Why wearing fur is bad... *Graphic*

[Dougal]

On the chicken route, the only chicken I eat is cornfed.

Much nicer taste and a better colour.

My aunt uses her own chicken eggs in her cakes and where normal cakes are an egg white colour hers come out yellow and are far tastier.

Free range FTW

[Moby-Dick]

well said dangel. There other Organsiation that care for animals , such as the RSCPA. I have much more faith in them than in any extreemist groups such as PETA or ALF ( who seem to value animal life under human life )

These are the people who exhumed the body of an old lady becuase she worked at a research lab.

graverobbing...thats humane isn't it ? I'm sure her family really appreciated it.

[Moby-Dick]

The downside to farming is that the muppets come along and free the mink into an ecology that can't support them. Being an angler i get to see the aftermath that mink leave behind. These animals should all be killed and never brought back into the UK.

yep - the mink isn't the nicest of animals is it ?

[Dougal]

I think that people are taking this thread in two ways.

Xcelsion was pointing at the way the fur was taken, not the people that posted the video.

[shelley bda]

Yes Moby it was on the news today that they are shutting the Guinea pig farm down in the hope the can get the Grandma's body back, surely they can make their point without graverobbing and i hope they are severely punished, what sort of person steals a body and keeps it for nearly a year?

I'm sure that people would have much more sympathy for them if they didn't resort to such tactics

[Moby-Dick]

but given the nature of the people that posted the video , I'm questioning the relevancy of the video. Was it a) recent , b) in this country ?

if the answer to any of the above is true , then the source is irrevelent ( no mater how disturbing ).

Lets take an extreeme example.

Imagine if I was able to video some of the 15th centuries more "creative" tortures.

I coudl then post that video with a sensationalist page about how the british government is torturing people for minor crimes - take to the streets and revolt etc.

but because my vido is several hundred years old it wouldn't really be relevent .

what about if I posted a 2nd video shot in some of the parts of the world systematic torture is still widespead , yet claimed that this was the british governement - it would be equally irrelevent.

[Xaneden]

Dangel, I agree with what you say, and I too am a realist. However, for the reasons I explained in my last post, take the footage at face value. This is not the only footage of such abuse, in fact one could say I have shown the lesser of the bunch (some of which are from non-extreme groups as you would put it); so we can't go along the lines of discrediting this footage.

My point is that such treatment must be deterred by more harsh regulations on fur imports and exports. Although our current laws are stringent, they do not deter the trade.

#EDIT#

Moby Dick, surely this is not a matter of who we are to attribute this to? I see your point that the picture is only relevent depending on how you set it, but can this be perceived in any other way? As I mentioned, this is not the only example of such cruelty, I have merely selected one which is less harsh (though on retrospect it would have been better to choose one from a better source to show, but nevermind).

As far as I am aware, this was done in an Eastern Europe within the last 15 years (from the quality of the film). I'll try to find out for you though.

[dangel]

well said dangel. There other Organsiation that care for animals , such as the RSCPA.

Here, here - i'd certainly rather give them both my support AND hard earned. At least you know it's going to do some good.

[Xaneden]

dangel I didn't suggest you give your money or utmost support to such groups, I merely suggested you put your name down for a specific fur trade petition. As long as you are aware of what you are agreeing to (and therefore make sure you do agree with the terms); I see no problem in adding your name to a petition, regardless of organisation.

[Moby-Dick]

As far as I am aware, this was done in an Eastern Europe within the last 15 years (from the quality of the film). I'll try to find out for you though.

Please do -

so do you thjink that all the world governments have done anything at all in the last 15 years ?

I'm sensing that we are only getting half the story here ?

British Regulations on fur farming are considerably more strict - I dont think you'd get that happening here.

Why not campagin in eastern europe ?

I'm going to stand by my view that your evidence is out of date and not relevent to the british fur trade, Untill you can proove to me otherwise.

