• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on furs

Would you support such legislation in your own country?

  • Yes, I would support such legislation in my own country

    Votes: 9 19.6%

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

    Votes: 30 65.2%

  • Other - I will explain my position in a post

    Votes: 7 15.2%
  • Total voters
    46
Shayah said:
Israel Fur Trade Ban Wins Support : Humane Society International



Would you support anti-fur legislation in your own country?
Click to expand...

I support fur trapping. Even though I believe (know) every living creature has some stage of emotions and thought, it is just part of a planets natural ecosystem to have advanced species utilize every part of a less advanced species it is able to consume.

We as humans would not be where we are today if we couldn't figure out how to use fur as blankets, teepees, clothing, etc
 
spud_meister said:
I would in my country with a caveat to allow the trade in furs of feral animals.
Click to expand...

Damn Straight!! best thing we ever did to the rabbit was to turn it into an Akubra

But I would support FARMING of kangaroos - for the reason that they are far far far more "envionmentally freindly" than cattle. The leather is stonger per weight and the meat is the lowest cholesterol meat in the world.
 
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.
 
spud_meister said:
Well, this particular legislation wouldn't.
Click to expand...

its a step in that direction and if you don't like the end goal don't support major steps towards the goal.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Hatuey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Mickey Shane said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
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:
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think possibly in some parts of Russia, but that's just a guess.
 
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.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Actually, the way that minks, foxes, etc. are treated is pretty damn sickening.

Fur farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. At least the suffering of baby seals is over relatively quickly. The suffering of animals on fur farms goes on and on.
Click to expand...

HMPH Well then, we need to push for "free range" fur farms. I see no reason to abuse an animal for months or even years prior to killing it. That's just ****ing evil.
 
rivrrat said:
HMPH Well then, we need to push for "free range" fur farms. I see no reason to abuse an animal for months or even years prior to killing it. That's just ****ing evil.
Click to expand...

Or just ban the practice entirely as unnecessary and cruel. The people who are currently farming minks and foxes and rabbits can switch over to working to collect recycleables to make polarfleece.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Who cares? It's still using an animal for it's skin, even if you're getting something else out of it. Would you change your mind if, for instance, we started making mink steaks?
Click to expand...

Again, I would not support a ban on mink farms. I believe in the free market.
If the mink meat became popular, that would be a good thing in my opinion. However, the main purpose would still be it's fur, so I still wouldn't buy a mink coat. This is just my personal feelings and how I make choices with my own money.. We are still free to make choices in this country.
Cattle are raised for meat. Cow hides are secondary and therefore I see nothing wrong with leather. I eat plenty of meat and hope that as much as possible of the animal is put to good use.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Or just ban the practice entirely as unnecessary and cruel. The people who are currently farming minks and foxes and rabbits can switch over to working to collect recycleables to make polarfleece.
Click to expand...

More government control. :-(
Why not just let the market work? If people feel so stongly against mink farms, don't buy minks. Educate others about what you consider to be cruelty while we still have free speech. If sales drop, mink farmers and all those connected to the mink business will gradually have to come up with a new source of income. You just want an out right ban on something that will put lots of people directly into the unemployment line.

P.S.I bet you're all for banning toys in Happy Meals too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom