View Poll Results: Would you support such legislation in your own country?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I would support such legislation in my own country

    11 19.64%
  • No, I would oppose such legislation in my own country

    38 67.86%
  • Other - I will explain my position in a post

    7 12.50%
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 130

Thread: Ban on furs

  1. #61
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Ban on furs

    I can see bans on endangered species and such; but not an overall ban. I wouldn't support a total ban on fur, even though I don't own any fur.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #62
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,683

    Re: Ban on furs

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I don't support killing animals simply for fur but I don't see a need to ban people from wearing it. The only requirements I'd have for wearing fur would be that the animals not be endangered and that the fur be obtained through humane means.
    sounds reasonable to me

    here is a question

    when I went to Grand Cayman I visited a turtle farm where they raised turtles for repopulation to the wild. THey also harvested some of the turtles and by selling meat and shells could help fund this farm which put hundreds of endangered turtles back in the sea. Yet because of CITES and other laws the US signed, I could not buy say a turtle shell and bring in back to the states. In other words, laws in the USA designed to help save endangered turtles actually retarded the efforts of this farm to repopulate the Atlantic with these same animals

    SO if say Kenya raises an animal the USA says is endangered and seeks to sell the fur in order to due what this farm did, I would suggest that a rule on endangered species be very specific



  3. #63
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Ban on furs

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    sounds reasonable to me

    here is a question

    when I went to Grand Cayman I visited a turtle farm where they raised turtles for repopulation to the wild. THey also harvested some of the turtles and by selling meat and shells could help fund this farm which put hundreds of endangered turtles back in the sea. Yet because of CITES and other laws the US signed, I could not buy say a turtle shell and bring in back to the states. In other words, laws in the USA designed to help save endangered turtles actually retarded the efforts of this farm to repopulate the Atlantic with these same animals

    SO if say Kenya raises an animal the USA says is endangered and seeks to sell the fur in order to due what this farm did, I would suggest that a rule on endangered species be very specific
    Interesting. Most of the U.S. legislation designed to help animals has actually been detrimental to them. Most of our environmental laws are based on emotion instead of common sense. For example, millions of dollars are spent every year on imposing fees and fines for hunters and yet in the Pacific Ocean there are garbage wastelands which have put California's marine ecosystem at risk. People care more about their pets than the actual environment. All the money which is spent trying to enforce bans pitbulls and rottweilers could just as easily be spent on sanctuaries for the thousands of dogs which the ASPCA ends up killing every year. It makes absolutely no sense. I'd support scrapping most of the environmental laws designed to protect animals and starting from scratch and with an emphasis on prevention. The majority of hunters I know in both the U.S. and Canada are highly supportive of plans to protect species used in the fur trade. Afterall, hunting isn't much fun without them. It's extremist leftist groups like PETA, ELF and ALF which have destroyed any kind dialogue in the matter.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #64
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,683

    Re: Ban on furs

    Hunters as fishermen are almost always truer conservationists than animal rights extremists if for no other reason than self interest. The vast majority of animal rights whackos I have met (and I have debated Ingrid NewKook, Wayne Pacells and others on live talk shows) don't know the difference between a great horned owl and a wombat and their "education" as to wild animals seems to have come from watching Bambi a dozen times while tripping on acid



  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Timbuktu
    Last Seen
    01-30-12 @ 08:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,730

    Re: Ban on furs

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    A buddy and I ran a trap line in Nebraska throughout our high school years. We were licensed and obeyed all of the trapping rules. We started with leg hold traps but soon exchanged them for 'killer' traps (2 squares of steel rod that snap closed on the animal's neck) as they are much more humane and you don't get trapped animals chewing off their leg to free themselves. We started out skinning, salting, stretching, and drying the pelts, but soon found out that it payed almost as much to bring in the whole animal carcasses.

    Muskrats were our biggest seller, followed by rabbits. Never caught a mink. They are much too wily to fall for a trap. We did get one red fox. I still have a fond memory of getting up at 4:00a to go out into the snow to check the traps before school. Threw away many gloves that had to handle skunk sprayed traps.

    Yep, as the little 'ol left wing fur trapper, I would be against a ban on fur. Fur coats are for the most part out of style these days. When I was in high school, rabbit coats were the big thing for the girls to wear. They were everywhere you looked.
    I too had a trapline with a friend through my school years. Used to wake up about 2hrs before school and check my traps before it was light out. If we checked them just before daylight there was a lot less chance of chew-offs. Later we perfected drowning sets and were able to check them after school.

    We trapped many muskrats, a few mink, a few raccoons, a few beaver, and got lucky with an otter in our trap once.

    Even though it was a small profit and not a big payoff we mostly did it for the outdoor experience.
    Last edited by creativedreams; 09-07-10 at 07:44 PM.

  6. #66
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Ban on furs

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Hunters as fishermen are almost always truer conservationists than animal rights extremists if for no other reason than self interest. The vast majority of animal rights whackos I have met (and I have debated Ingrid NewKook, Wayne Pacells and others on live talk shows) don't know the difference between a great horned owl and a wombat and their "education" as to wild animals seems to have come from watching Bambi a dozen times while tripping on acid
    I think the issue is that the message has been lost because of over-reach. You have people who want to save the world with slogans like 'SAVE THE AMAZON'. While those are truly admirable causes, I think it would be easier to actually get some work done if more specific goals were set. I've done some work for groups like Amnesty International and have gotten some insight into how large scale UN funded operations go. From the stories I've heard of friends who've done work for environmental groups, they're not much different. Basically the way it works is that some guy walks into a room full of bright eyed environmentalists and writes a slogan on a large white board. Then after the slogan is created they set goals. These goals however seldom go into detail. They're not really explained to the people on the ground. You have thousands of kids around the world who are currently volunteering for environmental goals too large to accomplish. It's quite sad because they end up being counter productive.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Ban on furs

    I wouldn't support a complete ban, but a ban on endangered species. I have a relative who partakes in the annual seal hunt and the proceeds support his family. Not to mention it's not harming the seal species. Furs are also very useful to many indigenous peoples in the arctic regions, so no, I don't support the emotional knee jerk reaction laws.

    Idealistically speaking, I wish we lived in a world where people treated animals with respect and as their relatives, and maybe didn't have a need to eat them, but we aren't there yet. In the mean time, reasonable laws are needed, and unreasonable ones should not become a factor.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Ban on furs

    I see no reason why we should maintain a cruel and inhumane trade for the sole purpose of human vanity. For the record, I have no problems with hunting animals for food, we are omnivores, and most humans require protein in the form of animal flesh for good health. However, killing them solely for their furs is simply despicable. I am not aware of native people--anywhere--who kill animals solely for their furs and don't use the animals for food.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 09-08-10 at 11:54 AM.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,800

    Re: Ban on furs

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    I see no reason why we should maintain a cruel and inhumane trade for the sole purpose of human vanity. For the record, I have no problems with hunting animals for food, we are omnivores, and most humans require protein in the form of animal flesh for good health. However, killing them solely for their furs is simply despicable. I am not aware of native people--anywhere--who kill animals solely for their furs and don't use the animals for food.
    I think possibly in some parts of Russia, but that's just a guess.

  10. #70
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on furs

    I'm sorry, but people who go club baby seals for their fur need to be shot.

    Other than stupid **** like that, I don't have an issue with the fur trade per se. I would want to ban the sale of any endangered species fur, though.

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •