The ethics of selling a fur coat....

terra_ferma

geri1965 wrote: »

Well, it depends if the rabbit fur is a by product of the meat industry in the same way as leather is, or if it was killed specifically for the fur and the meat is a by product of the fur trade. I don't eat rabbit, so I won't wear it's skin.

Personally I get very upset when I see rabbits kept in cages, as that is the most cruel things that could be done to them.
Rabbits should be free to roam.

Incidentally I saw a programme on telly showing how rabbits are culled in this country (when the damage crops, I believe), but not eaten because people don't want to eat little furry animals.
So they are still killed, some parts used, but mostly going to waste.
As we don't feel the same way about pigs and cows, then other animals are killed needlessly.

terra_ferma

elsien wrote: »

Except that there is very little fur in our society that comes from an
animal that was killed to be eaten. If you live in the arctic, that could be an argument. Buying a fur coat from the bullring, I'm fairly sure the fur is from a fur farm and food doesn't come into it.

I'm not pro-fur, and I don't wear fur.
If I was certain that the animal was not killed for that purpose I would consider wearing it, but not if it looks like you are wearing a corpse... :eek:
I'm anti-hypocrisy.
We have to face our sins... like when they show animals being slaughtered on telly and people complain... but still eat meat.

PS for the benefit of people who don't get it (Arriva, pls read carefully...) I'm not advocating that everyone should stop eating meat, but that they should either face the fact that the meat you eat (and the fur you wear) comes from an animal killed on your behalf, or become a vegetarian/stop wearing fur.

chancesare_2

I am neither pro or anti fur. But, I own several hundred acres of land which in the whole I lease to grazing. Rabbits are shot on my land (amongst other ways of killing them) in order to prevent the destruction of my livelihood and land. They devastate and I mean devastate hedgerows. However all the animals we or others on our land kill are eaten by us or other animals. The furs are discarded, but if they were sold for a use, I wouldn't have a problem. A rabbit is little more than a pest to most farmers. I would estimate an increase in some 300% in the last year, no joke when you try to keep grazing for animals the rest of us eat.

hermum

I'm with terra_ferma on this one. I wouldn't personally wear a rabbit fur, however I do wear leather shoes use leather bags & purses and somewhere have a sheepskin coat.
Depending on the age of the coat it could have been killed for food as well as the pelt.
A while ago on Come Dine With Me, there was a guy who went on & on about how cruel it is to kill animals to eat & then the plonker turned up wearing leather trousers, he didn't go into the reasons why he felt it ok to eat the skin but not the meat. Maybe he thinks cows are like snakes & shed their skins.
He made himself look a complete prat.

arriva

My grandfather used to farm rabbits, yes, for human consumption.
I ate rabbit meat most days until I was 22 years old... well, I still love the meat but what's wrong with the fur? we used to throw into the stream once pulled off the carcasses (that was 30 years ago tho)...

If you go down this path you will start cuddling lettuce next... please...

arriva

terra_ferma wrote: »

We have to face our sins... l

you get a "un-Thanks" for this



"our sins" ....? which sins...???

if you were in Dresden 60 years ago you would have eaten your childrens ears... .... rabbit? what a luxury!
Get real.

arriva

hermum wrote: »

I'm with terra_ferma on this one. I wouldn't personally wear a rabbit fur, however I do wear leather shoes use leather bags & purses and somewhere have a sheepskin coat.
Depending on the age of the coat it could have been killed for food as well as the pelt.
A while ago on Come Dine With Me, there was a guy who went on & on about how cruel it is to kill animals to eat & then the plonker turned up wearing leather trousers, he didn't go into the reasons why he felt it ok to eat the skin but not the meat. Maybe he thinks cows are like snakes & shed their skins.
He made himself look a complete prat.

get real, you are PAMPERED. I bet you will be the first to jump on my throat if we get stuck together in a lift for a week.

missbishi

halibut2209 wrote: »

Irrelevant argument. It's happened. Can't change that.

As I said, if someone wants a fur, they will get one. So the realistic question is would you rather them have an old one, or encourage the new-coat market. Pick your battles.

"Pick your battles".......PMSL at that, the poor rabbit/mink/fox/whatever didn't have much bleedin' choice in the matter did it! A dead animal is a dead animal.

In answer to your question, I would rather there were no fur coats at all. However, I appreciate that there are some vain pampered little girls out there who put vanity before ethics, in the name of looking like Jordan or whoever the slapper du jour is, so I do agree that if someone wants one, they will get one.

missbishi

gunsandbanjos wrote: »

Never said that, did I?

A lot of these coats were manufactured before much was thought about animal welfare and while not right as i've said i have no problem with these being sold on. Hence the 'i have no problem with vintage fur being sold', please dont try and twist my words to suit your agenda, its boring and tedious.

I know you didn't say that! I was asking you a question. I thought the question mark at the end of the sentence was a dead giveaway to that fact!

So sorry but no twisting of words there!

In any case, you have answered by saying it's "not right". Cheers, that was all I wanted to know!

terra_ferma

arriva wrote: »

you get a "un-Thanks" for this



"our sins" ....? which sins...???

if you were in Dresden 60 years ago you would have eaten your childrens ears... .... rabbit? what a luxury!
Get real.

what are you on about?
I think you've totally missed the point of my post.
(don't think I'll miss your thank you, I've got more than enough...)