Fur trade in ireland

daithicarr

I was just reading their how they are banning fur farming in Ireland, and thus reducing jobs and money available to the citizens of this state in a time when we can least afford it.
Fur farming is a industry worth 1.5 billion, if it is carried out in a humane manner with proper guidelines, what makes it different from the raising and killing of other animals.
perhaps we shouldn't kill the poor little calf's and lambs too ?

Amhran Nua

Link from a few days ago...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1012/1224256435882.html

meoklmrk91

The ''little cows and lambs'' are killed because we need food. Animals killed for their fur are killed for vanity. Plain and simple, it's a disgusting act and should been outlawed long ago.

daithicarr

whats the difference, i dont think the cow thinks, well at least they are going to eat me, not like that poor mink they are only going to wear.

should we not use animal products in our clothing then ?

meoklmrk91

daithicarr wrote: »

whats the difference, i dont think the cow thinks, well at least they are going to eat me, not like that poor mink they are only going to wear.

should we not use animal products in our clothing then ?

The difference is why should we raise and subsequently slaughter animals for such a frivolous purpose. Faux fur looks just like the real thing, there is no need for the fur industry to exist anymore.

We need nourishment we need to eat, is that frivolous?, I think not.

cavedave

meoklmrk91

The ''little cows and lambs'' are killed because we need food. Animals killed for their fur are killed for vanity. Plain and simple, it's a disgusting act and should been outlawed long ago.

We do need food. Could you supply a reference that says we need cows and lambs to be this food? Particularly in the amounts we currently eat them.

steamjetjoe

Ok I have a solution:) Why dont we introduce mink & other furry animals into the food chain here, and when we finish carving up the animal we can use its fur, guilt free:D

Getting back to the OP point, I believe this is no time to be worrying about animals welfare when the country is in such a financial state.

daithicarr

we shouldn't abandon animal welfare and other principals because we have a bit of a penny pinch.

But If we kill and use an animal for eating, hows it different from killing it to wear ?

meoklmrk91

daithicarr wrote: »

we shouldn't abandon animal welfare and other principals because we have a bit of a penny pinch.

But If we kill and use an animal for eating, hows it different from killing it to wear ?

Agreed, my point is we don't need to kill animals to wear, it is considered a luxury item certainly not something the everyday person walking down the street needs. But meat is a necessity, everyone needs to get it in some shape or form.

AlekSmart

I remain to be convinced that "Faux-Fur" is any more ecologically sound or environmentally sustainable than animal sourced material.

The methodology of producing "faux" material may well lead directly back to our old friend,hydrocarbons...oil....heat and mechanical processes which most likely do far more lasting damage to the environment than raising,killing and utilising a mink will ever do.

The reality is that if we ARE to become sustainable in any real sense then we need to consider making fuller use of ALL animal parts,such as entrails,coat and bones.

Or is it just easier to stick with Plastic..??

meoklmrk91

Just take a look at this video, while this may not be happening in Ireland [I hope] that does not mean that we can ignore what is happening in the fur industry around the world. I just don't think that we as country can support this kind on barbaric behavior.

WARNING: Not for the faint of heart.

dresden8

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

The difference is why should we raise and subsequently slaughter animals for such a frivolous purpose. Faux fur looks just like the real thing, there is no need for the fur industry to exist anymore.

We need nourishment we need to eat, is that frivolous?, I think not.

The greens will be coming for the beef industry next. Cow farts are destroying the atmosphere.

I'm sure we could find you an equally disgusting video (I haven't watched yours by the way, I really don't need to see that sh1t) in respect of the food trade, and it would be from Ireland.

meoklmrk91

dresden8 wrote: »

The greens will be coming for the beef industry next. Cow farts are destroying the atmosphere.

I'm sure we could find you an equally disgusting video (I haven't watched yours by the way, I really don't need to see that sh1t) in respect of the food trade, and it would be from Ireland.

Totally different kettle of fish bud, even Gormley needs to eat. I would bet my life on the fact that we would all be cycling to work before we would stop eating meat.

Oh and by the way it's not ''my'' video, go ahead and find a video from the Irish food trade that would be just as bad I would be happy to watch. I am more than aware of where my food comes from I know how the cows and other animals are slaughtered.

cavedave

meoklmrk91

But meat is a necessity, everyone needs to get it in some shape or form.

[Citation needed]

peasant

daithicarr wrote: »

if it is carried out in a humane manner with proper guidelines

It isn't.
Not that there are any guidelines anyway.

dresden8

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Totally different kettle of fish bud, even Gormley needs to eat.

But he doesn't need to eat meat. Or even a kettle of fish bud.

I have not made up the greens dislike of the meat/animal industries.

daithicarr

from what i can see is that they use dangerous chemicals in china and keep the animals in poor conditions, much like battery chickens which im not in favour off.

But why not bring in regulations to prevent such practice, rather than out right banning. Chickens, pigs etc are often kept in terrible conditions, people dont propose banning the raising and slaughter of them. just improve the conditions.

Fake fur is made using petro chemicals, real fur is raised using unwanted farm products such as offal, given i dont have any unbiased academic report available, it seems more sustainable.

As for eating meat, quite a few people get buy without it in ireland and live a very healthy life, and even more world wide.

peasant

daithicarr wrote: »

But why not bring in regulations to prevent such practice, rather than out right banning.

That's impossible.
The animals that are being "farmed" for fur (mainly foxes and mink) are predatory animals in nature, territorial and pretty much solitary.

All their instincts and behaviours are set for living in family groups (or even alone in case of males) on their own, large territory and to defend that territory against invaders.

