The tide is turning......

[Guest]

On boxing day I was exhausted so watched racing at Kempton on the tv. Unusually, there didn't seem to be much fur.

 

Then yesterday at the races there were hundreds of ladies...many of them younger, wearing all manner of furs from fox trimmmed shearlings to rabbit with fox trims, several silver fox trimmed astrakhans, to some fabulous swirling minks.

 

And hundreds of fox hats.

 

So waht happened on boxing day?

 

Well, in my laziness I gorgot where I should have been too. Side by side with the THIRD OF A MILLION people who turned out in force to support the three hundred hunts that met on boxing day:

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/26/uhunt126.xml

 

 

Make no mistake about it the same scumbags that oppose the hunts oppose fur aswell and NEVER forget this vile corrupt government led by Blair and his filthy New Labour cronies also banned mink farming, and in doing so broke British Constitutional law. They banned it on grounds of "public morality".....that sets a terrible and dangerous precedent. In banning foxhunting too they used the Parliament act to overule the House of lords...something that act was never supposed to be used for.

 

But the tide is turning and people are getting fed up of them and animal rights.

 

A third of a million people...that is something huh?

 

Antis on the other hand were scarce, and on our local hunt apparently one person turned up with a banner saying "we are watching you". Everyone was polite to the person, and then a lady rider approached him. She said shouldn't your sign say "I am watching you"?

That person then shrugged, threw down the placard and applauded the Hunt too.

 

The countryside alliance is providing a strong adversary against the Animal Rights movement, and three former members of the league Against Cruel Sports now support them and foxhunting.

 

The battle against Animal Rights will be won on the hunting issue. Please support our allies against evil.

[LordTheNightKnight]

On boxing day I was exhausted so watched racing at Kempton on the tv. Unusually, there didn't seem to be much fur.

 

Then yesterday at the races there were hundreds of ladies...many of them younger, wearing all manner of furs from fox trimmmed shearlings to rabbit with fox trims, several silver fox trimmed astrakhans, to some fabulous swirling minks.

 

And hundreds of fox hats.

 

So waht happened on boxing day?

 

Well, in my laziness I gorgot where I should have been too. Side by side with the THIRD OF A MILLION people who turned out in force to support the three hundred hunts that met on boxing day:

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/26/uhunt126.xml

 

 

Make no mistake about it the same scumbags that oppose the hunts oppose fur aswell and NEVER forget this vile corrupt government led by Blair and his filthy New Labour cronies also banned mink farming, and in doing so broke British Constitutional law. They banned it on grounds of "public morality".....that sets a terrible and dangerous precedent. In banning foxhunting too they used the Parliament act to overule the House of lords...something that act was never supposed to be used for.

 

But the tide is turning and people are getting fed up of them and animal rights.

 

A third of a million people...that is something huh?

 

Antis on the other hand were scarce, and on our local hunt apparently one person turned up with a banner saying "we are watching you". Everyone was polite to the person, and then a lady rider approached him. She said shouldn't your sign say "I am watching you"?

That person then shrugged, threw down the placard and applauded the Hunt too.

 

The countryside alliance is providing a strong adversary against the Animal Rights movement, and three former members of the league Against Cruel Sports now support them and foxhunting.

 

The battle against Animal Rights will be won on the hunting issue. Please support our allies against evil.

 

Actually, I believe in animal rights. They have the right not to be treated cruelly, but if done right, an animal can be raised for its parts in a far better way than they would be killed for food in the wild.

 

And not only would I like to see fur farming back in Britain, I would also like to see a pic or video of this moment moaned about by anti-fur people, where the Queen wore an ermine cape and ermine-trimmed skirt when discussing the fur farming protests.

[Guest]

I didn't know about that Lord...do you have a reference? That is amazing if it happened...I love the Royal family purely because they have only survived because it is assumed they could be a consttituational resistance to fascism and communism. So without saying no, that instance would be the greatest symbol that could happen.

 

On foxhunting btw it is also often said by AR people that other animlas do not kill for fun sport or kill competition.

 

Just in the last ten years that has been proved utter rubbish. Lions persecute cheetah, as do leopards; chimps persecut other monkeys, etc BEFORE the common prey. So with this in mind, humanss are pretty decnt in terms of vermin (competition) control as we allow, in fact encourage, co existence...unlike lions.

