I am not sure if the ban went through successfully or if it still in the proposal stages...my question is this
Why is fur farming and weraing considered "wrong" but farming animals for food okay?
I am making and selling items made from vintage furs and so have been researching the fur industry and the fur opponents position. This is how I came across the proposed ban. A critique of the proposal can be found
<a href="http://www.iea.org.uk/press/prenv16.htm" target="_blank">here</a>
thoughts?
-
- Information on this archive. See IIDB.org
-
-
Please join us on IIDB (iidb.org)
This is the archived FRDB and IIDB forum from prior to about March 2014. It is read only. If you would like to respond or otherwise revive a post or topic, please join us on the active forum: IIDB.
-
UK fur farming ban
Many people seem to distinguish between killing animals for meat and killing them for fur. This strikes me as irrational - neither are essential for our health or well-being.
Others make the point that you have to kill a lot more mink for a fur coat than you do cows for a few good steaks - again this is a dubious objection - a fur coat lasts longer than a steak, and more to the point I think either killing animals for our own utility is acceptable or else it isn't - the onus appears to be on those who would disagree to come up with a means of deciding how much value is required to justify killing a given number of animals - so far I have yet to see anyone put forward a system for calculating this, so the argument remains a purely emotive one.
The fur industry did get a very bad press, especially in the UK, because of the cruelty involved in snares and other trapd to catch wild animals for fur. I tend to agree that such methods ar unnecessarily cruel, but it is a completely different issue to farming. The distinction does not appear to be clear in everybody's minds though.
Finally, and frankly, I think a lot of the resentment the fur industry gets boils down to envy - fur coats are by and large the preserve of the rich, and are a way of flaunting your money, so people who want to wear them are at a PR disadvantage to begin with.
My conclusion - the ban was imposed to win some cheap votes from people who take a particular dislike to the fur industry for reasons which I consider dubious at best. Of course, many of the campaigners against also object to eating meat, so I have some respect for their position even if I don't agree with it , but they seem to get more support when campaigning against fur farms than when campaigning against food farms because a lot of other people jump on the bandwagon because they are easily swayed by emotive arguments.
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>
Others make the point that you have to kill a lot more mink for a fur coat than you do cows for a few good steaks - again this is a dubious objection - a fur coat lasts longer than a steak, and more to the point I think either killing animals for our own utility is acceptable or else it isn't - the onus appears to be on those who would disagree to come up with a means of deciding how much value is required to justify killing a given number of animals - so far I have yet to see anyone put forward a system for calculating this, so the argument remains a purely emotive one.
The fur industry did get a very bad press, especially in the UK, because of the cruelty involved in snares and other trapd to catch wild animals for fur. I tend to agree that such methods ar unnecessarily cruel, but it is a completely different issue to farming. The distinction does not appear to be clear in everybody's minds though.
Finally, and frankly, I think a lot of the resentment the fur industry gets boils down to envy - fur coats are by and large the preserve of the rich, and are a way of flaunting your money, so people who want to wear them are at a PR disadvantage to begin with.
My conclusion - the ban was imposed to win some cheap votes from people who take a particular dislike to the fur industry for reasons which I consider dubious at best. Of course, many of the campaigners against also object to eating meat, so I have some respect for their position even if I don't agree with it , but they seem to get more support when campaigning against fur farms than when campaigning against food farms because a lot of other people jump on the bandwagon because they are easily swayed by emotive arguments.
[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>
Thanks Pantera. I think the leg hold traps and such are unnecessarily brutal, but most fur (in the US at least) comes from farm raised animals that are humanely killed with carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide (minks) and lethal injection (fox).
Last year (in the US) about 3 million minks were used for fur, while about 10 million cats and dogs died in shelters...I think the antifur people are skewed. I don't get it.
I too respect those people who are opposed to fur and are vegan as they are at least consistent. It's the meat eating, leather wearing, mink oil using ones that somehow differentiate fur that get me.
Last year (in the US) about 3 million minks were used for fur, while about 10 million cats and dogs died in shelters...I think the antifur people are skewed. I don't get it.
I too respect those people who are opposed to fur and are vegan as they are at least consistent. It's the meat eating, leather wearing, mink oil using ones that somehow differentiate fur that get me.
-
sentinel00
- Posts: 7597
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2000 4:00 pm
- Basic Beliefs:
- Out Campaign: Real Name: