But the inhumane slaughter of innocent animals is A-OK FYI, "Animals used for their fur are also trapped in the wild and can suffer for DAYS from blood loss, dehydration, shock, frostbite, and attacks by predators. Many are caught in steel-jaw traps—which slam shut on their legs, often cutting the bone —or conibear traps, which crush animals’ necks with pressure. Trappers have also been known to use water-set traps, which can leave beavers, muskrats, and other animals struggling and in pain before they eventually drown. Think you’ve never worn a dog? Think again. More than half the fur in the U.S. comes from China, where millions of cats and dogs are bludgeoned, hanged, bled to death, and often skinned ALIVE for their fur. Fur that comes from China is often mislabeled, so if you wear any fur, there’s really no easy way of knowing who you’re wearing. It doesn’t matter if it’s a coat or a piece of trim on a hood, all fur is the result of suffering. An animal’s life had to be taken away for it—this is always the true cost of fur"...better reading than Vogue~ Some Luxury fashion brands that are anti - fur as of 2018 buberry versace gucci michael kors armani tom ford stella mccartney vivienne westwood Tommy Hilfiger ralph lauren calvin klein
i believe they placed the ad because the fur companies are losing money and came up with a cockamamie campaign to say that wearing fur is actually good for the planet. People are cruel, to other humans and to animals. Neither is right.
The part of that ad which should have been first in my opinion was - “A beloved fur is often handed down from grandmother to mother to cool modern daughter - and if it is cheerfully remodelled along the way, so much the better!” If your going to wear fur please wear vintage and take care of it. It can last a forever, appreciate it, and preserve it. You don’t need to and shouldn’t harm animals for the sake of their fur when you can wear vintage.
Exactly... there's enough vintage fur around to go along for a long time... no need to produce new. Buy vintage, wear your mother's or grandmother's and appreciate it. I do appreciate it for it's warmth, yes, and my warmest winter coat is a vintage fur I bought in a charity shop. But I wouldn't buy a new one. I'm not buying anything new with some kind of fur trim on it either, but I think of it every day I see all these people with fur bommels on their hat and fur trim on their parkas, which really have been everywhere around here the last couple of years. Ditto for all those down-filled jackets, they too are just everywhere, and happily being worn by people who look down on people who wear fur... sorry, just my humble opinion, but it's what strikes me everytime I see this. And I have heard some of my younger colleagues at work talk like this. Last week I saw a rack of those down-filled jackets outside one of the cheap fashion shops around here. For 25 Francs (about the same in US $) I really don't want to know where and how this was produced and where those feathers came from...
Whatever your thoughts are on fur, the biggest problem (environmentally) is fast fashion. It destroys the natural habitat of animals and people. The current way people buy clothes is just not sustainable. I wear fur but only vintage as any cost to the environment and to animals has already been ‘paid’. But I also try to wear vintage clothing with the exception of shoes. So the ad in Vogue doesn’t appeal to me as I really am trying to only buy second hand.
I agree about the down filled jackets. It is a horror. If you saw what they do to those poor birds...they torture and pluck them raw over and over and over and over again...doing it every 6 months or so...until they just die.....it would break your heart. Lots to comment on here, but I will let it go at that.
I know this isn't a popular opinion, but... the fur industry is a huge economic mainstay for Canada's northern indigenous people, and the anti-fur movement is part of the reason the seal hunt is much smaller than it used to be, which is why there are more seal, and fewer cod in the ocean. Seals are by no means endangered, and the meat is eaten (the flippers are considered a delicacy), so its not just a hunt for the skins. Deer are out of control - its estimated their populations are actually higher now than they were before European contact! They are also the largest spread of lyme disease via ticks. As well, coyotes are growing in numbers and are becoming less afraid of mankind - moving into neighbourhoods for garbage, pets, and abundant wildlife. So, I think its possible to be anti fur when it comes to wild and endangered species, but pro-fur when it comes to some overly abundant species that are out of balance with nature.