[White Fox]

A long, long time back the Queen was given a white fur cape by the people of Canada. That was back in probably the late 50's as I recall. It of course has not been used that much so it might just be in existence and the one that she was wearing at that time. I can't remember but it might just have been ermine.

W

[Guest]

you may be right whitefox. I know that the Cree for instance have a special relationship with the Royal family over hunting/fur and Prince Charles in aprticular shares ther pro hunting/fur/traditions stance yet also their concern about the environment,conservation, habitat protection etc.

 

Did you know the Cree still call Queen Victoria "Grandmother"? Must annoy the anti monarchy lobby in Canada huh?

[White Fox]

Probably does, though that movement is not very strong. Yes, there are many folk who would vote against not keeping it if that vote came up. But few would get very worked up over comments about it. It is dying a slow death from less and less loyalty as many consider it as outdated. But few would fight very hard to keep it OR throw it out.

 

There is actually a very famous photo of the queen wearing that stole. However, I cannot remember for the life of me what kind of fur it was. That photo still hangs on many school walls here even though the queen is just a "Young chick" back then.

 

I do remember of her saying that it was a very valued gift.

 

W

[frugalfurguy]

You're calling up memories.

 

It was a National Geographic article on Sir Winston Churchill. There was a B&W photo showing the just-crowned queen greeting Sir Winston at #10 Downing Street. She was wearing a lonnnnnnng white fur stole that came down about halfway down her thighs. I loved that photo.

 

Don't have it anymore.

 

So was that before there were enough white mink reared to make a stole? Does that mean it was ermine without the tails? Are there other photos of her wearing that stole?

[LordTheNightKnight]

She wears many stoles in many pics, most of them are white mink, which she seemed to favor, although they weren't always the same wrap. Margaret was the one with the ermine wraps.

 

You can find several pics of them in fur wraps at operagloves.com.

[Guest]

say Lord....any chance ofdoing us a fur clad villainess superheroine? Check out the new Supergirl in the old denne pub for inspiration. She isn't wearing fur but she is pretty hot and a bad girl.

 

As for the Royals..yes Margaret is the one I always associate with furs. There are a few of her in mink coats ect on Getty images.

[White Fox]

Now here is a question for all. Why did royals seem to favor ermine? What was it like as a fur in feel, texture, etc.? I've always thought it looked like mink but never saw it. I've always thought it must be very rare as only royals would wear it.

 

And lastly why do we not see it today? Is there something about ermine that makes the fur of less use? Can they not be bred in captivity, etc.?

 

W

[ReFur]

Good question, White Fox,

 

Maybe you should post this question to the experts forum? I will copy your post for you and post the quaetion there as well.

 

I would love to know the answer.

 

Linda

[sta]

Hopefully, we can have a mature debate about this. It is wrong to assume that because people are pro fur then they are pro hunting. Not true. I grew up in a farming family with a large dairy farm in East Devon. As a child I was made to go hunting on foot at first and then mounted. I have always enjoyed riding (or hacking as we Brits call it) but for me I hated hunting. I saw first hand foxes chased to exhaustion then torn apart screaming in agony and fear. And those foxes that went to ground were dug out and tormented by terriers, then either bludgeoned by shovels or thrown to the hounds, very rarely were they ever shot as is assumed. Many of the terriermen gained a lot of pleasure from tormenting the terrified creatures. In addition to this I was made to attend stag hunts on Exmoor. Same situation again, stags were chased to exhaustion, etc, etc. My family are still farming, but mainly at a loss. Several years ago when the Countryside Alliance come along the genuine farming community saw a light for their dwindling lifestyle. Originally touted as an organisation to save homes for country people and to campaign for better prices from milk distributors and supermarkets, however, as the major backers of the CA are obssessed with hunting the whole organisation was hijacked with a pro hunting agenda. And as genuine country people we have lost one the last hopes we had. Across the UK people are being pushed out of their villages by city people buying 2nd homes, many of them are true blue right wingers who are pro CA and have never been on a hunt and have no idea that their 2nd home, supermarket prices lifestyle is destroying the very countryside that they think they are a part of. I am indeed pro-fur, but only if it is fur from Scandinavian, US or Canadian farms where welfare standrds are exceptional. I find it hard to understand why the torment and killing of animal for pleasure is acceptable in these modern times.

