is animal skin...
If people ate mink meat it would be OK?
it's just old ladies are much less likely to kick the ass of people with too much time on their hands...

[toddzilla]

19. I don't think so..

when leather is made, nothing goes to waste from the cow, it's ground up, bone meal etc. is produced. I'll admit it's a bit of a catch-22, since our synthetics are much more efficient, but probably much worse than the environment. there's a reason why hundreds of years ago people made coats out of fur. But someone in a mercedes, wearing a 40,000 dollar coat just annoys the shit out of me in terms of sheer waste. It's just excessive in all the wrong ways.

[alwynsw]

66. They made the money to buy it

DO you want them telling you how to spend you money?

[kixot]

94. It's just tacky

and in poor taste considering the suffering going on in the world for someone to parade on so pompously like a rouged peacock.

[TrogL]

9. What if that's not your motive

I love the feel of real fur. Yes, I can tell the difference.

Is mink even edible?

[dweller]

33. Tastes just like

possum, w/ just a distinguishing hint of rat.

dp

[ant]

12. but

Those who go to extremes on the fur issue also tend to go to extremes in other ways on the meat issue. Just because the same tactics aren't used doesn't mean they're not consistent in their values.

I'll add that personally, I have no problem eating meat, but I eat it rarely for health reasons. I tend to buy free range chicken when I can afford it. The treatment of animals is an issue for me. I only buy bunny safe products. I do not support animal testing. In that sense, fur seems to cross that line from animals for food (a reasonable need) to animals for cosmetics (not as reasonable).

[cade]

24. they don't like life THAT exciting

biker bars can be rough places. You can't take shit or turn your back on anyone in a tough place. Bikers tend to favor a what you see is what you get approach. If it looks unpretty, that's how it's supposed to look.

[ronnykmarshall]

54. I'd like to see them try!

[Xithras]

71. One very good reason...safety (of the biker)

People wear furs for no reason other than vanity. As others have already repeated several times, synthetic fabrics have relegated the "furs are warmer" argument to the dustbin.

Bikers, on the other hand, have a very good reason for wearing leather...no man made material can match its durability and resistance to tearing. Why is this important? Because if you're blasting down the road at 50MPH on your bike and lay it over, you want something VERY durable between you and the road surface. Bikers wear leather because it is the safest soft material you can wrap yourself in, not because of looks, tradition, or status. When we develop an affordable synthetic material that can match or beat the durability and flexibility of leather, I'm sure the PETA types will start whining about the bikers too.

[curse10]

74. bikers don't wear floor length mink coats

that killed 40+ creatures to create. And if I ever saw a biker wearing a floor length mink coat I'd gladly throw some paint on his sorry ass.

[KFC]

3. Nothing. The best ones are made of cat fur

The tails are used as belts!

[Robb]

8. That is SO wrong...

...The tails are for epaulets and trim. :evilgrin:

[alwynsw]

90. And all this time, I've tied them together for ear muffs!

[slappypan]

5. they make you look fat and frumpy

Wear one and you end up looking like a dowdy Russian figure skating coach or some frumpy old matron who who wears a tiara and peers at people through opera glasses on a stick and says “Well, I never!”

[goodhue]

7. dead animals

I think.

[Blade]

10. Why wear fur?

We have all these cool cotton/poly blend shit that we can wear to keep warm, why kill animals? Only cavemen needed fur to keep warm and whatnot.

[AlienGirl]

11. Anal electrocution.

[Superfly]

13. I thought Skinner banned sex threads.

:evilgrin:

[EmmaP]

14. Why?

I'm relatively new here. Why were sex threads banned. Seems like they would be a lot more "uplifting" than talking about poor, abused, murdered critters.

[TrogL]

15. They got to be a real downer

People were getting turned off.

[Superfly]

16. Yay!!! And out comes the hyperbole!

Can I have more please?

[alwynsw]

88. Hyper Bowl?!?

Who's playing in that one?

[DoNotRefill]

103. Yeah, but sex....

isn't nearly as good on a hot grille as a poor, abused, murdered critter is.

If God hadn't meant for mankind to eat animals, s/he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

[RebelOne]

27. Right on!!!

Why don't these fur-wearing idiots wake up as to the horrible deaths these animals suffered to make their vanity fur coats?

[Don_G]

17. I'm A Guy

I don't know anything about fur, but I do like leather.

I still have a leather jacket my father picked up during the Korean War and I've just worn out a leather jacket I bought 12 years ago at a "Fashion Store".

Leather lasts a lot longer if you take care of it and is a much better ecological choice than buying a petroleum-fueled "Gore-Tex" covering every few years. Besides, leather is a natural by-product of the steak and hamburger I enjoy and I don't want to see anything go to waste.

Besides, in my motorcycle-riding days I dropped a bike at 90+ MPH and limped away without a "road-rash" and a costly hospital stay because of a helmet and the concept of "cheap insurance"...leathers....

[mmm]

18. Fur Farms

where wild cats are raised only to be slaughtered for
their pelage. It should be a felony to exploit any and all wild cats--
primarily bobcats,lynx,ocelots,tigers,jaguars and leopards-- in such a manner.

[arissa]

20. Let's see

http://www.hsus.org/ace/12031

-snip-

Supporters portray fur "farms" or "ranches" as humane environments, but in fact, these facilities are little more than a series of small wire cages in an open shed. Animals suffer extreme confinement and poor housing conditions. Many of them exhibit behavioral disorders such as constant pacing, self-mutilation, and infanticide. Many suffer physical abnormalities as a result of inbreeding. They suffer as they die, too: neck breaking, gassing, and anal electrocution are the most common methods of killing animals raised for fur.

Trapping is well known for the suffering it causes—torn flesh and tendons, broken bones, dislocated joints, crushed pelvises, swelling, and blood loss. Traps and snares, especially the archaic steel-jaw leghold trap, have been so maligned in the United States that many believe they have been banned. While both the number of active trappers and the number of animals who fall victim to these inhumane devices have declined, the leghold trap remains the most commonly used trap in the United States, despite a reported 74% of Americans who want the trap banned (Caravan Opinion Research Corporation, October 1996).

Strides have been made to eliminate the use of cruel and indiscriminate traps in the United States, with eight states (Washington, California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Arizona, New Jersey, Florida, and Rhode Island) now banning their use. And the notion of trapping as an essential wildlife management tool is being dismissed with the success of these bans. The public has accepted trapping as an anachronism that should be relegated to the history books.

http://www.hsus.org/ace/12079

Four million wild animals are killed in the United States each year by 160,000 part-time trappers who supply pelts to the fashion industry. A decade ago the situation was even worse: 17 million wild fur-bearing animals were killed by 300,000 trappers. Urban sprawl and the public's revulsion to trapping and wearing fur are responsible for the decline. Still, four million animals trapped for fashion is four million too many; it's a fact that puts the United States among the top three producers (along with Canada and Russia) of wild-caught animal pelts. The Humane Society of the United States strongly opposes the commercial and recreational trapping of wild animals for their fur. Traps are inhumane devices that inflict great pain and suffering, both to the target animals and to unintended victims such as pets and endangered species.

http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/WILD_Caged_Fur_The_Inside_Story.pdf

The above document details how incredibly stupid and inhumane caged fur is.

http://www.furisdead.com/animals-lifetime.html

Animals raised to become someone’s fur coat spend their days exposed to the elements in row after row of barren, tiny, urine- and feces-encrusted cages. Investigations have found animals with gruesome injuries going without medical care and foxes and minks pacing in endless circles, crazy from the confinement.

Minks, foxes, chinchillas, raccoons, and other animals on fur farms spend their entire lives confined to tiny, filthy cages, constantly circling and pacing back and forth from stress and boredom, some animals even self-mutilating or cannibalizing cagemates. Foxes are kept in cages measuring only 2.5 feet square, with one to four animals per cage. Minks and other species are generally kept in cages only 1 foot by 3 feet, again with up to four animals per cage. The cramped and overcrowded conditions are especially distressing to solitary animals, like minks.

-snip-

No federal law protects animals on fur farms. Farmers often kill animals by anal or genital electrocution, which causes them to experience the intense pain of a heart attack while fully conscious. Other killing methods include neck-breaking and suffocation. Sometimes animals are only stunned and are then skinned alive.

http://www.furisdead.com/animals-chilling.html

The wire cages are tiny, filthy, and encrusted with dirt, clumps of fur, and excrement. Locked inside each one is a fox, imprisoned here since birth. Many of the foxes live for years in these hideous conditions before the farmer kills them and sells their fur to make coats, cuffs, collars, and trim.

The farmer told our investigator that a humane death by an injection of barbiturate was "too expensive"—even though it costs a mere 30 cents per animal. So he uses a metal noose pole to lift each fox from the cage by the neck, shoves an electric prod into the animal’s rectum and forces a metal conductor into the animal’s mouth. A flip of a switch shoots 240 volts of electricity through the fox’s body.

According to our investigator, "The fox’s eyes usually shut and the body goes rigid. There is a crackling sound … and sometimes teeth break and fall out. … Often the anal probe falls out. When this happens, the fox convulses, shakes, and often cries."

Death doesn’t come quickly. Because the electricity does not go through and stun the brain, the foxes remain awake and feel the full excruciating force of a massive heart attack. Tom Amlung, a veterinarian and administrator for St. Clair County, Ill., animal control, says, "The animals do not lose consciousness … for one to two minutes. The time … seems like an eternity, so one can only imagine how the animal must feel experiencing this pain during this time with the electricity running from one end of his body to the other while heat builds up at the site of the electrode."

-snip-

The list goes on and on. All of this so some rich yuppie can think she looks nice? How pathetic. I think people who wear fur are despicable and I pity their ignorance and pettiness.

[TrogL]

30. Excellent

How does this compare to chickens?

[Superfly]

32. Ever try wearing a "feather" coat?

It sheds quite a bit and doesn't look the same after a good rain.

[bleedingheart]

58. my grandma made feather pillows from chicken feathers

she would painstakingly go through and break off the rigid quills to make nice pillows.

My mother still owns those pillows to this day...

[DoNotRefill]

104. Sure have....Goose down....

not chicken feathers....

[arissa]

34. I'm sorry, I don't understand the question

How does what compare to chickens? Chickens aren't raised for fur, they have no fur.

[Superfly]

37. Fur, meat...what's the difference...

both animals are raised for consumption of their products.

[curse10]

50. and that's why some of us don't partake in either n/t

[TrogL]

39. Chickens are raised in questionable conditions

overcrowding etc.

I'm wondering how bad it is compared to fur farms.

[arissa]

42. The conditions for chickens

both raising for meat and for egg-laying are worse, in my opinion.

Why do you ask?

[TrogL]

47. gearing up for an argument off-line

Problem is, he's likely to demand we buy range-fed chicken and I can't afford it.

[arissa]

56. So then don't buy any chicken?

Beans and rice, per pound, is pennies on the dollar to meat, and far healthier. :shrug:

[RebelOne]

36. With these facts, good reason not to buy fur.

I gave my furs away a long time ago.

[alwynsw]

65. Sorry, I don't buy it

Major premise: all animals are part of the food chain, circle of life, etc.

Minor premise: humans are part of that chain ( actually at the top)

Why should humans be the only animals prohibited from using the tools at their disposal to improve the quality of life? Animal husbandry is a tool. It's used for the obvious reasons - food, clothing, and sometimes shelter.

As for the veg. counter to this: are plants living organisms? If so, why pick on plants as the only source of foo, clothing, and shelter? To extend the extremist animal rights argument to it's logical conclusion, those who consume any other organism for food, or use any other organism for clothing or shelter are committing murder on some scale.

Oh! I get it, plants can't communicate in any sense we've been able to decipher, nor do they have a CNS of any sort - therefore no brain - that we can identify, therefore it's OK to pick solely on these living organisms for food, clothing, and shelter.

For the animal rights extremists, using any animal product such as milk is stealing from the animal that produced it. Why is that essentially different from piking apples?

To use an animal for labor or for humane entertainment (I do not condone cruelty or abuse of animals) is wrong according to these groups. By extension, is it not wrong to transplant a flower or other plant into a a bed, pot, or landscaping scheme either for adornment of a building or room or for utility purposes such as a windbreak?

