Fur and leather from endangered species

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Reptiles are skinned alive so as not to dry out the skin.

Wanna try skinning a big crocodile alive? A python? A cobra? A monitor lizard?

I note that a lot of this concern seems to be over the Raccoon Dog, which is evidently a very abundant animal over much of its range. Introduced into Russia, it has been spreading into central and even western Europe. About 1.5 million, as the linked article notes, are being farmed for the their fur in China, so they are anything but endangered.

They are a very cute animal and seemingly gentle creatures, so I might have some qualms about wearing their fur on that ground.

Mink on the other are rather nasty customers--bloodthirsty predators in the wild and utterly vicious in captivity. Thus, their being harvested and farmed for their fur doesn't bother me so much.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Strange, I didn't see a feature about this during the Summer Olympics.

- B

It was the Special Olympics.

 

[extempore]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

They are a very cute animal and seemingly gentle creatures, so I might have some qualms about wearing their fur on that ground.

Mink on the other are rather nasty customers--bloodthirsty predators in the wild and utterly vicious in captivity. Thus, their being harvested and farmed for their fur doesn't bother me so much.
...which is why I have a problem with some of the (albeit well-meaning) 'concern' that so many people have about some species of animals being killed. Coincidentally, these animals just so happen to be 'cute' or 'likeable' somehow.

Somehow these people are able to say that killing XYZ animal is bad, then they sit down to a steak dinner. Something's just not computing there for me.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by extempore

...which is why I have a problem with some of the (albeit well-meaning) 'concern' that so many people have about some species of animals being killed. Coincidentally, these animals just so happen to be 'cute' or 'likeable' somehow.

Somehow these people are able to say that killing XYZ animal is bad, then they sit down to a steak dinner. Something's just not computing there for me.

We are utterly inconsistent in our attitudes about animals. Dogs are customarily cosseted house pets; the highly intelligent pig is confined in filth and butchered for food.

The ultimate manifestation of this inconsistency, as one friend observed, is that anyone who kills butterflies is regarded as a sick-o. So is anyone who refuses to kill caterpillars!

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by extempore

Somehow these people are able to say that killing XYZ animal is bad, then they sit down to a steak dinner. Something's just not computing there for me.

Some animals deserve it, some don't. If you have met any animals, you will know what I mean.

Is there a term for a person who refuses to eat plants in their diet? You know, having a philosphy that animals, since they are literally animated, exercise a moral choice, while plants do not. Plants, being more innocent, should therefore be held sacred like cows in Mumbai.

Leaving only animals to eat.

Who's with me? Atkins by choice, Atkins by moral necessity.


- B

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

We are utterly inconsistent in our attitudes about animals. Dogs are customarily cosseted house pets; the highly intelligent pig is confined in filth and butchered for food.

The ultimate manifestation of this inconsistency, as one friend observed, is that anyone who kills butterflies is regarded as a sick-o. So is anyone who refuses to kill caterpillars!

Answering this question would require me to form an opinion, for the first time, about the killing of caterpillars. I refuse.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

We are utterly inconsistent in our attitudes about animals. Dogs are customarily cosseted house pets; the highly intelligent pig is confined in filth and butchered for food.

The ultimate manifestation of this inconsistency, as one friend observed, is that anyone who kills butterflies is regarded as a sick-o. So is anyone who refuses to kill caterpillars!

Well, the title of this thread did have the modifier "endangered." There is something to be said, practically speaking, for the preservation of biodiversity.


- B

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by dopey

Answering this question would require me to form an opinion, for the first time, about the killing of caterpillars. I refuse.

What if you see one munching on Dege?

- B

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Well, the title of this thread did have the modifier "endangered." There is something to be said, practically speaking, for the preservation of biodiversity.


- B

If God didn't want animals to become extinct, He would have made them spontaneously-generating.

 

[extempore]

Originally Posted by dopey

Most animals that are skinned alive are not done so specifically for the fur industry. Rather, the skins are the byproduct of a popular recreational "resort" activity in China where vacationers and pensioners, mostly from the provinces, participate in a "hunt and kill" where they chase pre-hobbled animals around a pen and then skin them alive. The animals are eaten at the resort, but the pelts are purchased by fur jobbers.
I'd like to see your source for that information.

I've found that all too often, much of what one reads on the internet is merely a vehicle for the author's prejudices. Even 'information' from reputable information sources like, say, the BBC - e.g. the entire Georgian/Russian fiasco.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by dopey

Most animals that are skinned alive are not done so specifically for the fur industry. Rather, the skins are the byproduct of a popular recreational "resort" activity in China where vacationers and pensioners, mostly from the provinces, participate in a "hunt and kill" where they chase pre-hobbled animals around a pen and then skin them alive. The animals are eaten at the resort, but the pelts are purchased by fur jobbers.

Originally Posted by extempore

I'd like to see your source for that information. I've found that all too often, much of what one reads on the internet is merely a vehicle for the author's prejudices. Even 'information' from reputable information sources like, say, the BBC - e.g. the entire Georgian/Russian fiasco.
Try here. I find it convincing.

 

[KObalto]

Originally Posted by PocketCircle

Killing endangered species is terrible but killing other animals in inhumanely ways (skinning alive) and throwing away the body of an animal after taking the skin is just as bad and unfortunately that's what happens in most fur farms.
You have yet to cite any examples of SF promoting or allowing the sale of endangered species. There is a legal term for this. It is called slander and it is actionable. On the other hand, I have found that skinning the outer garments from women before bedding them is a good thing and far from inhumane for either party.

 

[KObalto]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Some animals deserve it, some don't. If you have met any animals, you will know what I mean.

Is there a term for a person who refuses to eat plants in their diet? You know, having a philosphy that animals, since they are literally animated, exercise a moral choice, while plants do not. Plants, being more innocent, should therefore be held sacred like cows in Mumbai.

Leaving only animals to eat.

Who's with me? Atkins by choice, Atkins by moral necessity.


- B

There are many books to support this idea Vox, including The Secret Life of Plants. Sophisticated electronic gear can measure the screams of plants as we harvest them. This is why I have stopped eating. This is my moral stand.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by KObalto

This is why I have stopped eating. This is my moral stand.

You make a compelling and well-documented case.

My main objection to stopping eating is that it seems inevitable that I would have to stop defecating.

There are some pleasures that I refuse to give up.


- B

 

[unagiluva]

I'm confused by this thread. OP asks about whether wearing endangered animal hide is wrong, then moves to state that its unethical to wear animal hide from creatures that are not used for food/died of natural causes, THEN moves to say that its unethical to wear animal hide of the animals HE doesn't like to eat. THEN he chastises people for not addressing the original topic.

Killing any animal only for its hide is probably wrong, whether endangered or not.