Hopefully, I've made a good point and people here can understand what I'm getting at. Hunting is pointless, but the use of animals for clothing and meat is acceptable as long as welfare standards are high. Mounted hunting offers no means of vermin control, far more foxes are shot, poisioned or run over than are hunted. And as for Stag hunting, I have seen it many times and it is obscene. When Stags are culled by trained marksmen it is quick and trauma free. In addition to this the meat can then be used and is worth several

[ReFur]

sta,

 

I can really relate to your post, and I know there are those that feel strongly the other way.

 

I have friends that hunt and the use the animals for food. They love being outdoors. They do not torment the animals.

 

Hunting and tormenting animals to death are two different things. Hunting in groups and taking pleasure in the kill like this is common in pack animals, isn't it?

 

Where I live we have Black Bear, which must be hunted to control the danger they can bring to a community, if their numbers get too large. But, it is always sad when they have to die. They are such beautiful animals!

 

We also have way too many Coyote. They feel no sensitivity to eating my cats, either! I must admit, when they are hunted I do not feel sad at all.

[Guest]

Sta

the language you use is emotive. It is therefore not rational and impossible to debate with logic.

 

To begin with you have used this:

 

"foxes chased to exhaustion then torn apart screaming in agony and fear".

 

 

 

It is complete codswallop. The same kind of nonsense that the anti fur people come out with. it is a lie, based on misinterprteation of what is happening due to ignorance of biological science, and hunting methods. I have been on hundreds of hunts and have never seen deliberately tormented animals.

 

It takes less than three seconds for hounds to despatch a fox. By the time they are torn apart they are completely dead.

They are not exhausted unless they are inadequate....sick or injured or old. These are the foxes that inevitably look for domestic stock. Healthy foxes seldom take domestic stock and are in fact a help to farmers as they control rabbits. Healthy foxes inevitably escape....the hounds ar no match for them. Only once I have seen a healthy fox cornered by hounds and the huntsman...whose job it is solely to ensure quick kill....rescued and bagged it. It was released ten munutes later deep in the forest. The foxes I have seen killed have been absolutely minging and the hunts did a service to them. On several ocassions the amount of mange was so bad the hounds had to have special baths afterwards.

 

Hunting is not pointless it in the UK is about management of nature, whether deer or fox. It is done in a natural way as it would be if there were no humans. The dog is domesticated lupus or jackus the foxes natural enemy in the wild. Animals CONTROL their rivals. Leopard kill cheetah , eagle kill fox etc. They do not just kill the animals they prey on. They kill rivals. The fox has no rival in nature, and it does not control its own population except by complete exhaustion of food supply. Too many fox are therefore in fact a danger to themselves, and devastate areas of wildlife.

The discriminative nature of hunting with hounds (only dirty old male foxes are scented generally and it is they who are the problem...a marksman CANNOT decide that..neither an eagle for it is a sight bird; Females are not generally killed; Marksmen cannot make that decision) make it the only and most ethical way.

The fox does not disperse it young like the big cat and does not restrict its breeding to an alpha system like the wolf. It rellies solely for self control on jackus and lupus and eagle...creatures we have removed from their eco system. Hunting puts them back, as was the intention of those who invented it....the celts and normans....the whole thing is based on a chivalrous code of fair play, ritual which gives the animals respect rather than killing them all indiscriminately as the saxon peasants did. The point of foxhunting is the chase and dispersal NOT death, The digging of a fox is only done when a farmer reports persistant damage to livestock. In Ireland the Hunts have a legal obligation to dig because of this.

 

 

Fear is a natural biological motivator like the urge to reproduce or eat . A fox knows that part of its life..as all animals know...is to flee when chased. Fear is the motivator that activates adrenalin and therefore the animla is literally excited to flee. When we remove this motivaor,,,from humans for example...we crave it...hence rollercoasters and horror movies. In animals....horses for example, they "invent" enemies when they are bored, and a rustling bag will do as a tiger....he will "spook" for sheer fun. Fear=fun. Adrenalin=excitement. Do not anthropomorphise creatures based on your alienation from nature. Enough of us humans get annoyed with that.....people love adrenalin....so yes...it is exciting to ride a harley without a helmet and if people want to do it they should be able to. Animals love it even more and it gives them a belief in their superiority to evade capture. In the event they....fox, hare, antelope...are killed, then the adrenalin is so high that they feel NO pain.

The other day I had a difficult horse to manage. My adrenalin was up. The horse bit me, hard. I felt nothing until an hour later when the pain kicked in after the adreanlin had worn off. When one is relaxed and gets a horse bite it hurts immediately.

Another example is the pain when you stub a toe aunexpectedly, and its searing. Howver when you play football you can actually break toes and not know you have done it. Adrenalin is a soldiers best weapon. It is also the greatest painkiller known to man. A chased fox is as high as a kite on adrenalin and does not scream in agony when caught. Its over before it knows about it.

 

Many horses are bored stiff without hunting. They are complete adrenalin junkies. You may be excited by a ride but the horse isn't necessarily. It needs herd dynamics in wild recreation. Racing staisfies them for a while, but they get bored with that. They need the recreation of chase..and hunting provides it. Even horses who have never hunted know the sound of a huntsmans horn.and their ears will prick every time.

 

Stag hunting when done by deerstalking can be okay agreed. But it is not always possible. The National Trust is now desperately calling for the ban on staghunting to be removed, as they are failing to manage the herds effectively, and sickness is spreading through them.

 

But essentially what it comes down to is not just conservation, for which hunting is absolutely and repeatedly said by conservationists to be a good thing for habitat protection, or biology, but ethics.

 

Either we have the right to use animals for whatever purpose, or they have the right to live without any use by humans.

 

There is no grey area. It is a question of ethics logic.

 

If the latter is true....then hunting fur and meat are completely wrong.

If the former is true then they are right..........the only grey within that is a question of fairness, welfare etc.

 

Since every animal has the right to kill or defend itself then all is fine in nature's morality....which is the only one that counts. Yes it may distress you to see a lion eat a cheetah cub, or a fox killed by hounds. But that is natures way. One hunt recently was out until after midnight because they knew their marksman had "winged" a fox not kiled it outright, and nobody could bear the thought of it suffering.

The alternatives to foxhunting are ALL indiscriminate, and unatural. There is nothing natural about a bullet or poison.

I would prefer to see pigeons controlled by hawks and rats controlled by terriers and mice controlled by cats and rabbits by ferrets. This is why these animlas are our friends. They are our hunting allies. Poisons is a disgusting way to die and the preferred method of labour councils to control vermin. It sucks. It can take days for an animla to die and works its way up the food chain to non target animals. The death is agonising. But thats okay isn't it with the plebs because posh people are not running around on horses or wearing them for vanity?

 

 

The Burns report concluded that foxhunting does not compromise animal welfare. This was the expert opinion that the government commissioned and then the bigoted New Labour scumbags ignored it.

 

I can think of a hundred objections ethically to dairy farming, meat and things that you would think acceptable. I do not...think they are acceptibl on WELFARE grounds. The fur trade or foxhunting do NOT deprive the young from the milk of their mother. Dairy farming does...it IS ethically possible to object to it on welfare grounds. Its personal at the end of the day, morality. If you do not like hunting do not hunt; if you do not like the idea of fur do not wear fur. But you have NO moral right to interfere with anyone else....unless the Animal Rights ethical stance is true. In which case meat and even pet ownership IS ethically wrong.

 

Quite clearly they are bonkers. As I was saying a cheetah has the right to kill gazelle, and a leopard has the right to kill the cheetah . And man has the right to intervene so the leopard does not kill too many. If we remove ourselves from that process the cheetah is doomed to extinction. PETA do not care. Likewise, we have the right to control fox and deer.....rats pigeons etc. And it is best that is done with natural "bio" controls...hounds cats hawks etc. in a framework which allows for mutual coexistence in harmonious balance.

 

And finally as far as I am concerned the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And...likewise, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. YOU do not have the right to enforce your morality here any more than a PETAphile does on us. The CA is the only credible resistance in the UK to the AR movement and I hereby move that the den support it.

