Ethics of Fur

[Marfran]

I am agreeing with you that *most *coats are for fashion, but there are some fur products that are very good for keeping warm. (like the rabbit hat I used to have -nothing was warmer than that one!)

OK–but the thread is not about your rabbit hat–it is about animals raised in the “factory fur industry” TODAY, specifically the mink and foxes that are raised on captive fur farms, as these animals comprise the majority of this industry. Is it ethical to raise animals like this and then to make luxury apparel out of them?

You are arguing for your rabbit hat–that I take has hopped away–but should this industry continue TODAY, given that it is fueled by desire and want, not necessity? Unless we are still arguing that we NEED a mink, sable-dyed coat.

Even the Fur Council of Canada states that fur is prized for it’s qualities of luxury.

 

[bigfootbob]

Looney? Good way to come into a discussion, by calling names. I thought God had all the answers, certainly not you.

He was calling ‘animal-rights ideology’ looney (which much of it is), not anyone in particular.

 

[cassini]

cassini;5908881:

Just spotted this thread and would like to respond. given so much has transpired I am sorry if things get repeated. OK.

I am an ex-mink farmer. For 35 years I farmed mink. I shall restrict my defence to mink farming. As regards the ethics of it, I refer to the Triune God as a guide, not to some looney ‘animal-rights’ ideology. In the Scriptures God tells us He provided all for man’s use and benefit Adam and Eve were given animal skins to cover themselves after the fall. St John the Baptist wore a camel skin without complaint from Jesus…

End of debate. Anything else you wish me to answer to?

Looney? Good way to come into a discussion, by calling names. I thought God had all the answers, certainly not you.

After the fall, exactly! Now we need mink, sables as a necessity?

End of debate? Now what debate did you enter into exactly?

No doubt you are an ‘animal-rights’ activeist or sympathiser. Anyone who believes animals have rights has to be ‘looney’ for no sane person could actually believe this.
The thread questioned mink farming on ethical grounds. That is the debate. Ethics are based on morals and morality is determined by God. If God created fur for man’s use and benefit then the etics debate is over.

Now I see it is the ‘need’ or not that determines ethics. Well there are thousands who feel the ‘need’ to have and wear a fur coat. So, that is the end to the ‘need’ ethics, no?

 

[Marfran]

He was calling ‘animal-rights ideology’ looney (which much of it is), not anyone in particular.

And I think wanting to wear a dead animal on your back is looney. (And wanting to wear 40 dead animals on your back is even loonier.) What mixed up values.

 

[bigfootbob]

OK–but the thread is not about your rabbit hat–it is about animals raised in the “factory fur industry” TODAY, specifically the mink and foxes that are raised on captive fur farms, as these animals comprise the majority of this industry. Is it ethical to raise animals like this and then to make luxury apparel out of them?

Well it is fur…

You are arguing for your rabbit hat–that I take has hopped away

It fell apart after years of good service

–but should this industry continue TODAY, given that it is fueled by desire and want, not necessity? Unless we are still arguing that we NEED a mink, sable-dyed coat.

Even the Fur Council of Canada states that fur is prized for it’s qualities of luxury.

If women want fur, I don’t have a problem with that.

There is a song you would like on youtube about fur coats… it’s called Puttin’ on the Dog by Aaron Wilburn. If you get a spare minute or two you should look it up -It’s pretty funny.

 

[cassini]

And I think wanting to wear a dead animal on your back is looney. What mixed up values.

Marfran, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Trouble is people like you want to oppose your opinions on others. Let me see if I can think up something that are mixed values for me that you do. If I were to say you eat animals or animal derivitives, is that different? If you are a vegan, does cutting down forests and killing off all the animals or killing off millions of rabbits with a virus, or killing billions of butterflies with your pesticides so that you can have your carrots constitute mixed values?

 

[severus68]

severus68;5908919:

No doubt you are an ‘animal-rights’ activeist or sympathiser. Anyone who believes animals have rights has to be ‘looney’ for no sane person could actually believe this.
The thread questioned mink farming on ethical grounds. That is the debate. Ethics are based on morals and morality is determined by God. If God created fur for man’s use and benefit then the etics debate is over.

Now I see it is the ‘need’ or not that determines ethics. Well there are thousands who feel the ‘need’ to have and wear a fur coat. So, that is the end to the ‘need’ ethics, no?