I guess that the logic escapes some. Organisms of all types use other organisms for survival and, in some cases entertainment or for utility purposes. I haven't seen anyone up in arms over livestock killing flies that annoy them or cats toying with mice before the kill, yet some wouls deny me the use of a flyswatter to prevent annoyance and the spread of disease by insects.

In short: fur is a good thing. It's comfortable, long lasting if cared for properly, and darned attractive.


on edit: there's no "t" in buy

Incidentally, much of your cat and dog food comes from the byproducts of animals raised in "factory" farms for human consumption.

[curse10]

68. your argument is not convincing

what makes it okay to use plants and not animals? suffering.

Plants do not suffer in the same manner as mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, etc...

And, although you can argue that plants may suffer, they arguably, (actually, not even arguably, they do) suffer less.

And fur is not attractive.

[alwynsw]

75. I'll grant that attractiveness is a matter of taste

I'll not grant the suffering issue - simply because we have not yet proved or disproved the suffering, or level of such suffering, by plants. Degree of suffering is no argument. How much suffering is too much? What is your foundation for the argument that plants suffer less?

Long ago, there were only 4 elements know to the best scholars of the day: earth, fire, wind, water. Who knows what we might discover about plants in the future.

You also fail to address the issue of why it is wrong for human animals but not wrong for other animals. reason doesn't wash. Other animals reason. Opposable thumbs? Oops, several primates have those and raccoons have rudimentary ones.

[curse10]

80. we have the ability

to live cruelty free- most other animals do not. Meat eaters argue that we are different from animals, so we should eat them, yet argue, in the same breath, that animals eat other animals. You can't have it both ways.

And science backs up the fact that plants do not have a central nervous system. So, until it's proven that they do, they haven't proven that they suffer. We know animals suffer. And that is enough.

[alwynsw]

84. It looks as though we just have to agree to disagree

..on this issue. We're likely pretty close on others.

[Blaukraut]

21. Nothing - they look great

On the original, living owner, that is :-)

[Superfly]

22. Not exactly warm weather attire....

...

[mitchum]

23. Nothing wrong with it, Fur is enviromentally friendly...

because it eventually rots (unlike all of the synthetic alternatives which will be sitting in freakin' landfills for thousands of years)

And...mink are vermin!

[toddzilla]

25. actually, mink are mammals..

eom.

[arissa]

26. Uhh...

Do you know how many endangered species and "non-target" wild animals are killed (painfully and slowly) each year by trappers? Do you have any clue how much waste is produced by the intensive, confined, large fur "farm" operations? Where do you think all that waste goes??

Environmentally friendly? My goodness, read my links above and do some research for crying out loud.

[toddzilla]

28. it's easier to say they are vermin..

why think when you can dismiss??

:eyes:

[mitchum]

67. Look, I have nothing against them...

except for my naked body. My use of the word "vermin" had nothing to do with an attempt to dehumanize(?!) them in order that I could feel better about using them for my nefarious purposes

[Superfly]

29. Strawman argument

but nice try.

[arissa]

31. Yeah, right

:eyes:

Your accusation is a strawman itself. When someone says "Fur is enviromentally friendly" it's hardly a strawman to explain why they're so offbase.

Nice try yourself, though.

[Superfly]

35. Do you even know what a strawman is? Probably not

it's an attempt to distract from your shaky position by highlighting an unrelated argument.

[arissa]

38. Of course I know what one is

And the person I was speaking to said, AND I QUOTE:

"Fur is enviromentally friendly"

My post was ENTIRELY about why for is NOT environmentally friendly. You then accuse me of a strawman, which is ITSELF a strawman, because the argument, as we can see by this exchange, is no longer about the absurd and ridiculous notion that fur is somehow environmentally friendly.

Thus, the very fact that we are having this exchange, proves that your post was successful in changing the subject, and thus, a strawman. Thank you, and have a nice day.

[Superfly]

41. My post was not argument, but an observation

and pointed out the fallaciousness of your position.

[arissa]

43. lol!

Ok dude, I haven't seen that much spin since the last time I flipped on Fox. :)

[Superfly]

45. And yet you still keep coming back...

What were you talking about again?

[toddzilla]

49. point out the strawman then superfly..

please, you brought it up.

