Ethics of Fur

[creationlover]

Sorry about the wool, but I thought you were one who was against wool too. Oh, yeh that was leather! The military uses lots of leather, too.

I simply stated that I wasn’t sure if the military used fur - I did not mean to make an emphatic factual statement.

By the way your article states that one of the pieces of apparel used will be “A zippered fleece jacket, with a fabric mimicking animal fur, acts as the primary insulation layer that provides an increased warmth-to-weight ratio and reduced volume when packed.”

The military uses fur and leather. Hopefully this will be minimized over time as well. It appears they may be on their way.

 

[Indyann]

I simply stated that I wasn’t sure if the military used fur - I did not mean to make an emphatic factual statement.

By the way your article states that one of the pieces of apparel used will be “A zippered fleece jacket, with a fabric mimicking animal fur, acts as the primary insulation layer that provides an increased warmth-to-weight ratio and reduced volume when packed.”

The military uses fur and leather. Hopefully this will be minimized over time as well. It appears they may be on their way.

Yes, exactly. And why doesn’t the military wear fur if it is so warm???

 

[creationlover]

’

OK. then, while sounding so pious and sanctimonious this animal rights propaganda is typical. Let us look at creation by God, designed by Him Who said it was good. Is a tiger a thing of beauty and good? Is an antelope or zebra a thing of beauty and good? When the tiger runs down the antelope or zebra and begins to eat it before it dies, is that beautiful and good? At this stage we are all SHOCKED at the thought. Yet, it is good, Why? Because it guarantees the continuation of the species we call tigers and they are beautiful and good and the continuation of any species is good.

So where does that leave the ’ Can we really call something “beautiful” if it brings unnecessary death and suffering?’ Well if you think God created what you people would call cruel, you are more compassionate than Him.

What is cruelty? It is something Humans only are capable of. I think we all know what constitutes cruelty, but the problem comes when one calls something cruel that another see no cruelty in.
But when a man puts a dog to live in a barrel as I have seen (and stopped) that is cruelty no matter what the dog is thinking.

Now I believe I have as good an understanding of cruelty as anyone on earth. I will know it when I see it. Keeping mink in cages for many reasons has turned out to be sustainable, just as it was found to be OK to keep canaries in cages. Mink do not look out and long to be walking the hills looking for something to kill, that is animal rights propaganda.

And that is enough for the present.

Nice response, but again, my point is that we as Christians ought to seriously consider what it means to live by “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

We simply don’t know if there will be animals in the final state. And I too, agree with you that the natural instincts of animals do not belong in the category of “cruelty”. But again, looking toward the final state, the prophet Isaiah quotes in chapter 11 statements such as “the wolf shall be the guest of the lamb” the calf and the young lion shall browse together". I agree with you, the Lord called all of creation good. But, I would mention, that was in a perfect state, before the fall. It is not wrong for wolves to attack lambs, but for some reason, Isaiah states this will not happen again in the future state. Will there be lambs, lions and wolves playing with children in the end state?? I don’t know. But I think Isaiah 11 does show that we will one day live in perfect harmonious state, where in 11:9 “There will be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain…” I think we can safely say Isaiah 11 implies we are living in a fallen world, animals and everything and that, even if the animals are NOT with us in the coming state, the entire cosmos will be in perfect harmony, no bloodshed, no killing to get food. The Lord’s prayer indicates we should try to live by Kingdom principles as much as possible. Tying that to Isaiah 11, Genesis 1 and the Lord’s prayer, leads me to believe that today, with the technology we have, we simply don’t need don’t have a moral need for fur as much as we did before. Fashion, in my mind, doesn’t justify it.

As far as being pious and sanctimonious, my intent in quoting the Proverbs verse showing the parallel between a pig wearing a ring in its snout being like a beautiful woman who is rebellious was to show the disconnect of beauty and death, not to imply that anyone who wears fur is rebellious and cruel. I applaud your efforts to run a clean, merciful mink farm. You did better than most.

 

[4elise]

ALPACA.

Picture of parka with wolf fur.

olive-drab.com/od_soldiers_clothing_m1951_parka.php

The M-1951 Parka has an integrated cloth hood (sewn in), adequate for wear under a helmet but too light for severe conditions. The fur-lined Hood, Parka, M-1951 buttons on to the integral hood as a liner to increase protection. When the M-1965 Parka was introduced, it had no sewn-in hood, but had buttons that would accept the Hood, Parka, M-1951. The same hood design continued in use, but **after wolf fur was phased out, it became the Hood, Winter, W/Synthetic Fur Ruff **(OG-107) (NSN 8415-00-782-1004).

 

[Indyann]

4elise:
And your point is? As I said in my original post, fur WAS used in Korea. Now, it is possible that synthetic fur will be used for the new Afghanistan gear. Can you show that the military no longer uses ANY fur from animals for ANYTHING?

It really makes no difference to me.

 

[4elise]

And your point is? As I said in my original post, fur WAS used in Korea. Now, it is possible that synthetic fur will be used for the new Afghanistan gear. Can you show that the military no longer uses ANY fur from animals for ANYTHING?

It really makes no difference to me.

Well… it was in the post that was provided - that was attempting - to my understanding - to illustrate that the military used fur.

I think the reason it was brought up originally perhaps was to show another way fur is used??? Because it had been suggested that fur was better about keeping warm… so since the Army replaced it with synthetic they must have found that synthetic is at the least equally suitable to the need to keep the military warm.

I would have no way of knowing ALL military stock so would refrain from making such a broad statement -

But if they replaced real fur with synthetic fur there must have been the assessment that it was at the least an equal value in replacement with synthetic, right?

If we accept this, then the arguments that there is ‘nothing warmer’ than fur - it would appear that the military is satisfied with replacing it in this application.

 

[mmsiciliana]

Well… it was in the post that was provided - that was attempting - to my understanding - to illustrate that the military used fur.

I think the reason it was brought up originally perhaps was to show another way fur is used??? Because it had been suggested that fur was better about keeping warm… so since the Army replaced it with synthetic they must have found that synthetic is at the least equally suitable to the need to keep the military warm.

I would have no way of knowing ALL military stock so would refrain from making such a broad statement -

But if they replaced real fur with synthetic fur there must have been the assessment that it was at the least an equal value in replacement with synthetic, right?

If we accept this, then the arguments that there is ‘nothing warmer’ than fur - it would appear that the military is satisfied with replacing it in this application.

Unfortunately, the military doesn’t always replace what they had with something better. Many times the military replaces something because they’ve found something cheaper. For instance, many soldiers have bought their own bullet proof vests, etc., rather than use what the army was issuing in Iraq.

 

[4elise]

Unfortunately, the military doesn’t always replace what they had with something better. Many times the military replaces something because they’ve found something cheaper. For instance, many soldiers have bought their own bullet proof vests, etc., rather than use what the army was issuing in Iraq.

I wouldn’t know their reason for substituting real fur with synthetic… there may indeed have been a cost saving involved, the link that was provided didn’t indicate if that were the reason - I guess I considered that the effect would have to at least be as good at keeping the military warm as what it had replaced.

I heard about that bullet proof vest issue very early in Iraq - I had understood that had been resolved - very, very sad if that is still going on.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

I’d just like to say that I hunt animals for meat and sport, I have no problem wearing skins, furs, whatever.

I’ve been around animals, animal husbandy, and game management most of my life. Wild animals primarily expire from starvation or predation. It’s never, ever pretty, and it’s never, ever peaceful. Before the advent of human pest-control programs, a significant number of animals in my area succumbed to parastic worms. We’ve largely controlled that.

What I find is that people who actually observe animals during their life cycle rarely have problems harvesting and using them. We understand that nature is red in tooth and claw without man ever intervening. Besides, and this is really the only point that matters, it’s not a sin to do so.

 

[mmsiciliana]

I’d just like to say that I hunt animals for meat and sport, I have no problem wearing skins, furs, whatever.

I’ve been around animals, animal husbandy, and game management most of my life. Wild animals primarily expire from starvation or predation. It’s never, ever pretty, and it’s never, ever peaceful. Before the advent of human pest-control programs, a significant number of animals in my area succumbed to parastic worms. We’ve largely controlled that.

What I find is that people who actually observe animals during their life cycle rarely have problems harvesting and using them. We understand that nature is red in tooth and claw without man ever intervening. Besides, and this is really the only point that matters, it’s not a sin to do so.

Earlier in the thread, another poster mentioned how his pet dogs, who live outside, eventually succumbed during fights while keeping alien animals away from the family, and the difference there is in an animal doing what it does and dying with its boots on, so to speak, as opposed to what happens so often these days with pets who develop crippling diseases and their human “companions” keep them around anyway, giving them drugs, etc., until the poor decrepit thing is finally taken to the vet to be euthanized.

I have said that I grew up on a fur farm, and that the animals are treated humanely. I also have three cats right now–all of them rescues. Around the beginning of the year, I chose to have one of my cats put down. He was only 7 years old, but he had developed kidney disease and had lost a lot of weight. The vet told me that I could put him on prescription cat food, and I researched the issue on the internet and found you could learn to give your cat an IV every so often to keep him hydrated, etc., and that way you could keep him around for a longer time. But when I saw that he was having difficulty jumping up onto things, I called the vet and asked him to come out. He came to my house, and I held my pet and stroked him while the vet injected him with an anesthetic and then I closed his eyes, and the vet injected him into his heart with the euthanasia drug and a few seconds later, he was gone. We dug a hole in the back yard and wrapped him in a soft cotton rug and buried him with one of his toys. And I miss him–I was just remembering yesterday how loud his purr would be when you petted him–but I would not allow him to grow weaker and suffer so that I could have him around. Unlike human beings, there is no such thing as redemptive suffering for animals. And mother nature is extremely cruel.

 

[severus68]

Earlier in the thread, another poster mentioned how his pet dogs, who live outside, eventually succumbed during fights while keeping alien animals away from the family, and the difference there is in an animal doing what it does and dying with its boots on, so to speak, as opposed to what happens so often these days with pets who develop crippling diseases and their human “companions” keep them around anyway, giving them drugs, etc., until the poor decrepit thing is finally taken to the vet to be euthanized.

I have said that I grew up on a fur farm, and that the animals are treated humanely. I also have three cats right now–all of them rescues. Around the beginning of the year, I chose to have one of my cats put down. He was only 7 years old, but he had developed kidney disease and had lost a lot of weight. The vet told me that I could put him on prescription cat food, and I researched the issue on the internet and found you could learn to give your cat an IV every so often to keep him hydrated, etc., and that way you could keep him around for a longer time. But when I saw that he was having difficulty jumping up onto things, I called the vet and asked him to come out. He came to my house, and I held my pet and stroked him while the vet injected him with an anesthetic and then I closed his eyes, and the vet injected him into his heart with the euthanasia drug and a few seconds later, he was gone. We dug a hole in the back yard and wrapped him in a soft cotton rug and buried him with one of his toys. And I miss him–I was just remembering yesterday how loud his purr would be when you petted him–but I would not allow him to grow weaker and suffer so that I could have him around. Unlike human beings, there is no such thing as redemptive suffering for animals. And mother nature is extremely cruel.

I am sorry about your cat. I can empathise.

 

[cassini]

1. green: says who?
2. beautiful: goes to desire/coveting what belongs to an animal.
3. need fur to keep warm in cold climates:
4. long lasting: yes,
5. **There is nothing created by God as warm as fur. **: So why did he give it to the animals??? Why didn’t he give it directly to us?? 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. .

Marfran, I promised to address the questions you posed on the various points I made.

Fur is Green: It is natural and renewable. How can you get greener alternatives? Usually alternatives involve oil derivatives and we all know the suffering caused by oil spills etc. Moreover, all synthetics involve polluting Industrialisation or practably slave labour in some asian country or other. If the Vatican wants to save the earth from excessive pollution then which do you think it should choose, a farm reared natural fur or the ‘alternative’?