I could call you and others like you names too but name calling by itself wont make me right as you are not right. I believe in respectful discussions and this forum is for such discussions. It would appear that you are determining morality for God.

Need!!! More like a want, a desire. No it is not the end of the discussion just because you say so.

 

[Marfran]

No doubt you are an ‘animal-rights’ activeist or sympathiser. Anyone who believes animals have rights has to be ‘looney’ for no sane person could actually believe this.
The thread questioned mink farming on ethical grounds. That is the debate. Ethics are based on morals and morality is determined by God. If God created fur for man’s use and benefit then the etics debate is over.

Now I see it is the ‘need’ or not that determines ethics. Well there are thousands who feel the ‘need’ to have and wear a fur coat. So, that is the end to the ‘need’ ethics, no?

Is it ethical to raise animals in captivity, to have them live unnatural lives in cages, and then to kill them for their skins, so that affluent women may wear luxury fur coats? Is it ethical to do this to animals (living sentient beings), when in the year 2009, we are much advanced from the age of the caveman, and have no NEED to clothe ourselves anymore this way. We have more superior and compassionate alternatives available to us TODAY.

 

[severus68]

Marfran, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Trouble is people like you want to oppose your opinions on others. Let me see if I can think up something that are mixed values for me that you do. If I were to say you eat animals or animal derivitives, is that different? If you are a vegan, does cutting down forests and killing off all the animals or killing off millions of rabbits with a virus, or killing billions of butterflies with your pesticides so that you can have your carrots constitute mixed values?

I assume you meant ‘impose’. How does anyone impose their opinions on anyone else?

How do vegans start or cause a virus? We vegetarians and vegans are consistent. We are also trying not to mess up the world in other ways. I am proud that I only use non chemical, non animal products fertilizers and do not use any pesticides. We buy and eat organic as much as we can.

 

[Marfran]

If women want fur, I don’t have a problem with that.

Well, I would guess that the vast majority of women don’t want fur (or can afford it), and for those that do, if they would learn how their “fur” lives and is killed it might have an impact on their choice of purchasing one. A woman can, it has been pointed out, choose to purchase a ***second hand fur ***and have it refitted and restyled. This is far less expensive than purchasing new, it does not promote the continuation of more animals being killed for their fur, and it performs the ecological function of recycling.

 

[Marfran]

Marfran, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Trouble is people like you want to oppose your opinions on others. Let me see if I can think up something that are mixed values for me that you do. If I were to say you eat animals or animal derivitives, is that different? If you are a vegan, does cutting down forests and killing off all the animals or killing off millions of rabbits with a virus, or killing billions of butterflies with your pesticides so that you can have your carrots constitute mixed values?

I believe that it is impossible to impose your opinion on another person. In all my time on this planet no one has ever imposed their opinion on me, and I don’t believe I have ever met a person that this has happened to–it’s kind of bzzarro to say this (I am not calling YOU bizarro).

Please stick to ***the topic and debate the topic. What evidence can you present to make a case that it is ethical ***to raise animals in captivity, under the conditions found in MODERN factory fur farms, for luxury (non-essential) fur coats???

 

[cassini]

cassini;5908944:

I could call you and others like you names too but name calling by itself wont make me right as you are not right. I believe in respectful discussions and this forum is for such discussions. It would appear that you are determining morality for God.

Need!!! More like a want, a desire. No it is not the end of the discussion just because you say so.

As an ex fur farmer I had a lifetime of ‘animal rights’ people that have NO respect for anybody in the fur business or who wear fur. As far back as 1963 they released 3,000 animals into the wild to die every sort of death possible, from starvation, to maiming from cars to being savaged by dogs etc. Today I still combat them on the streets as they scream 'murderers, murderers, blood on your hands, skinning mink alive, clubbing them to death and other such things as they prevent people going into fur shops. Many have been convicted of all kinds of charges from obstruction, public disorder and daming other’s property. They have assaulted old ladies on the streets for wearing old fox furs and so on. Now the word ‘looney’ is a mild name, almost friendly, to give such criminals, terrorists etc., so be thankful for small mercies.