 

This is an issue of Liberty and Tolerance and Understanding and Conservation against Fascism, Ignorance, Bigotry, Envy and habitat destruction, and a belief system which flies in the face of nature.

 

And you are either on one side of the fence or the other.

 

Your issues with the CA are also not based on reality . One look at their site would show you they are indeed adressing many of your other concerns.

 

Sometimes you have to fight alongside people who you do not agree with to defeat a greater evil. So your choice is the "true blue" or the PETAphile New Labour. Or you can kiss goodbye to all fur aswell as hunting if the b***** get in again.

 

Alos I may add it is NOT absolutely essential (though desirable) that fur farming with its high welfare standards, be kept as beneficial to Conservation efforts...except in the case of fur farms run by the Evenk in Siberia...notably absent from you list of ethical fur. Hunting howver IS eessential for conservation and is protected and rights enshrined under the Rio Declaration on the environment....which will be broken by the British government when it bans sealskins. I hope the Inuit nail Blair's ass to the wall in the UN. But the actual phrasing of the Declaration says:

"indigenous populations have the right to control their own environments throught the use of traditional methods and practices".

That means hunting. And as the celts are the indigenous peple of the British isles and invented stag and fox hunting with hounds, and it has continued adapted by Norman gentry since, then one could even put forward an argument for that. For one thing is for sure......the Durrell Institute (yes the Naturalist) has proclaimed the massive conservation benefits of such traditions in the UK:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/anthropology/dice/resources/fieldsports&conservation.pdf

 

Now I am not a fur fetishist as such. Sure I like women in fur...but it isn't essential. I am here because I passionately believe that fur and hunting offer protection through incentive conservation, and that the forces of "civilised, modern world" offer only annihilation of the entire planet. So I will fight for both....but my motivation is FOR animals. So read that article and then reflect on it while you ponder New labour's plans to build new towns all over the countryside, an experiment which caused near extinctions of many animals in the 60s in the UK such as great crested newt and lizards and voles and others. I was brought up in a new town which grew unchecked until vast animal habitats were systematically destroyed while the council just kept criticising hunting. It is a hypocrisy that I will NEVER let them do again.

 

And yes I can understand what you witnessed as a child upset you. Just because you witness something does not mean you understand what is happening. When I was 10 and first saw a boy shagging a girl I thought it was the most disgusting thing I could ever imagine.

 

oh and as a footnote I might add that the only women in general to defiantly wear fur during these times of thuggery against fur, in the UK, have been ladies connected with hunting/horse racing. And often thet go out of their way to buy NATIVE produced fur as there is a growing worldwide pro hunting alliance , and it is conservation led. Ask Prince Charles. Meanwhile your paris hiltons soon change their tune. The haven't the education or tradition to fur that say the Royal family have as custodians of the land with an alleginace to to the traditions of native hunting in Canada for example.

 

Andd you are banned from our hunt ball and all the ladies in furs until you change your tune Sta !!!!

[Guest]

From Marc Almond, lecturer in modern History at Oxford, as published in the Daily telegraph 1998, a summary of the relationship between Animal Rights, Buddism/nazi mysticism, anglo saxon culture and Nazi legislation banning foxhunting:

 

"The teetotal and vegetarian Fuhrer was by nature against hunting on grounds of cruelty, but riding to hounds roused the ire of the socialist in Hitler

[worldsdivide]

Don't you often accuse PETA and other people with viewpoints contrary to your own of spouting propaganda?

 

That seemed like a whole lot of it there.

[Guest]

Propaganda is the use of information slogan and image with emotive content designed to influence, even brainwash people of simple mind unable to digest argument in depth.

 

I howver have given you two references, neither of whom are connected with hunting in any way sahpe or form.

 

The fisrt was the Durrell institute which was created by naturalist gerald durrell....who you would assume had an anti hunting view...not so...and cited by the University of Kent anthropology department.

 

Secondly was the work of Mark Almond, head of modern History at oxford university.

 

I cannot think of any more academic sources that are COMPLETELY independent from hunting. OBJECTIVE in other words.

 

PETA by contrast, along with other AR organisations , NEVER produce any academic evidence from independent sources. they us slogan image and emotive argument: ie PROPAGANDA.

 

My own words are rational argument. An opinion should be based on rational argument, information , and evidence , before it can be given any weight.

 

I can produce a wealth of evidence to support my argument from a huge amount of independent sources if you so wish. However You should not even have an opinion if you have not read the Burns report, or the findings of the British Veterinary Associations. Here is the British Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management, whic shows you the problem with the shooting argument as far as welfare is concerned for example (48%-60% wound ratio...that NEVER happens with hounds):

 

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.org.uk/foxes.html

 

I do not hunt and my only interest in hunting is from a conservation perspective.

 

This is now established fact and to suggest otherwise is grossly ignorant. A government, acting partly from the politics of envy and partly from a one million pounds bribe from the AR movement is compromised. It ignored the findings both of its own inquiry which found foxhunting NOT to be an animal welfare issue, and also the findings of the EEC report on fur farming as ultravixen showed us. THIS is acting WITHOUT rational foundation and due to ideology and ignorance.

Here is wikepedia , again an objective source:

 

Foxhunts provide and maintain habitat for foxes and other game, and, in the U.S., have been leaders in fostering conservation legislation and putting land into conservation easements. It is also argued that hunting with dogs has the advantage of weeding out weaker animals because the strongest and healthiest foxes are those most likely to escape. Therefore, unlike other methods of controlling the fox population, it is argued that hunting with dogs does help keep the fox population healthy and, in this respect, that it resembles natural predation by wild animals. [12]

 

 

 

There are people here who know who I am and can vouch for the fact that I am not a hunter, and have researched hunting all over the world in many manifestations and concur with the bulk of modern conservationist thinking that both Hunting and the fur trade are beneficial to conservation goals. Do you wish me to quote further sources, evidence, and academic opinion? If so this could go on for a great deal of time and the only counter argument is PETA's.

 

You cannot think fur is okay and hunting morally wrong. It is an impossible rational position.

Edited December 29, 2006 by Guest

[White Fox]

Folks, there has been some extremely deep thought here in this thread.

 

However, some of it is not exactly on topic. The topic here is fur and not hunting! Discussing hunting within the context of fur is certainly on topic, but we have suddenly left that area far behind now. It is just that we do not want to make any posts here that will give any "Fodder" for PETA to munch on. And that is exactly where this is going! I do think that many of us would agree that animal rights and wearing fur are not related. Many of us are animal lovers, but we see animals in the context of nature and not Bambi.

 

Please keep topic back on track. (And avoid politics if possible. )

 

Thanks all.

W

[Guest]

Whitefox

I appreciate what you are saying and you have to realise what is going on in the UK.

opinion is massively polarised on animal rights and we have a government that has taken a million pound bribe from the AR movement.

They have banned mink farming contrary to expert advice

They have banned foxhunting conrary to expert advice

 

It is not possible to keep politics out of the debate because New Labour are committed to banning fur. Since there is no association against this then the only way of ighting this inevitability is to vote Conservative and support the Countryside Alliance.

 

There is nothing I have quoted that PETA can use against you. The academic sources I quote they are desperate to cover up.

 

The problem is is that the premise of the AR movement is simple. That it is immoral to use animlas in any way. Therefore they are against fur , meat, hunting etc.

The fact that they have this ideology means that they are not focussed on any one issue but all. The problem with mounting a counter offensive is that all the various groups....farming, fur, hunting, dairy, conservation,pet, etc etc are DIVIDED. They are only interested in defending their own corner. THAT is how the native americans were beaten. They did not unite .

 

It is the base of all power struggle. PETA are united against all animal use, People who are dependant on animals are NOT united. Labour are united against hunting and fur.

 

United we stand; divided we most definitely fall.

 

The only way to fight the AR movement is to attack it at its base premise.

If it is not ethical for us, as an animal, to use animals for whatever reason,

then it is not ethical for a cheetah to kill a gazelle or a cat a mouse. Clearly, that is a ridiculous premise. It therefore proves the whole AR movement wrong. The only reason that argument is not being put across is that we are not unite over our right, as the cheetah's right, to use other animals. Of course if we say that man is diferent from animlas because he has morality and is therefore superior to animlas...that is speciesist...which again completely and utterly destroys the foundation premise thinking of AR ideology. Essentailly, it is rubbish and anything that comes from it is bound to therefore be unsound. So there is NO moral rational objection to either fur or hunting. The same argument is and should be used for both. They go hand in glove.

 

Then there is the argument of traidtional use of land for animals helping conservation through incentive. That can be farming, hunting or fur. The alternatives.....intensive arable agriculture, urban development and non renewable resource exploitation...are a horrific consequence of not supporting animal dependant economies. The same is true of the british foxhunt as the fur trade or the inuit seal hunt as the lap reindeer herder as the Evenk sable hunter as the Argentine gaucho as the texas cattle rancher as the Cree outfitters. To PETA and the British Labour party they are the same enemy. And we must unite to have any chance of defeating their irrational bigotry,

and stop them from destroying the planet and its animals.

 

As I have shown you the consequence of banning foxhunting in the former czechoslovakia was extinxtion of the fox in a short time. The consequence of pressure on Siberian fur has seen evenk fur farms fall from 16 000 head of fox to 400 at one farm. In the same part of the world the oil and logging industries threaten the Taiga and its glorious biodiversity and the WWF see sable hunting reserves as the best method of stopping the destruction.

 

Incentive = conservation.

 

While there is a pack of hounds in the UK there will always be fox, and the red squirrel as a side benefit.

While there is a woman willing to pay $20 000 for a sable coat the sable will survive and through that the Siberian tiger as a side benefit.

While the Cree need beaver for fur and meat then they allow them to dam when in other areas they are killed as a nuisance.

 

To me the issue is utterly the same. AND it is the only defence for fur.

 

The only other pro fur argument comes down to a libertarian issue. That it is up to the individual to choose, and nobody else has the right to pull morality on them. And again, that argument is exactly the same for hunting. So intolerance of that position is unacceptable here.

 

PETA is PETA and to use a PETA argument against hunting is against the CoC anyway. At the end of the day PETA do not care if an animal is hunted for fur, sport, management, meat. And, I hasten to add....neither does the animal. So again ethically it is a nonsense rationally.

[sta]

Yep, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, that's what democracy is about..........

 

Funnily enough I'm not a Nazi, or as in TOS's last rant at me about the Seal hunt,,, I'm not a racist either. I'm just a person that does not believe mounted hunting is necessary.

 

Lets keep it on track here, fur is what we're for!

[ReFur]

Well said sta!

 

It is OK to disagree.

 

Linda

[Guest]

It is fine to disagree on rational argument. It is fine to disagree if you accept that your opinion is based on ignorance.

 

For example, I have an opinion about what makes a good photograph, as I have some education on this. however, this opinion is insignificant and ill informed next to that of a professional photographer, critic etc. I am therefore open to new information and insight on the subject.

 

The whole idea of animal rights was invented by Heinrich Himmler, before this, and the ideas of Nietzche, there was little of such ideas. The basis of both was buddhism.

 

Buddism has as its basis the idea that man is centre of the universe and nature exists as a test for man to achieve a higher state of being through

enlightenment.

 

The fact that the Aryan race was from Tibet and the Nazis sought shangri la as a perfect state of being where man was above the exploitation of animals. Those humans who continue to exploit are savage lower order beings.

 

That is the nature of Nazism, Buddism, and animal rights ideology: moral and egocentric superiority.

 

Veganism is connected generally with Buddism and by association therefore Nazism.

 

However, I can actually respect an opinion born of this ideology since ithas a basis and a line of rational an philosophical thinking.

 

 

What is unnacceptable to me is a thought which has sprung from nowhere without rational basis that is going nowhere, often influenced unwittingly by a way of thinking born of ideology. In other words, ideas based on prejudice. Preconceived and ill thought out ideas without knowledge of its base premise.

 

Now I am not getting at you; we all do it. We have weak ideas about religion that border on aestheism/agnosticism for example without thinkng these through: Aetheism for example is a position of belief.....the same as the religions it often accuses of blind faith; yet it is guilty of this itself.