This means you cannot put hundreds of foxes or mink into a nice "free range" setup. Within days they would all have killed each other(or run awy).

These animals simply are not suitable for being "farmed".


What we're doing to pigs and hens in the name of food production also is a scandal and needs improvement.

daithicarr

wasn't suggesting a free range set up, but pens with more space etc, im sure the animals can adapt some what.most animals start off in the wild and adapt, granted over many generations, but they can still adapt in shorter time.
We used to have a fox cub that was like a pet dog, lived and eat in the house etc, despite it not being a Fox's natural environment

peasant

daithicarr wrote: »

wasn't suggesting a free range set up, but pens with more space etc, im sure the animals can adapt some what.most animals start off in the wild and adapt, granted over many generations, but they can still adapt in shorter time.
We used to have a fox cub that was like a pet dog, lived and eat in the house etc, despite it not being a Fox's natural environment

I'm sorry, but that's very naive.

One single fox cub raised like a pet doesn't equal 500 foxes or mink in a "farming" situation.

Fact is, once you contain several hundred foxes or mink in very close proximity (be that in pens or in doll houses) they will get highly stressed. They will do everything to get at each other or to escape. To have them in pens means that they will be digging, nawing, evtl damaging their skin and fur.
The only way to keep them so that their fur can actually be "harvested" is in small wire cages where they can hardly move and certainly not dig or scratch.

The other thing is that a pen would have to be cleaned to prevent the fur from being soiled. Have you tried mucking out 500 highly stressed, angry and agressive foxes or mink?
Once again, a bottomless wire cage where all the excrement simply falls through the holes is the "solution" for keeping these animals on an industrial scale with their main commodity, their fur, intact and in marketable quality.

daithicarr

peasant wrote: »

Have you tried mucking out 500 highly stressed, angry and agressive foxes or mink?

thankfully no, there used to be a cockerel who would rip me to shreds when i went to clean the chicken coup, cant imagine doing it 500 times.

but are you telling me that there is absolutely no way that these animals can be raised in a humane manner ? no way at all?
if so then ill happily accept it should probably be banned.

peasant

daithicarr wrote: »

but are you telling me that there is absolutely no way that these animals can be raised in a humane manner ? no way at all?

That's pretty much what I'm trying to tell you ...not on a commercial scale anyway.

daithicarr

well in that case, let me be one of the few people on the boards to publicly acknowledge my initial assumption and argument may have been wrong

of course, if they can devise a means to farm them without them suffering, id support it.

just as they some how devised a means (in relation to vertical farming) to find out how much room a chicken needs to be happy and incorporate it into their farming methods.

dont now how they judged that one, not my field of knowledge at all, how you can tell a chicken is happy or not.

peasant

daithicarr wrote: »

how you can tell a chicken is happy or not.

goood question, wish I knew the answer
(not having to stuff it with antibiotics and medication to keep it alive and laying might provide a clue though )

daithicarr

well you can tell when its unhealthy, but how tell if a chicken with 1 square meter of living space is happier than the chicken with 2 i dont know, maybe they have chicken psychologists

Stark

daithicarr wrote: »

well you can tell when its unhealthy, but how tell if a chicken with 1 square meter of living space is happier than the chicken with 2 i dont know, maybe they have chicken psychologists

You don't need to chop off the beak of the latter chicken to stop it from attacking itself and other chickens out of frustration.

digiology

Its interesting to see animal fur dismissed as useless luxury and meat somehow a necessity.
Meat eating is a habit and a bad one at that but it would be silly not to realize that people are reliant on meat given that habit.

Fur and meat are just as pointless but there's no point in telling that to someone who eats meat everyday and wonders what the heck vegetarians even eat!

Festus

cavedave wrote: »

[Citation needed]

Ah, I see the Pedantic Society has a presence. I suspect the poster meant

"protein is a necessity..." and as an accepted fact no citation is required.

Given that meat is an efficient, concentrated and overwhelmingly popular source of protein it is a highly desireable protein source, even if not a necessity except for those suffering vegetable allergy.

cavedave

Festus

Ah, I see the Pedantic Society has a presence. I suspect the poster meant

"protein is a necessity..."

I suspect he meant we should all ride magic unicorns. He can answer for himself.

Festus

Given that meat is an efficient

I dont give that meat is efficient. Many other sources of protein are more efficient beans for example.

Festus

digiology wrote: »

Its interesting to see animal fur dismissed as useless luxury and meat somehow a necessity.
Meat eating is a habit and a bad one at that but it would be silly not to realize that people are reliant on meat given that habit.

Fur and meat are just as pointless but there's no point in telling that to someone who eats meat everyday and wonders what the heck vegetarians even eat!

maybe you should work in a sewage treatment plant for an entirely vegetarian community for a few weeks.
It's not the smell - granted it's worse with meat, especially raw meat eaters, it's the volume and density due to excess fibre in the diet. Ever seen how much a horse generates? or a Cow?

Eating too much of the wrong time of animal protein is not good but there are certain nutrients not available from the plant kingdom so unless you have shares or ownership of some dodgy food supplement pill company your argument that eating meat is entirely habitual is fundamentalist vegan.

Festus

cavedave wrote: »

I suspect he meant we should all ride magic unicorns. He can answer for himself.

no doubt they can but a citation request? next there'll be plagiarism checks



I dont give that meat is efficient. Many other sources of protein are more efficient beans for example.[/quote]

I was thinking in terms of digestibility and other considerations. A bean does not have the same protein content as an equivalent measure of meat.

I've often wondered by vegetarians rarely smoke - I guess that must be because of the vast quantities of beans consumed.