[Superfly]

59. Ariss....

I just went back and read it again and I see that I was mistaken. Apologies. Hey, it's getting late and I've been at work since 6 this morning.

Sorry! Friends?

[arissa]

60. Apology accepted

Thank you for admitting your mistake, I highly respect that.

[Superfly]

62. What do I have to lose?

a few minutes worth of typing?

Have a good weekend.

[toddzilla]

46. it's like saying "fur is warm"

It ignores everything else in favor of one aspect of an issue. I'm not a rabid PETA supporter, but i fail to see the need for using fur in the capacity in which it is used in today's world. it's not used because it's warm, or environmentally friendly (which is only true in the most basic understanding) but used for vanity purposes. shoving electrodes up an animal's ass and shocking it to death is just plain stupid and inhuman. If i lived in the mountains 200 years ago i'd be wearing fur, no doubt. It's not 200 years ago, and there's plenty of cotton and wool to be had.

[mitchum]

44. Are you posting from a wind-powered PC?

Amazing the amount of non-essential activities which use valuable resources, isn't it?
Deny that fur rots while synthetics do not.

[Frangible]

48. News flash

Synthetics break down as well. And fur lasts quite a long time.

[mitchum]

53. Synthetics do break down, but nowhere near as quickly as fur

And I've never seen a petroleum based weasel (except for * and Cheney)

[arissa]

51. You're the one who brought up environmentalism

Not me, and I never claimed to be perfect. You made the ridiculous claim that fur is environmentally friendly, I pointed out that that may only be the case if you ignore all the dead endangered animals and the (literally) tons and tons of runoff contaminating topsoil and nearby waterways. Don't make ridiculous statements that you can't backup.

[mitchum]

61. I didn't say it was was enviromentally LOVING...

just friendly. The only factor I cited was the decomposition rate. I made no other claims. And by the way, you're the one who shrilly jumped on my posting.

[arissa]

64. A decomposition rate does not an

environmentally friendly product make. Or something like that. You get the point. You can't just look at one minor aspect and claim the overall product is more environmentally friendly than it's counterparts. That would be like saying, "Cutting down all the trees in the country would be environmentally friendly because then we'd have no wildfires."

Fur is not environmentally friendly. Period.

[mitchum]

69. No, the trees/forest fire pitch would just be stupid...

but sorta funny in a black comedy kind of way.
However, I see up thread that you are essentially making a pitch for vegeterianism. That's cool if you want to do that. You. Period.

[arissa]

72. Exactly, it would be stupid

Just as claiming that a devastatingly environmentally damaging product is environmentally friendly because of one, minor trait: decomposition.

"However, I see up thread that you are essentially making a pitch for vegeterianism. That's cool if you want to do that. You. Period."

Don't turn this about me. I answered questions posed to me, and you're trying to change the subject. Why don't you just admit you made a statement that isn't true ("Fur is environmentally friendly")?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchum]

109. The TRUE statement I made was that...

"Fur rots, and synthetic alternatives do not" Dispute that. And as other posters have pointed out, there is no practice that is entirely enviromentally friendly (and that includes wearing sackcloth and ashes)
Actually I didn't ask you any question. Oh wait there was the one about the wind-powered PC (never got an answer for that one), but I do have a question now...what is an enviromentally friendly alternative to fur?
I've got to pull the chops off the grill, but I'll check back later.
Thanks in advance.

[alwynsw]

79. Nothing is entirely environmentally friendly

BUt you seem to miss the obvious uses of the carcasses and even the blood. They are used both a fertilizer and animal food. Let's not forget glue, cosmetics (for the vain among us), and a host of other useful, necessary, and vanity products.

on edit: there's an "h" in notHing and a "u" in obvioUs

[bleedingheart]

82. and don't forget Jello!

I had to throw that in because I got in an argument with a vegetarian friend of mine over Jello...she didn't know it was made from animals... I hated breaking that news to her...just like the time we went to a restaurant and order broccoli cheese soup thinking it was okay until I told her it was made from chicken stock, the waitress confirmed it and she got all pissed at me.

[curse10]

85. most vegetarians educate themselves about gelatin and soup

you can't even eat most candy.

[bleedingheart]

96. my friend was pretty lazy about reading up on becoming a vegetarian

when I thought I was helping her out she would get pissed at me because she thought I was trying to act like a smarty pants.. when in actuality I was trying to help her out...

I had dated a vegetarian and had become pretty fluent in the do's and don'ts of vegetarianism although I am not one myself.

[curse10]

97. I've met those vegetarians

and they are pretty annoying. You are either veggie, or you aren't. Very little leeway. Chicken stock is still chicken. Heck, ya can't even order chinese food for fear of chicken stock. I make my own or go to the vegan joint in Chinatown.

And gelatin, in my opinion, is one of the nastiest animal products. And it's easy to stay away from :-)

[DoNotRefill]

105. Isn't synthetic fur....

generally made with petroleum based products?

[mitchum]

107. Yes, but those petroleum based products aren't cute and cuddly

[DoNotRefill]

108. but which produce more toxins when manufactured?

fake fur or real fur?

[mitchum]

112. Obviously fake fur...

but good luck getting some to concede that

[dweller]

55. Perhaps with enough

x-mas lights strung around the outside of the house to light a frickin city block?

if i could solar power my pc, it would be done gladly.

dp

[bleedingheart]

70. You are correct, non-natural fabrics which are used to make

fake furs, polyester..etc are petroleum products and we all know how "environmentally" sound that process is.

Technically in a perfect world all of us would be wearing cotton or linen and wool and we would wear those clothes until they wore out or the armpits got too stained to wear in public anymore...

in that world we wouldn't be stressing our environment very much...however people like variety which is why we keep inventing new toys, fabrics etc to amuse ourselves with...

I worked in the ceramics industry years and years ago and you know what makes plates nice and shiny? Lead... and the factory I worked for to my horror would spew LEAD into the outside air around the factory with its shoddy ventilation system..thereby slowly poisoning all the people around the factory and any animals...

all to have nice shiny plates... today there may be a better method..I have subsequently moved on to different industries so I don't know if they did...

[amazona]

91. cotton is a serious source of environmental poisons

Cotton is one of the most sprayed crops, and I personally don't wear cotton unless it is used (thrift shop) because in that way I don't have to worry about trace herbicides and pesticides. My understanding is that people who work in cotton fields suffer an unusually high number of cancers and similar illnesses. I have also read that cottonseed oil is one of the most contaminated oils, and I haven't used it for cooking since the 1970s.

It also takes the nutrients out of the land like nothing else.

My point is not to criticize your post but I've often noticed that well-meaning people believe that cotton is OK for progressives and the environment. We wear cotton because it seems to be the fashion to wear "natural" fibers, but it is anything but an environmentally sound material to grow and produce.

[bleedingheart]

93. I don't disagree at all with you. I

In fact you bring up a very good point regarding the production of natural fibers in today's modern world.
The dyes to color the fabrics are also not enviro friendly in some cases.

[TXlib]

40. Fur is fine

as long as it's still attached to the animal the grew it.

[bleedingheart]

52. I have leather shoes, leather belts, and a suede coat...so

I will not be a hypocrite and say that fur is bad... its warm its natural and cavemen wore them thousands of years ago...I also eat chicken, steak..etc

If anything more people would be wearing fur if they weren't so expensive... minimum $900 pricetag for a cheap fur... whereas the really fancy ones can sell for more than $100k.

[Superfly]

57. Nevermind

...

[curse10]

63. Let's see (warning, graphic)

fur is unnecessary. fur is cruel. and all for vanity. this is not about survival and eating. this is a disturbing fasion statement.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

98. Thanks for the insult to my wife and my mom

I don't see us as rich, but many do -we're retired in our forties and have no money worries. I don't think we're old, but many do - late forties is ancient to teens and early twentsomethings in many cases. OK, my mom's old - to me at least - she's 81. Both own fur coats and both own leather coats.

on edit: To complete the thought, I believe that both would bristle at being referred to in that fashion. (pun intended)

[bleedingheart]

99. I hate that word

and by the way I have seen a lot of men wearing fur too...especially in music videos and I bet a lot of them are real...

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Piperay]

76. Fur is

disgusting and totally antiquated. There are much better man made materials to keep one warm if that is the real issue.