Now let me tell a true story. I retired from fur-farming because it was very hard work and demanded 24/7/365 attention to keep the animals fed fresh food, drink, warmth and care when necessary. I had two weeks holidays in 30 years because of this. I loved my life in agriculture and so never missed holidays. A few factors were responsible for my closure of the farm, economics being the major one. Animal rights activists caused such terror among women that they were afraid to wear fur lest they be attacked personally. This in turn depressed the market and large numbers of farms closed down. Only with the entrance of China into the market in recent years did the price of furs become economical again.

Now besides the thousands of farmers and their employees being put out of work, the collapse affected those indiginous forest farmers that lived off wild furs in the northern areas of the world (Canada was founded on the fur trade). Forest farmers were peoples who owned forests thriving with wild life and fur bearing animals. They would cull surplus animals and thus control their numbers so that there was a continuity of stock for centuries. But along came the animal rights ideologists who emerged after walt Disney gave a mouse a human personality. Once these families lost their livelyhoods they had to first sell their forests for timber and mining. Once the trees were cut down the animals all disappeared. Now vast tracts of barren land exist where animal loaded forests once ruled, cleaning up the worlds pollution while providing clean air for the world. A simple case of Green nature sacrificed for Animal-Rights pollution. As for these peoples, many eskimo types, well they had to emigrate into the cities looking for work. But due to their culture many could not survive and many hit the drink causing a sharp decline in their numbers. So, there we have a culture, living off the fat of the land as God intended, and along came the Walt Disney minded people hating animal-rights ‘loonies’ to wipe them off the land that is now soiled with chemicals or oil or dumping of industrial waste, devoin of trees and animals. I still have the reports of these happenings of the 1980s in my files.

Beautiful. Yes, beautiful on the animal and when worn by man. But is chicken not beautiful to eat as are hamburgers to those who indulge in them. Are flowers not beautiful as they grow in the wild or garden. Why cut them and put them on altars then to die quicker and lose their beauty faster?
Fur is so beautiful that man also imitates it to cater to millions more who cannot afford the real thing. The emergence of fur farms probably saved any wild living fur bearing animals left by the end of the 1950s. The methods of killing wild fur bearing animals like those gin traps was a scandal. But that was an animal welfare problem and has no bearing on the etics of fur farming. Indeed only within the fur farming ethos can animal welfare be guaranteed.

Your fifth paragraph suggests it is an abuse to use animals that are not ‘needed’. Given the time I could come up with an alternative for using any animal at all. Does that mean they are not needed? I needed to earn a living to rear my family and support the Church. I could do so by rearing animals whose product I could sell to better off people. So, what kind of ‘need’ can you say is more important than another. You get into typical animal rights rhetoric here, interpretating everything to fit your own ideology. I suggest it is your NEED to prevent others from doing what you do not like that is catered to in your campaign. Fur farming is now banned in some countries and the GREEN party think they are on the way to having it basnned in Ireland and Holland soon. I am active again in combating your ideology so that families can continue to keep themselves as they have done for generations. We do not want to end up an extinct race like the forest farmers this animal rights campaign has helped kill. Where is the sin there?

We all know there are terrible cruelties being perpetrated on earth even today. Why dont you people recognise the differences and go campaign after the animals that really need such help? I spoke on a radio programme recently and the station called me back and thanked me. They said the human voice to fur farming is seldom heard and they were now satisfied that mink farming is not an exercise in continuous animal cruelyy and abuse the animals rights people portray it. I also spoke at a similar debate in a university with extraordinary results. Summarising it the Chairman announced a draw. I responded by asking all those attending who were neutral or even of one side had the debate changed their minds in any way. No one said they were converted by the animal rights side but dozens said they now had no problem with the fur farming or fur wearing ethics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Earlier in the thread, another poster mentioned how his pet dogs, who live outside, eventually succumbed during fights while keeping alien animals away from the family, and the difference there is in an animal doing what it does and dying with its boots on, so to speak, as opposed to what happens so often these days with pets who develop crippling diseases and their human “companions” keep them around anyway, giving them drugs, etc., until the poor decrepit thing is finally taken to the vet to be euthanized.

I have said that I grew up on a fur farm, and that the animals are treated humanely. I also have three cats right now–all of them rescues. Around the beginning of the year, I chose to have one of my cats put down. He was only 7 years old, but he had developed kidney disease and had lost a lot of weight. The vet told me that I could put him on prescription cat food, and I researched the issue on the internet and found you could learn to give your cat an IV every so often to keep him hydrated, etc., and that way you could keep him around for a longer time. But when I saw that he was having difficulty jumping up onto things, I called the vet and asked him to come out. He came to my house, and I held my pet and stroked him while the vet injected him with an anesthetic and then I closed his eyes, and the vet injected him into his heart with the euthanasia drug and a few seconds later, he was gone. We dug a hole in the back yard and wrapped him in a soft cotton rug and buried him with one of his toys. And I miss him–I was just remembering yesterday how loud his purr would be when you petted him–but I would not allow him to grow weaker and suffer so that I could have him around. Unlike human beings, there is no such thing as redemptive suffering for animals. And mother nature is extremely cruel.

This really is touching. As a father, and now a grandfather, I have had occasion to explain to children how I do not believe the loss of a pet is final, anymore than the loss of a loved person is final. I have told them that, in heaven, they themsleves are destined to be favored by God, far beyond anything they might now conceive. I have told them I believe (and I do) that if we then request of our Creator and Best Friend that our pet be back with us, it will be so. God, I have explained, created the animals for us, and knowing as He does that we have an affinity for them will not likely fail to repopulate the “new heaven and new earth” with them. I tell them they must diligently endeavor to be with God, then, so that it might be accomplished. I suggest, then, that they pray at the grave of a pet; not for the pet because animals be and do exactly what God wants them to do and be, But rather, that they, themselves, might enter heaven so they can see their pet again.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’d like to look at the last question… I don’t think there is anything wrong in trying to be healthy, dress appropriately… but see that this is one of the points where it can be easy to slip into vanity - and where I see a fashion fur fitting into the discussion - if it is only about ‘looking good’ then certainly a faux fur would do? Unless it is more than ‘looking’ good and onto trying to impress with the cost of what one is wearing?

But doean’t it come across to you in just a tiny bit that it might be uncharitable,to state thet people who wear fur do it to be vain and to impress with the cost.

I don’t have a fur, maybe one day I will buy one. If I chose a real fur, I believe that it is more ecological, considering it is biodegradable, reneawble and non toxic.

Right now, if I need to buy a sweater, I will probably buy a wool sweater, it might cost more than a polyester sweater or an acrylic sweater. I am buying it because of the quality, the comfort, and the longevity of the piece, not to brag or to show off that I have money.

Again look at the word “needless.” I’ll post the phrase in Italian (I know Italian better than latin):

2418 È contrario alla dignità umana far soffrire inutilmente gli animali e disporre indiscriminatamente della loro vita

Inutile means useless. While utile, means useful. There is also a phrase that does not appear in the English version…to take their lives indiscriminately.

So do English speaking people have a different Catechism than Italians? Does the word “need” have to be interpreted very strictly for English speaking Catholics?

The Church is teaching us one thing, irrespective of the langage.

You might not like fur, like meat, wear wool or anything that has to do with animals. It is your own personal preference.

But the Church does not teach that using fur raised on farms is illicit, sinful or anything to that degree. What it teaches is theat if the animal is killed, there should be a use for it.

If there are any other linguists that can show me where I am wrong, please do so.

 

[mmsiciliana]

This really is touching. As a father, and now a grandfather, I have had occasion to explain to children how I do not believe the loss of a pet is final, anymore than the loss of a loved person is final. I have told them that, in heaven, they themsleves are destined to be favored by God, far beyond anything they might now conceive. I have told them I believe (and I do) that if we then request of our Creator and Best Friend that our pet be back with us, it will be so. God, I have explained, created the animals for us, and knowing as He does that we have an affinity for them will not likely fail to repopulate the “new heaven and new earth” with them. I tell them they must diligently endeavor to be with God, then, so that it might be accomplished. I suggest, then, that they pray at the grave of a pet; not for the pet because animals be and do exactly what God wants them to do and be, But rather, that they, themselves, might enter heaven so they can see their pet again.