[dangel]

Dangel, I agree with what you say, and I too am a realist. However, for the reasons I explained in my last post, take the footage at face value. This is not the only footage of such abuse, in fact one could say I have shown the lesser of the bunch (some of which are from non-extreme groups as you would put it); so we can't go along the lines of discrediting this footage.

Yes, but that's just the polar opposite of the real issue here - how can we assign *any* credit to footage that isn't backed up chronologically and with some ideal of where it came from? Journalists have to back up 'evidence' for example, and if they're interested in a criminal investigation they should have to do the same. If it were that irrefutable we'd see it all over the news etc.

I realise it's a very emotive issue - and that it's very easy for people to take advantage of us as a nation of animal lovers - but I for one refuse to throw all sanity to the wind at the merest hint of wrongdoing. To do so smacks of mob rule which is a huge step back for society - especially (as someone else pointed out) when it results in other animals (known as humans) being attack ed as a result. To achieve political change by violence is terrorism, no matter how many fluffy bunny wabbits are involved.
Yes animal cruelty is wrong, but there are laws in place *right now* that make it wrong to do so.

[dangel]

dangel I didn't suggest you give your money or utmost support to such groups, I merely suggested you put your name down for a specific fur trade petition. As long as you are aware of what you are agreeing to (and therefore make sure you do agree with the terms); I see no problem in adding your name to a petition, regardless of organisation.

Sorry - this is coming off as a personal affront against you and that's far from the truth. Put it this way - if the RSPCA asked me to sign i'd do it, if the ALF did i wouldn't. Dead simple.

[Xaneden]

I agree that our laws are fairly broad over the issue and extensive (but with room for improvement). You mentioned campaigning in Eastern Europe, Moby Dick, which is a nice idea, but a falliable one for one reason. The people who cull animals for fur (either humanely or more violently) do not do so for the hell of it, but for the money. You can protest and campaign there all you want, but I doubt people (which admitingly live in poor conditions and in economic ruin) would give up their only source of income unless that source no longer existed. The true solution is for the European/American countries (the buyers) to enact such laws unanamously, so that the demand for fur would be halted more strongly. If to at least some extent each major (rich) European/American country banned the trade of fur, I would be surprised if fur sales would not conseqentially slump. Britain can only do so much, and I agree other countries must play their part too.

Also, the fact that its not happening here on British soil doesn't demote from the fact it is happening at all.

[Moby-Dick]

but the source will exist ? untill they make said enimal extinct ?
you'd happily put people who are well below the poverty line, even further below it ?

admitidelty , your average Eastern European peasent isn't that cute , so its fair to say they don't have much sympathy for their only source of income.

we only seem to want to save the cute animals dont we ? (this isn't a personal attack , more of a commentry on "animal welfare" ) why not move the framing to somewhere with tighter laws on how the animals can be kept ( which would proably make it more expensive , but as a fur coat is classed as a luxury item , thats not really the end of the world ) or encourage investment in the poor areas so they can either open better, more humane farms , or do something like brutal instead ( in the words of "why dont you ?" )

[Moby-Dick]

Lots of bad things are happening around the world though....why not campaign for them ? I'd suggest you start with Amnesty International - they'll tell you what you need to know and if you are really lucky give you some nice gory videos

[Xaneden]

Well one problem at a time. I'm sure you can appreciate how corrupt things tend to be in such countries as Ukraine etc, so promoting economical growth in such areas would be difficult if not impossible. If countries like Ukraine bring in their own laws (which I doubt would be upheld), and humane culling was to be made the status quo, it would appear to be both fairer on the good farmers and on the animals themselves. I would not expect this to make any real effect though, as these abusive farmers would probably not be pulled up, and even if they were, I doubt the Ukrainian powers that be would bother prosecuting.

I don't see how this would realistically put farmers out of pocket if laws governing how culling should be undertaken were brought into power in such countries, however, getting those laws into power in the first place is improbable.