OK, some ‘want’ a fur coat of mink because of many reasons. They are green, warm, beautiful, long lasting etc. Others however need fur to keep them warm in cold climates. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

They are not marketed for warmth, they are marketed for fashion, and they are designed for fashion, not warmth–or they would be designed differently (like zipping all the way up the neck, re-inforced cuffs that cling to the body, etc.)

And dyeing them to get even coloration, how does that enhance warmth???

They are warm, for one. My friend, who used her coat for 10 years, said nothing is warmer. They are not dyed, they are matched. The minks are bred for color, also.

Bottom line is:

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives

.

There are no qualifiers mentioned above. There is no mention of what type of animal can be used for clothing, There is no mention of one type of animal being suitable for clothing but not others. As I posted prior, and as mmsiciliana has also state, the way minks are treated is humane. Some might find it distasteful, and be against it for personal reasons. I personally do not like goat meat. Many people do.

2456 The dominion granted by the Creator over the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be separated from respect for moral obligations, including those toward generations to come.
.

Since mink farming is a renewable resource, and biodegradable resource, one could make the arguement that it is more ethical to use them compared to faux products, that utilize petroleum, and are not biodegradable.

So what do we want to do, save some minks and use faux products and leave them in landfills for the future generations?

Same for wool, which does not necessarily need to be “itchy” Ask any man who works in an office, if they prefer a natural wool suit or a polyester suit? Which one lasts longer? Which one is easier to maintain? Which one will biodegrade when it is no longer needed?

And by the way sheep have been traditionally shorn in the SUMMER months. A merino ram can cost $40,000. The sheep farmer isn’t going to shear him in the winter and leave him cold and exposed, only to toss out a sick sheep. And the reason why he can cost so much is merino wool is very fine quality, and Mr. Ram can help father many little lambies.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Well, I would guess that the vast majority of women don’t want fur (or can afford it), and for those that do, if they would learn how their “fur” lives and is killed it might have an impact on their choice of purchasing one. A woman can, it has been pointed out, choose to purchase a ***second hand fur ***and have it refitted and restyled. This is far less expensive than purchasing new, it does not promote the continuation of more animals being killed for their fur, and it performs the ecological function of recycling.

Ahh. I’m a woman. From the research I have done, they seem to be treated quite humanely. I am glad theat the option of farm raised fur exists, so that animals are not trapped, and that we do not need to import fur from questionable origins like China. So, I am actually quite comfortable with the whole process.

.

 

[severus68]

severus68;5908985:

As an ex fur farmer I had a lifetime of ‘animal rights’ people that have NO respect for anybody in the fur business or who wear fur. As far back as 1963 they released 3,000 animals into the wild to die every sort of death possible, from starvation, to maiming from cars to being savaged by dogs etc. Today I still combat them on the streets as they scream 'murderers, murderers, blood on your hands, skinning mink alive, clubbing them to death and other such things as they prevent people going into fur shops. Many have been convicted of all kinds of charges from obstruction, public disorder and daming other’s property. They have assaulted old ladies on the streets for wearing old fox furs and so on. Now the word ‘looney’ is a mild name, almost friendly, to give such criminals, terrorists etc., so be thankful for small mercies.

OK, some ‘want’ a fur coat of mink because of many reasons. They are green, warm, beautiful, long lasting etc. Others however need fur to keep them warm in cold climates. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was.

You lumped us all in. I do not assault anyone. Everyone has a right to have their say though. There are baby seals being clubbed to death and killed cruelly in other ways. I know the OP is about fur farms specifically. I am to be thankful you did not use worse names?

God did not create fur which sits by itself. God created animals with fur. As Marfran said, we do not live at a time when fur is essential. No one needs fur.

 

[Marfran]

There is a song you would like on youtube about fur coats… it’s called Puttin’ on the Dog by Aaron Wilburn. If you get a spare minute or two you should look it up -It’s pretty funny.

Aside to bigfootbob: I looked him up. This comedian is so funny!!! I viewed some of his other work too. If you need a break from the intensity of this discussion here’s some good comedic relief. The fur coat song is toward the end of the video: youtube.com/watch?v=7psfk5CWxK8

 

[cassini]

Ahh. I’m a woman. From the research I have done, they seem to be treated quite humanely. I am glad theat the option of farm raised fur exists, so that animals are not trapped, and that we do not need to import fur from questionable origins like China. So, I am actually quite comfortable with the whole process.

.

And you can be Mary Gail. I and other farmers loved our animals, took care of them better than some dogs and cats are in houses. We are professional animal keepers. We know the temperment of our animals and can assure all they are content in their cages, just like canaries or budgies or hampsters. They are put down according to recommendations from departments of agriculture and veternary practices. I have seen chicken farms and abbatoirs that kill animals in a way that would disturb anyone. The end product of mink is such that they must be kept in absolutely clean, well fed and watered conditions. They must have the ability to breed and rear their young without fear. I could go on.

 

[severus68]

And you can be Mary Gail. I and other farmers loved our animals, took care of them better than some dogs and cats are in houses. We are professional animal keepers. We know the temperment of our animals and can assure all they are content in their cages, just like canaries or budgies or hampsters. They are put down according to recommendations from departments of agriculture and veternary practices. I have seen chicken farms and abbatoirs that kill animals in a way that would disturb anyone. The end product of mink is such that they must be kept in absolutely clean, well fed and watered conditions. They must have the ability to breed and rear their young without fear. I could go on.

I am glad that you say you treated them humanely. We know how horrible it is in abbatoirs.

JUst a point, I love my animals too so I really do not understand how you loved your minks but were ok with killing them. I treat my pets well and I am sure they are better off than your minks were.

An important point is why manufacture or use a product which involves any suffering when such a product is not a necessity?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I am glad that you say you treated them humanely. We know how horrible it is in abbatoirs.

JUst a point, I love my animals too so I really do not understand how you loved your minks but were ok with killing them. I treat my pets well and I am sure they are better off than your minks were.

An important point is why manufacture or use a product which involves any suffering when such a product is not a necessity?

My Dad was a farmer for many years. He was really gentle to the animals, he didn’t hit them or keep them in dirty conditions, the cows actually liked to eat pears, so he’d let them have pears from one of the pear trees. He was good to the sheep.

That didn’t mean he could not slaughter them. He did it personally. That was what they were for, he didn’t own them because they were pets.

 

[Marfran]

As an ex fur farmer I had a lifetime of ‘animal rights’ people that have NO respect for anybody in the fur business or who wear fur. As far back as 1963 they released 3,000 animals into the wild to die every sort of death possible, from starvation, to maiming from cars to being savaged by dogs etc. Today I still combat them on the streets as they scream 'murderers, murderers, blood on your hands, skinning mink alive, clubbing them to death and other such things as they prevent people going into fur shops. Many have been convicted of all kinds of charges from obstruction, public disorder and daming other’s property. They have assaulted old ladies on the streets for wearing old fox furs and so on. Now the word ‘looney’ is a mild name, almost friendly, to give such criminals, terrorists etc., so be thankful for small mercies.

I am sorry that you have expeienced personal mistreatment in your life, but the bad behavior directed toward you does not make a case for the ethical question we are discussing/debating.

OK, some ‘want’ a fur coat of mink because of many reasons. They are green, warm, beautiful, long lasting etc. Others however need fur to keep them warm in cold climates. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was.

OK–this is more in line with the spirit of debate/presenting a case to support opinion.

1. green: says who? The Fur Council? There are greener alternatives. Cruelty is Not Green: crueltyisnotgreen.com/
2. beautiful: goes to desire/coveting what belongs to an animal.
3. need fur to keep warm in cold climates: does not apply to the fur raised on factory fur farms for luxury fashion, unless mink are being raised to clothe Arctic explorers.
4. long lasting: yes, by all means recycle it. Don’t need to keep producing more.
5. There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. How clever He was: So why did he give it to the animals??? Why didn’t he give it directly to us??? Why don’t we have our own fur, right on our own backs? We are to practice responsible stewardship of the animals and the planet. We are allowed to use animals for food and clothing. We are not to ABUSE animals for food or clothing, and utilizing animals for unnecessary luxury clothing goes to desire/want/and vanity, not to an authentic NEED. We have utilized animals throughout history, and have survived harsh climates because of this. Civilization had progressed to the point where the services of animals are no longer needed for our survival. The good steward will “retire” the animals that he no longer needs. The “ox” has been “retired”. The “horse” and the “mule” have been “retired.” The “fur animal” is no longer NEEDED, we have many compassionate alternatives available to us TODAY, in MODERN SOCIETY.