Can leather be ethical? - Page 5

An admirable philosophy, no question. But "knowing" comes more from direct experience than from anecdotes so far removed from the original source as to assume all the outward trappings of fantasy. If you rely on what you've been told, or what is au currant among your social group, you end up being every bit as "disconnected" as those you find troubling. I have lived and worked in ranch and farming country for the last 40 years and I don't see much if any of the abuse that is so cavalierly bandied about as tales to frighten small children. On the other hand ranchers seldom name their charges and I've yet to see weeping as the cattle are loaded to go to market. But make no mistake, leather and steaks come from the same source...with all that implies.

There are breeders/slaughterhouses that do partake in less than savoury methods of maintaining and slaughtering their "product." And yes, I have been to several slaughterhouses and breeders in my time. None of that has anything to do with the question of whether leather is ethical or not. Of course it is. If we eat meat, then it is ethical to use as much of the rest of the animal as we can. Nothing wrong with that. Of course, we have to treat the animals with respect and humanely while they're alive, but that's just common sense surely.

Here are some things you should know when considering "ethical" leather:

• Do not purchase leather products from China or India. The animals are abused/tortured and conditions are overall terrible.
  
• Synthetics may do more harm than good when considering environmental impact, also with chrome-tanned leathers
  
• There are companies who claim use of "natural death" animal hides
  

Cows are pleasant animals. The problem is not the existence of cows that contributes to the Global Climate Alteration Crisis. The population is much greater than it would be naturally, without humans farming them or using them. I'm not sure how many cows you've met, but they are some of my favorite picnic guests.



Not all hides.


Keep in mind, there is a black market for horse hides. In the US, there are illegal slaughter farms that torture/kill horses and sell their meat and hides through a black market.

I heard that even exotic leathers of once African animals are already 'farmed'/raised in the U-S. these days. I myself like cordovan leather for my loafers and also boxcalf for shoes, if I were richer I'd be interested in alligator leather shoes (and I even have asked some bespoke shoe maker about a batch of elephant leather he still is calling his own..least seems to be very durable but maybe a bit strange/thick in its structure.)

I don't doubt that if you look hard enough you can find examples. In an infinite universe, the nutcase that microwaves a living chicken is bound to end up owning a slaughterhouse sometime, somewhere. But it begs the question doesn't it? What exactly is "less than savoury methods?' What is this "torture" that horses about to be slaughtered are subject to? And does it really make any sense? I'm talking about logic and self interest... What does it benefit a company or a rancher to "torture" an animal that is about to be slaughtered? Every part of the animal...including the meat...is affected by severe stress such as would occur during torture. And not for the better. Slaughterhouses know that...it's a business--they're no more going to destroy the quality of their product than a car manufacturer is going to put sugar in the gas tank. So...back to square one...are the "less than savoury methods" simply that cattle are processed quickly and efficiently...no time for Last Rites or Extreme Unction? No time for eulogies? Isn't that simply anthropomorphizing? Every creature dies. There is probably a 90%+ chance that every creature experiences pain and/or sickness somewhere in the moments leading up to the end of life. And when life is over none of that matters or is remembered. In a very real sense...for the individual involved...it as if it never happened. So what is a "savoury method?" I suspect it is simply that death comes quickly and efficiently and with as little fear and/or suffering as can be afforded...yet recognizing that all pain or suffering can never be avoided. And all of that still has nothing to do with whether leather is ethical

Is this ethical or not and why? All fair chase rules apply.


2 by DYSong Photography, on Flickr

There is no such thing as ethics when you are at the top of the food chain.

According to a great friend and banker, the topic of ethics is only raised by those who are weak or weak-willed.

Wrong answer, there is such a thing called ethics and it takes a thinking man to understand that.

Can fur be ethical?

That sounds like something a banker might say.

Surprisingly, not an awful thread.

What does species superiority have to do with losing ethics? Rarely. Some designers are using Nutria fur... an animal that is killed for pest control and the otherwise discarded remains are used. Beware of faux fur. Sometimes fur is labeled as fake even though it comes from cats and dogs that were skinned alive.

It is very simple to meet nutritional needs while being a vegetarian without supplements. Only vegans might need supplementation. The animal itself does not provide much of anything that can't be found elsewhere in plant foods.

North American Natives might disagree with you there, Nosu. Then again, they have--and continue to--follow the rules of Fair Chase, hunting free range animals since time immemorial. Take the Inuit and seals for e.g. The Inuit (and Nfld/Labrador) eat seal (rich in essential Omega fats so very nutritious), using the fur to make boots and coats (staying warm and dry themselves), and make a living also by trading the meat/fur for other goods and money (as is their Constitutional right). Without the hunt, seals would also become a pest, depleting fish stocks. Coyote fur is also used in parkas, etc. (resists frost as wolf pelts do, keeping one's face warm), and are also free-range (though in many places considered "pests", so very interesting that you say that). We all know North American Natives are good-conservationists, and would never take the last coyote (or seal, or deer, or ... ). It's about sustainability, these animals--seals, coyotes, etc. (being different than wolves)--are in no way endangered; it's also about conservation, to cull the herd else they'd die of disease and/or starve to death. Far more humane than fur-farming (like mink and fox in the EU for e.g.), as the ones hunted over here are free-range, and their populations properly managed. Then, I also agree with Crane: it's all about ethical hunting (which sportsmen tend to carry over into other areas of life) . Fur is no different than hide--it's just that some skins keep you, well, warmer than does i.e. leather. To each their own as I said before; so long as it's sustainable and well run, the animal killed swiftly as opposed to prolonged suffering, then I haven't any issue with it. (And if I lived up North, you bet I'd wear seal-skin boots -- unlike a polar bear, we humans don't come with fur EDIT: as to the argument about vegan diets, this simply isn't true. Meat contains protein and essential nutrients, as discussed in post #57. Also, the hunt is humane (I base my op not on conjecture, but on science, see for e.g.: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/seal-...faq-eng.htm#_1 .) tl/DR: Natives are the "original environmentalists" and definitely remain good conservationists, they and their hunting practices having been around since time-immemorial (such conservation practices and traditions fully backed by science and "in fashion" today, then, traditional practices never go out of style). That said, to each their own conscious.