 

So waht am I saying? That if you have a belief that foxhunting is cruel you should be aware that this stems from the same source as the nati fur position. IF it does not you should be able to account rationally for your opinion and if you cannot then it is not worthy of merit.

 

So you have to say...in a discussion forum...WHY you think it is cruel, uneccessary. I have given you a large amount of argument from objective sources (careful not to use ones from a Hunt bias) to counter your argument. If you cannot come back with arggument discrediting those or backing your argument you have therefore failed. THAT is the nature of debate and should provide the basis of valid democarcy.

 

Everyone has the right to an opinion....but not every opinion is of the same worth.

 

Provide me with evidence that foxhunting is cruel and uneccessary without using PETA/Ar argument. To do so is a breach of CoC and also negates the argument for fur too. Uneccessary and cruel are also arguments used against fur.

 

So we are back to square one. Either we have the right to use and manage animals or we do not. Ethically there is no middle ground save for in the mind of a person who has not thought it through. If you think the way of managing animlas is unaccepptable on welfare grounds you must produce scinetific evidence of this. This has NEVER been done, because foxhunting does not compromise welfare of the fox. I have given you evidence and I suggest you read it and can provide more should you wish. Differences of opinion can be resolved through debate. if they are not and the result is deadlock over a moral argument, war is inevitable. I anm not fighting a war to be stabbed in the back by my own side through an ill thought out belief.

 

Yes it is possible to think how you think without that, but there is only one way you can argue that and I am not going to express it for you.

 

However, in that instance you do NOT have the right to force that opinion on others through morality.

 

So my question to you is:

 

Does your position on foxhunting mean you have a higher moral authority than mine or that of the hunters and if so from where does this moral authority stem?

And then if you think foxhunting is moraly wrong, then how do you ciope with those who disagree with you? If you are prepared to use legislation and force, this does indeed make you a fascist, and therefore my sworn enemy. There is no room for negotation. It is a war position; not a matter of opinion: you must if you are acting from morality be prepared to act on this. And again I ask what the nature of your higher moral authority is? God? religious position? Political position? Or merely that you consider yourself more "enlightened" than the hunter: ie SUPERIOR.

 

If you cannot answer that the argument is lost. I am open to argument but do not accept your right to condemn the hunter without a powerful argument as to why.

[Guest]

Anyway the reason this was raised and bringing it back on thread is the reason that there was little fur in evidence on boxing day at the races is because a third of a million people were out hunting or supporting the Hunts in defiance of the law. The people there are all pro fur too; every man and woman jack of them. Since the pro argument is the same for both.

The next day there were thousands of these women wearing furs at the races.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Touch, there is no rational logic in saying that just because the nazis adopted something, it should be associated with them, especially when veganism began with a religion teaching peace and tolerance, which is against everything nazism teaches.

 

I'm not a vegan, or into veganism, but what you are doing is the same demonizing that PETA does.

 

Now can we please GET BACK ON TOPIC.

[Guest]

What I am talking about here Lord is the origin of a way of thinking.

 

I am not demonising Buddism, but buddism is the origin of several other belief systems which are dangerous, some of which on the face of it are innocuous.

 

Buddism itself is currently in the process of forcing moslems to become buddhists in Burma, so it isn't always a benign religion itself.

 

But my problem with Buddhism is not with the religion itself but the fact that it sees man as centre of the univers and that there are levels of enlightenment, implying that the higher levels...which for example are supposed to be above even hurting a fly, are somehow better than other people. A Buddhist butcher howver is the lowest of the low and beeath contempt.

This is not so nice huh?

 

I have come under attack from neo fascist buddists, a new and alarming manifestation which tries to establish a mmoral authority for animal rights, and preaches Nietzche....man as superman, God is dead etc.

 

We also have to remeber the utter crimiinal waste of this and the message it sends out:

 

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-24-01.asp

 

Life as a Vegetarian Tibetan Buddhist Practitioner: A Personal View

 

By Eileen Weintraub

 

Eileen Weintraub has been practicing Tibetan Buddhism since 1976. She made three extended trips to China and Tibet to visit her Buddhist teacher who returned to re-establish his monastery in Tibet after exile in India and America. She lives in Seattle, with her husband and rescued companion animals.