Oh dear. I would like to express my surprise. This article has just been 'lifted' from Catwalk Queen. You could have at least edited it slightly so that it wasnt exactly the same.

Has no one @ Hippyshopper thought through the green side of fur? I mean, I totally get the 'killing cute little animals' I mean, I don't think that I personally could kill an animal physically, but that is because I have been wrapped in cotton wool all my life. But less of the social implications of living in a western society and more on the fur.

I have to admit, for a long while, I always thought fur was bad because I was told it was bad. In fact, one of the most enduring memories I have about fur is from my childhood. I went to a jumble sale (anyone remember those?) and fell in love with this fur collar from a winter coat. It was just the collar, no coat with it. I bought it with my pocket money, and I remember hiding it under my dress (i wasn't supposed to buy anything) Anyway, I don't think my mum knew about it since it was ages after that she found it. It had been living in my doll box, and mum had come upstairs to play with me. Of course she found the fur collar. Well, I remember being yelled at. How the fur was dirty because it had come off an animal. How the animal had been murdered. She showed my pictures from my story books, and asked me if I liked wearing Wally the Witty Weasel, or if I wanted to eat Marys little lamb. My mum burned the collar in the garden. Since then, I had NEVER questioned what I had been told to believe. (On a side note, I also attribute this event to the reason I started eating meat)
It wasn't until I visited Russia a few years back that I became aware of the true environmentally ethical side of fur and that I realised that I had been wrong. Yes, animals are trapped, but not in some barbaric, torture, cruel way. But not only that, but I saw first hand the ruin and devastation the oil industry cause. It honestly made me think. I have loved fur ever since I was little, and I had thought I had been doing the right thing by buying synthetic. Synthetic means oil. Synthetic is not biodegradable.
I don't think I could EVER buy a fur from an animal from a battery, the same way I could never buy an egg from a battery hen, but at the same time, I would and most likely will buy a fur from small traders that actually use fur trading for their lively hood. They are the ones that know how to treat the animals and they are the ones that will go off into the forest mid summer and not return for many months, living off the land, and producing a carbon footprint so small that I probably have used the same amount in the time it has taken me to write this message using a laptop.

Fur has its pros and cons. It is most definitely not a black and white argument

Posted by: Dani | November 27, 2007 10:50 AM

It's just one of the fur trade's gimmicks to divert people's attention away from the cruelty. An ecological product helps protect and conserve Canada’s treasured wildlife, NOT kill them for needless fur or fashion products.

Sandy Parker Report, one of the fur trade’s own publications, states that China is considering adding pollution tax on fur imported for processing because fur is highly polluting and energy consuming.

According to International Labour Organization, chemicals commonly used to process fur include acids, hydrogen peroxide, chromium, formaldehyde, bleaching agents, and various types of dyes.

Canadian consumers should question just how green it is to trap and kill every year a million of our treasured wildlife? How green are the indiscriminate traps that could injure or kill endangered species? How green are the wastes from millions of caged animals?

How green is cruelty?

Posted by: Fur-Bearer Defenders | November 29, 2007 3:49 AM

I heard read that in 1992 the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that fur apparel advertised as “ecological” was improperly and misleadingly labeled.

In 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined 6 firms $2.2 million for the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Posted by: Nee | November 29, 2007 3:56 AM

Why is fur always compared to fake fur or "synthetic materials"? The alternative to a cruel product is any and every fabric there is. Why not compare fur with cotton?

If we must compare fur with fake fur, a 1979 study by the Scientific Research Lab-oratory at Ford Motor Company compared the amount of energy required to produce real versus synthetic fur coats. A synthetic fur coat was found to require 120,300 BTU (British ThermalUnits), which is approximately equal to the amount of useful energy in one gallon of gasoline(128,000 BTU). A coat made from trapped animals required 433,000 BTU, and a coat made from cage-raised animals required a staggering 7,965,800 BTU—66 times more energy than what is needed for a fake fur. This study took into consideration the feed required for cage-raised animals and the transportation, skinning, scraping, drying, tanning, and dyeing of pelts.

Posted by: Xiao Lan | November 29, 2007 4:10 AM

fcqdvnp xcytlud xwsfkngr rfbwd csjpxwmgn vbsqdtnu otqwlk

Posted by: rcpom kjrxvidu | June 27, 2008 12:35 AM