Yes, God is outside of space and time and all is present at once for Him. I also think animals may be a part of the new heaven and the new earth. I thank you and Severus for your kind words and admit that I hesitated to post this story because I feared the reaction I might get. But we people who are or have been involved in fur farming are not the heartless monsters that others might try to make us out to be. Besides the three cats I have that are rescues, (one of which I personally rescued) I have also been personally involved in the rescues of two other kittens that would have died if I hadn’t intervened between them and mother nature. Thankfully, I was able to find good homes for both of them and they are well-loved and happy pets today. On another occasion, I released a poor mama cat that had her head trapped while she was giving birth. Her babies were falling down into the dirt under her and she couldn’t clean them up or anything. I got her loose, put her and the babies in a box, cleaned the mud off the babies, and used a blow dryer (set on low and not directly blowing on anyone) to get everyone dry and warm. Eventually, mother and babies were all doing fine. (And I seem to be well on my way to becoming the stereotypical “crazy cat lady”…)

 

[vz71]

I’ve come to a different bottom line, also from the CCC

This misapplication of the CCC necessitates placing all others into a state of sin for not living to the CCC as defined by this individual.

Do we all feel the insult yet?

 

[severus68]

This misapplication of the CCC necessitates placing all others into a state of sin for not living to the CCC as defined by this individual.

Do we all feel the insult yet?

How does anyone place anyone else in a state of sin? You see insults where there are none.

 

[mmsiciliana]

This misapplication of the CCC necessitates placing all others into a state of sin for not living to the CCC as defined by this individual.

Do we all feel the insult yet?

Yes, I’ve felt the insult all along.

 

[Marfran]

Nice response, but again, my point is that we as Christians ought to seriously consider what it means to live by “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

We simply don’t know if there will be animals in the final state. And I too, agree with you that the natural instincts of animals do not belong in the category of “cruelty”. But again, looking toward the final state, the prophet Isaiah quotes in chapter 11 statements such as “the wolf shall be the guest of the lamb” the calf and the young lion shall browse together". I agree with you, the Lord called all of creation good. But, I would mention, that was in a perfect state, before the fall. It is not wrong for wolves to attack lambs, but for some reason, Isaiah states this will not happen again in the future state. Will there be lambs, lions and wolves playing with children in the end state?? I don’t know. But I think Isaiah 11 does show that we will one day live in perfect harmonious state, where in 11:9 “There will be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain…” ** I think we can safely say Isaiah 11 implies we are living in a fallen world, animals and everything and that, even if the animals are NOT with us in the coming state, the entire cosmos will be in perfect harmony, no bloodshed, no killing to get food. The Lord’s prayer indicates we should try to live by Kingdom principles as much as possible.** Tying that to Isaiah 11, Genesis 1 and the Lord’s prayer, leads me to believe that today, with the technology we have, we simply don’t need don’t have a moral need for fur as much as we did before. Fashion, in my mind, doesn’t justify it.

As far as being pious and sanctimonious, my intent in quoting the Proverbs verse showing the parallel between a pig wearing a ring in its snout being like a beautiful woman who is rebellious was to show the disconnect of beauty and death, not to imply that anyone who wears fur is rebellious and cruel. I applaud your efforts to run a clean, merciful mink farm. You did better than most.

Great post!!! :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Marfran]

I’d just like to say that I hunt animals for meat and sport, I have no problem wearing skins, furs, whatever.

I’ve been around animals, animal husbandy, and game management most of my life. Wild animals primarily expire from starvation or predation. It’s never, ever pretty, and it’s never, ever peaceful. Before the advent of human pest-control programs, a significant number of animals in my area succumbed to parastic worms. We’ve largely controlled that.

What I find is that people who actually observe animals during their life cycle rarely have problems harvesting and using them. We understand that nature is red in tooth and claw without man ever intervening. Besides, and this is really the only point that matters, it’s not a sin to do so.

I would point out that there is NO relationship between animals in the wild and animals purposefully breed by HUMANS to live in captivity to serve human desires. The latter group would not even exist, were it not for HUMANS creating this situation.