Fur in fashion

Post Reply New Topic

Well said, peace j

we are what we are because our ancestors got their proteins from animals. Humans have a very large brain primarily from their protein intake.

And frankly, if eating the last snail darter on the planet would keep me from starving than too bad for the snail darter.

ruveyn

All of the following is taken from a facebook gallery I spent time putting together to try and raise awareness about the fur trade. There is much more than I am posting here so I will provide the link and set privacy to 'everyone' so anyone can look at it.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=5 ... eTheater=1

I kept receiving an error so have removed the image inserts. Look at the links i provided if you wish



Of all the creatures that inhabit the Earth, man is considered the most intellectually developed. We also understand that there is a future and can plan for it. Since we have such developed intelligence we can determine the difference between what is morally right and what is morally wrong. This itself sets us apart from animals in a way; animals do not plan their futures to the same complexity as humans . They do what they have to do to survive.

http://www.bugspray.net/insects/coyote_trap.jpg
No way of escaping. Just waiting. Maybe this Coyote's heart warmed when he saw someone approach to open the cage. He would have begun to feel a moment of compassion. But then again, for all we know the human responsible could have approached the cage shouting and scaring the poor creature.
http://www.bugspray.net/insects/coyote_trap.jpg

here we see a fox caught in a trap for most definitely the same cruel reason as before.

"Trapped: If you're thinking about buying a fur coat made of beaver, coyote, ermine, fisher, fox, marten, muskrat, opossum, otter, rabbit, raccoon, skunk, squirrel, weasel , or wolf, think about this: Chances are your dream coat is the product of a nightmare called the steel jaw trap.

Here's how the nightmare works. The trap springs up from the ground, snapping onto the animal's leg like teeth. Startled, the animal bolts. The trap tightens, biting deep into flesh, grinding through tendons, exposing bone. The animal continues to struggle and thrash, but the trap holds, gripping the animal in pain and panic for hours, days, even weeks.

Many trapped animals, especially females with young off-spring, gnaw or twist off their own limbs in a frenzy to escape, only to stagger into the wild, where they die of their injuries. Others fall easy prey to predators, while still others die of thirst, exposure, drowning, or starvation.

Those unlucky enough to survive until the trapper arrives are usually clubbed to death. One common method, especially for fox, is for the trapper to stand on the animal's rib cage, concentrating his weight near the heart. He then reaches down, takes the animal's hind legs in his hands, and yanks. The animal dies of a crushed chest. The fur, however, is spotless."

http://www.animaldefense.com/Fur.html

"Animals who are trapped in the wild can suffer for days from blood loss, shock, dehydration, frostbite, gangrene, and attacks by predators. They may be caught in steel-jaw traps that slam down on their legs, often cutting to the bone; Conibear traps, which crush their necks with 90 pounds of pressure per square inch; or water-set traps, which leave beavers, muskrats, and other animals struggling for more than nine agonizing minutes before drowning."

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used ... g/fur.aspx
http://images1.fanpop.com/images/image_ ... 71_327.jpg

This poor dog as chewed its leg off in an effort for freedom. Imagine what must be going through someone's mind to see that as the best option.
http://www.freewebs.com/let_toki_go_free/395514.jpg

The conditions are cramped, but you also have to remember that the wire is abrasive. Every time animals try to reposition themselves in an effort to become comfortable they will do more and more damage to their skin. What would you do if you were painfully cramped inside a cage, with little to no food or water and no hope?
http://www.animalfreedom.org/pics/hondennaarmarkt.jpg

In China and many other places pets are stolen for their fur and quite often their meat as well.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRW1sz_jeg[/youtube]

There are also ranched animals For those who don't know, a ranched animal is a an animal bread in a purpose built facility for their fur. They conditions are worse than pretty much any prison cell you could imagine.

"Rabbits are bred in bare wire cages, creating both physical and behavioural problems.

The mesh flooring of the cages causes damage to the feet of the rabbit and this can result in sore hocks (ulcerative pododermatitis), leading to infections and abscesses. Research carried out in 2004 found that up to 15% of does suffered from sore hocks [2] and up to 40% had paw injuries that were sufficiently serious for them to show signs of discomfort [3].

The stench of ammonia from the urine soaked floors, which tends to overpower any other odour in a commercial rabbit unit, can irritate the eyes of the rabbits and lead to painful infections.

Under the cagesThe housing of the rabbits, both separately and as a group, causes problems. Since rabbits are social animals, being separated from another rabbit causes immense stress and this social deprivation leads to stereotyped behaviour such as gnawing on cage bars (a common behaviour exhibited by caged animals) and over-grooming (repetitively plucking one's own fur is a form of self-mutilation). Even group housing of adolescent sibling rabbits is no better. The overcrowding of the cages leads to increased aggression and fighting. Fur-plucking and ear-biting are behavioural manifestations attributed to overcrowding.

Bare cages means boredom, which again leads to stereotyped behaviour. Most research carried out on whether rabbits benefit from cage enrichment proved that any kind of enrichment, such as gnawing sticks or even just hay, was a positive step in reducing boredom, cage gnawing and fighting. Even though this is widely accepted, none of the farms visited by CAFT had any enrichment.

These animals will never experience fresh air or natural sunlight - until they are taken for slaughter!"

http://www.rabbitfur.org/factsheet.htm

"Rows of cages are often housed in giant, dark, filthy sheds or barns where the ammonia from the animals' accumulated urine and feces burns their eyes and lungs, or they may simply be lined up outdoors, where animals have no protection from bone-chilling cold, driving rain, or sweltering heat. Parasites and disease run rampant on fur farms, making these animals' already miserable lives even more unbearable."

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used ... farms.aspx
http://www.rabbitwise.org/img/rabbits_i ... al_01.jpeg

"On Chinese fur farms, foxes, minks, rabbits, and other animals pace and shiver in outdoor wire cages, exposed to driving rain, freezing nights, and scorching sun. Mother animals—who are driven insane from rough handling and intense confinement and have nowhere to hide while giving birth—often kill their babies after delivering litters. Diseases and injuries are widespread, and animals suffering from anxiety-induced psychosis chew on their own limbs and throw themselves repeatedly against the bars of their cages."

http://www.petaasiapacific.com/feature- ... rfarms.asp
http://blog.peta2.com/foxfur.jpg

Dogs Blow torched alive for their fur
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/294627.stm

A kitchen oven can burn the hands of a person at temperatures of 200 Degrees Celsius (392 degrees Fahrenheit) without much trouble. The face is naturally a lot more sensitive to all forms of pain. How sore must it be to have your face burnt at the temperatures that animals often endure?
Those dogs kept in the cage on the bottom right of the picture may not be as intellectually developed as a human being, and therefore not understand the depths of human motives to the same degree as we can ourselves.But no matter what part of the world you come from, what language you speak or what species you are, you will realise what fear is when it is right in front of you.Why is not right to cause an animal to suffer? Because they can feel pain, they have emotions, they have a desire to live.

Dogs just like this one are captured every day in China and every day in many more places all around the world.

This video is aimed at the dog meat trade in China, but the same applies to dogs in the fur trade.

This video is aimed at the dog meat trade, but it documents much of the mistreatment which is applied the same way in the fur trade:

'Betrayal of Human's Best Friend'
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxBOJRGOEQ[/youtube]

To stop the fur of animals becoming coated in blood while killing them, methods such as anal and vaginal electrocution were invented.

"In 1994, a groundbreaking PETA U.S. investigation revealed the hideous cruelty of the fur industry, including the gruesome genital electrocutions taking place on a California chinchilla farm. The investigation resulted in the first case of cruelty to animals to be filed against a furrier. Investigators documented that chinchillas were hung upside-down by alligator clamps attached to their ears and labia or anuses. The animals were trembling and fearfully silent until a powerful jolt of electricity froze their movements. In other instances, animals had rods jammed into their mouths or anuses and were electrocuted. It takes at least 100 chinchilla pelts to make just one full-length coat."

http://www.petaasiapacific.com/issues-nottowear.asp#fur
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/mar ... ocuted.jpg

The exact same is about to happen to this animal.

Please remember that this is a slow process which is painful and often has to be repeated a number of times for it work "successfully". I use the term successfully very loosely here.

See what goes on 4 minutes into this video:

'Earthlings - Part 6'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp8D5vJj ... re=related

We are making progress in outlawing these practices and that is all the more reason for us to keep fighting for these animals rights.

'New York Bans Anal Electrocution'

"There are two things I really like about the story that hit the wires this week reporting New York’s recent ban on anal and genital electrocution of animals for fur. The first thing’s kind of obvious: Animals on fur farms in New York won’t be electrocuted any more (they’ll still suffer, but their deaths will now, hopefully, be just a bit less painful). In case you haven’t kept up to date on electrocution techniques, this isn’t like sticking your finger into a wall socket: The fur farmers attach one electrode to the fox’s or raccoon’s ear or muzzle and stick the other one in the animal’s anus or vagina. The result is a dagger-like heart attack without loss of consciousness. On one fur farm we investigated, the farmer plugged the chinchillas into the wall socket and timed it by listening to a song on the radio—then skinned them without checking to see if they were dead.

But the thing that should be really remarkable for most people reading this story is not the fact that New York has banned electrocution—but the implication that this is still legal everywhere else. That’s right. New York is now the only state where anally and genitally electrocuting fur-bearing animals (fur farmers do it this way so they won’t damage the pelts) could get you into trouble.

As my friend Melissa put it when she was interviewed for the AP piece, "Anal electrocution is common practice in fur farms across the world. A lot of these methods aren't effective and these animals will wake up while they are being skinned."

That’s all. I just wanted to drive home that point. It’s awesome that New York is leading the way here, and hopefully other states will soon follow suit. But this is also a good opportunity to store away that little tidbit about anal and genital electrocution being 100 percent legal in 49 out of 50 states—just in case anyone ever tries to tell you that wearing fur is anything other than reprehensible."

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/arch ... ution.aspx
http://humanityy.com/wp-content/uploads ... fur-02.jpg

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbqOzeFGdk8[/youtube]

"Each year, the Canadian government gives hunters the green light to bludgeon to death hundreds of thousands of baby harp seals. During the slaughter, baby seals are shot or repeatedly clubbed. Sealers bludgeon the animals with clubs and "hakapiks" (metal-hook–tipped clubs) and drag the seals—who are often still conscious—across the ice floes with boat hooks.

Hunters toss dead and dying seals into heaps and leave their carcasses to rot on the ice floes because there is no market for seal meat. Veterinarians who have investigated the slaughter have found that hunters routinely fail to comply with Canada's animal welfare standards."

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used ... ghter.aspx
http://media.photobucket.com/image/blam ... Canada.jpg

Lets gather a group, over power you and skin Ruveyn alive. Who else is with me?

Does this help put it into context for you?

If not why are you more deserving of a happy life than another sentient being?

It is not the protein that allows us to have large brains, but the fat for all of that myelin. With modern farming techniques, though, we don't need to eat any animals to get the nutrients we need. Dietary needs and clothing needs are different subjects anyway.

both are survival related.

ruveyn

The issue here is what value we place on animal life; some people value it almost as highly as human life while others do not. Making tasteless (and creepy...) comments about people who hold an opinion differing from yours is usually not an effective way to change their minds, and further marginalizes your position.

Last edited by Dox47 on 16 Mar 2011, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's not gonna work. Ruveyn is a total bad ass and outside of taking care of the orphaned kittens in his home-run kitten shelter, he sits on his porch with an M1 Garand rifle just waiting for some fart smelling granola hippies to try and get him

^^ Greetings Dox47,

I personally do not believe that PatrickNeville was making a personal comment about ruveyn. I believe that PatrickNeville was using rhetorical questions to show how strongly he feels about this subject (I must say that I believe that I share similar views as PatrickNeville), and also to show that killing non-humans for their fur, is as shocking and tasteless to PatrickNeville, as this would be to skin ruveyn alive. (I am very sorry if I am incorrect however). I personally feel that this was simply another comment within a debate and not a personal insult.

For instance, I feel that the comment "I want to skin you alive" or a similar statement, alone, may be perhaps considered as a personal insult. However, PatrickNeville stated "Does this help put it into context for you?", and I believe this demonstrated that PatrickNeville was not attacking ruveyn, but simply attempting to put forth how strongly he feels on this subject.

I am very sorry if I have been horrible.

@Tomasu

My point was that whatever the intent, the comment that we should skin Ruveyn is counterproductive and tasteless. This always seems to happen with animal welfare threads, they seem to draw more threats and vitriol than any other topic we discuss here in PPR and that's saying something.

I don't think even the latest 3 'awesome' long threads on the abortion issue even included anyone talking about flaying someone...

^^ Greetings Dox47,

I do not believe this was comment was a suggestion that one should skin Ruveyn alive. ^^ In fact, perhaps the intention for such a suggestion was to seem tasteless, because PatrickNeville was not suggesting this in my opinion (although this may seem so, I think this was a hypothetical question, as suggested by the following comment). I feel this method is to demonstrate how tasteless such acts feel to them. I do not believe this is a threat. I think this is simply saying

"To me, fur farming is as tasteless as skinning [human in question] alive".

^^ Greetings Vigilans, PatrickNeville was not talking about or suggesting flaying ruveyn. He was trying to compare how this issue feels to him with how flaying ruveyn would feel to you. (In my opinion - I apologize greatly if I am incorrect).

This is small time, I've seen 3 locked animal rights threads on the front page of PPR before, all locked for personal threats. I'd say it's because animal rights people aren't used to the atmosphere in PPR, but the same thing happens when someone posts a story in the News forum too. I don't know what it is about eco causes that seems to spawn fanaticism, but being a Seattle native I've seen it up close and can attest it's not just an internet phenomenon. My theory is that it's caused by the absolute certainty of being RIGHT, it can easily allow someone to rationalize just about anything if it advances the cause (not that this is unique to environmentalists mind you).

Actually, I am unarmed. One little old M1 is not much use in a general uprising. I prefer duck and cover.

And I do not possess enough for anyone to try and get it. Anyone who breaks into my house is going to find a lot of books.

ruveyn

^^ Greetings again Dox47,

I believe that this is very interesting. Although I personally believe in some form of "animal rights", I would certainly not wish to create threats or cause violence within the name of this.

Any human with a set of beliefs, of course, believes in these beliefs. ^^ I must say that I may empathize with how strong these individuals feel. ^^ Please do imagine, that if you believe that, for instance, cows suffer equally to humans, then the equivalent of genocide is taking part every day. This is indeed a harrowing thought in my opinion. I may understand the violence, as this is perhaps the equivalent as some form of resistance or freedom fighters. However, I do not condone, or agree, with this violence and would never wish to take part, as I believe that violence is very rarely an answer.

Indeed, the reason that I am for some form of animal rights, is due to the fact that I am against suffering of animals. Humans are animals, therefore I am against the suffering of humans.

I now regret even acknowledging Ruyven's inane reductionist comments as all I have done is help him in getting all the attention he was seeking/seeks by these simple interjections.
Let us get back on topic.

'Human as superior species' as justification for behaviour that is beneath all the standards we use to argue our superiority does not stand up to serious logical critique/reasoning.

'Human as an individualist' as the grounds on which our success as a species also does not stand up to serious investigation as anyone with a well grounded knowledge base in a mixture of ecology, primate behaviour, history and anthropology will soon realise.

The reality is that we are an adaptable species and across our range you will find diverse cultural expression the majority of which are primarily adaptable, mutable. For the longest period of our evolutionary journey we were a primarily vegetarian, cooperative, gatherer/hunter species, our meat eating was entirely opportunistic and would in all likelihood have been dominated by scavenging from the kills of those species that were biologically more suited to [and therefore more successful at] hunting.

Obviously our behaviour has changed, it can also change again.

The issue of the ethics of our relationships with other species is on the surface complex but ultimately is not. I have [lay]studied ethics and philosophy for near thirty years and find no support for the 'human as dominant species' rationale for our 'less than human' [define human? is it fixed?] behaviour towards our ecosystems and other lifeforms.

The issue of sentience as some qualifier as to the value of and rights of another life are to my mind beside the point and as out dated as the stratification of human societies on grounds of race, religion or class.
Surely all species have an equal right to play their part within the matrix of life according to their own uniqueness?
As I have said things consume things, that is the life process, however as a species that prides itself on it's sophistication surely the embracing on unnecessarily cruel, wasteful or destructive behaviours is beneath the high standards we claim to aspire towards or attain? Surely they are stupid when they threaten our own social fabric and place on the planet [ecological impact!!]

Two books that I found influential in thinking through these issues are,

Peter Kropotkin - Mutual Aid

Peter Singer - Animal Liberation

peace j