[bleedingheart]

78. add to the fact that fur costs more money to keep it looking good

it has to be properly stored when not in use otherwise it doesn't age well...unlike a much cheaper wool coat.

[bleedingheart]

77. When I went to the Rendell Inaugural and never saw so many furs

so apparently there are a lot of Democrats who wear fur...

My sister and I were at the parade and the ball and we couldn't believe how many furs we saw paraded around...

Picture this... we are wearing our synthetic coats..and it was very very cold and windy that day...so we ended up finding a cardboard garbage box that was empty and we sat at a bus stop in Harrisburg with our legs in the box to stay warm... all to watch a parade...

[amazona]

81. it depends on the fur

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with wearing a fur coat. Blanket anti-fur hysteria is more harmful than not. The hysteria against fur has done quite a bit of harm to our wetlands in Louisiana. We have a huge problem, costing millions of dollars, of feral non-native nutria running wild and eating the swamp whole. (Nutria are large vegetarian swamp-eating rodents.) In days gone by, the nutria could be trapped for fur. Now, because there is no market for fur, the state has to pay a bounty and just toss 'em in the landfill. Trapping is no longer a way for an independent person to make a living, and it isn't even a very well-paying hobby. But...the nutria cannot be allowed to completely destroy the entire swamp. So the state has to spend millions to put these animals in landfills.

I have seen nutria coats from the old days, and they are soft and just beautiful. It would just make more sense for the pelts to bring money into our area, instead of having to kill animals just to throw them away. Not controlling the nutria is not an option if you care about the wetlands.

But the anti-fur brigade loves animals so much that they don't care about the environment. They don't understand that our NATIVE wildlife and wild plants are animals and plants too, and they would like to have some tiny scrap of habitat not infested with these ravenous invaders.

As for PETA, I'm firmly convinced they're black ops. No large organization is that ill-informed except on purpose.

[curse10]

83. black-ops!

that's laughable

[TexasSissy]

86. This is just bait (pun intended).

If you don't know what's wrong with it by now, then you can't be convinced, and you don't really want to know.

It's only the enlightened who no longer wear fur. And they don't have to give up anything, since wearing fur is not necessary.

There will always be some people who will find a reason to be cruel to creatures (other than themselves, of course). But for the rest of society, to tell us what is wrong with something, and show us an alternative, is to enlighten us.

[curse10]

87. Welcome to DU Texas!

:hi:

and I agree with you wholeheartedly!

[arissa]

89. Very eloquent

"There will always be some people who will find a reason to be cruel to creatures (other than themselves, of course). But for the rest of society, to tell us what is wrong with something, and show us an alternative, is to enlighten us."

Nicely put, and all too true.

[curse10]

92. Welcom to DU arissa!

:hi:

in case you haven't already been welcomed!

[arissa]

95. Thanks

I've been here awhile, mostly lurk though. Thanks for the welcome though. :)

[mitchum]

110. Cruelty and indifference are not the same thing

Granted, I am indifferent to the "suffering" of meat and fur producing animals. But not all animals. So, shoot me.

[m-jean03]

101. I think fur and meat are appropriate in certain times and places

That is to say, indigenous people who daily suffer the elements in harsh climates have a right by necessity to eat meat and wear fur. They need it to survive, for example the nomads of mongolia and nepal & the american inuit and northwest coast indians among many others.

In temperate climates and in electricity-driven cultures, it is arguable whether meat is necessary for survival.

[DoNotRefill]

102. I've got a rabbit hat.

It's very comfy and warm. I don't worry about PETA types throwing paint on me, for the same reason PETA types don't throw paint on bikers for wearing leather. I always thought PETA's throwing paint on little old ladies wearing fur instead of bikers wearing leather was proof that they're not TOTALLY insane.

One point: The fur for my hat would have been wasted if it wasn't used. The culture that produced the hat eats rabbit regularly. If the animal is going to be killed for food, all parts of it that can be used should be used.

[absyntheNsugar]

111. My take on it is...If you don't like fur...

don't wear it! I don't, and to be honest imitation fur coats outnumber the real ones. They keep you warmer, and they cost less.

Mark my words - real fur will go the way of buggy whips by market forces alone. PETA is spinning their wheels once again.