My favorite topic - ticks and Lyme disease. Lyme disease comes from a tick that bites an infected animal, most likely a rodent, mouse, squirrel or chipmunk. Deer can not be infected with Lyme disease -- The infected tick can attach to a deer, so the deer can carry them but it's actually more a rodent problem. As everyone pretty much knows I live in the woods and have heard that coyotes are running amuck but in my whole time here I've seen 1. Last week i saw an eagle fly by right over my head, i was almost afraid to say anything as they really like to kill animals around here and might say we now have an eagle infestation and declare eagle hunting soon. (Said in sarcasm - sort of )
Oh wow. That’s horrible about ticks. Knock on wood in my 43 years in Florida I have never had an experience with a tick myself or on my pets. My son did go in the woods one time and did come back with a tick on his head. Fortunately he had a buzz cut and felt it right away in the shower and got it out. Anyways, we have bobcats, owls, rabbits, foxes, iguanas, South African lizards, giant alligators, wild pigs, cardinals, woodpeckers, eagles, raccoons, turtles, all sorts of wildlife, and sand hill cranes who are so friendly, and live right in all of our yards with their family members. This is their land though, we keep building here and taking it away from them so it’s against the law to hurt any of them here. We do also have hunters here but they have to be licensed to be able to hunt, only hunt certain animals at certain times of year, that includes fishing too, and nearly a billion dollars from that licensing in the US goes to the dept of wildlife and conservation to save plants and threatened species so there is at that.
That is an intersting point Jonathan! There are many sides of the story. We just had this big discussion around here due to a referendum (which didn't go through in the end) - basically it was do we keep licensed hunters like we have now who do pretty much what Caryn describes above, and who are also called in when an animal gets hit by a car for example, or do we change to a system of wildlife management only, which would mean letting nature pretty much regulate itself and having full-time rangers looking after it, but not killing animals unless absolutely necessary, and hunting being banned. The fear voiced by many people was that in an area as densely populated as here, this would lead to over-population in the wild and lots of trouble. My colleague told me they had a fox in their garden recently. Not a good sign, she lives in in a city and not even at edges of it, though it's a fairly green areas with lots of gardens etc. We have them here in the big city too - they find enough to live on, and some people even are stupid enough to feed them. But they are carriers of deseases as well. The big discussions around here are usually more around bears and wolves making their way back into the country from other countries around us. Farmers in the mountain areas have been so used to there being nothing out there that's a danger to their livestock (especially sheep) that they have to learn again to take measures to protect their animals. And of course they're the first ones to cry out to have those wolves killed when one goes after their sheep. In some areas they're learning to live with them again (in the grisons there's now an established wolf population and they've had young ones for a few years in a row) but in some areas they seem to be resistant to everything. We'd managed to eradicate wolves, bears and lynx around here for a century or so. That's how far we've come. Lynx were officially reintroduced, but even that got controversial, and some were shot by some idiots.
The vast majority of commercial fur is farmed (bigger pelts and better quality without all the scarring etc. of animals scrapping it out in the real world). Fox and mink farms are still a large business in Canada (about a billion dollars per year), but the majority of the fur goes to Russia and China where there is still a large market for fur coats.
Historically farmers have bred animals rather than having to hunt them over and over. They have been fed well and they have passed within a few minutes of being given medication. As long as ranch breeders have existed this has not changed in any way. If there is a plentiful supply of vintage furs that are still beautiful and properly cared for I would rather see those continue to be loved and for the beauty to still be cherished. The best of the farmers associations have existed for many many years now and have been known to have the finest pelts. Those fine pelts are still used today however those who purchase the pelts in many cases stretch them far beyond what they used to be, hence the finished product not nearly being as good as it used to be. This is, however, the case with much of fashion in fashion history.
They are not out of balance with nature. They are out of balance with human encroachment. The idea of hunting animals to create "balance," when it's our own destruction of their habitat that has created the problem, is a flawed argument. They are not becoming "less afraid" of people, they are becoming more hungry and desperate. If you eat the animal and use all its parts, then that should include the fur/hide. But I've not heard of people eating coyotes or raccoons or mink. If the native people eat seal, there's no reason not to use the fur. It should be used, not wasted. But there's a big difference between hunting for sustenance in a rural area hours from the grocery store and hunting for sport, justifying it with some cockamamie anthropomorphic argument about balance and Lyme disease.
