is trapping Canadian lynx cruel?

[Guest]

One member of the Furden, who goes by the name of Ref*r, will not wear lynx fur because she thinks trapping lynx is cruel.

 

Do you guys agree?

 

Tricia

[DKMain]

In the first place, cruelty is not an action; it is either an intention or an attribution. When Vito Corleone's henchmen killed a prized racehorse, cut off its head and stuck it in its owner's bed while he was asleep, they were being intentionally cruel. When a horse breaks down during a horse race and is euthanized, the vet is not intending to be cruel. Bambiheads like PETA nonetheless attribute cruelty to the killing. Trappers are not intending to be cruel by setting traps for lynx or other animals. PETA will declare them cruel regardless. PETA considers even painless harvesting of fur-bearers to be cruel. PETA is essentially illiterate.

 

Two things one should consider when ascribing attributions like "cruel" to an action not intended by its protagonist to be cruel are the circumstances and the alternatives. Without culling some populations of wild animals through active interventions like trapping, animal populations will follow the normal Malthusian booms and busts. Is trapping "cruel" compared to what nature itself has in store for wild animals?

 

Nature is not a Disney cartoon; it is more akin to one giant abattoir. Animals in the wild, away from the interventions of misanthropic, anthropomorphizing Bambiheads, die from predation, starvation, disease or injury. Those deaths might prove quick or torturously slow. They are rarely painless, and are usually far more painful than those resulting from human traps, which are intentionally designed to be both as quick and as painless as humanly possible to design, within the plausible economic parameters of such an activity.

 

Just as there is no plausible reason for anyone to beat or skin alive animals on fur farms-- other than to sell despicable videos to mega-fundraisers like PETA for exorbitant fees!-- there is no incentive for trappers to be cruel in their work. The fact that many city-dwellers find the reality of nature-- as opposed to their own idealized visions of it-- to be rather unseemly does not mean that those who must work within it are monsters who act out of malign intentions such as cruelty.

 

Bambiheads assume that carnivores like lynx and mink would much prefer to live in the wild, totally free from all human interventions. Needless to say, the former have never polled the latter as to whether they would prefer to die in a human trap or to die a lingering death from starvation or disease-- let alone polled their much-more-numerous prey as to whether they would prefer the carnivores who prey upon them to be left loose in the wild rather than to be farmed or trapped by humans for their beautiful and valuable pelts!

Edited December 31, 2009 by Guest

[Lil Dragonfly]

The cruel steeljaw (I think that's what they call them) traps are no longer used in Canada. They use soft padded traps now.

[Worker 11811]

One member of the Furden, who goes by the name of Ref*r, will not wear lynx fur because she thinks trapping lynx is cruel.

 

Please do not single out other members of the forum for scorn.

This behavior will not be tolerated.

This will be your only warning.

[Guest]

DKMain hit the issue square on the head

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

DKMain;

 

I love your term "Bambiheads!"

 

I think that more and more people who are used to urban and semi-urban/suburban lifestyles are becoming farther and farther removed from the realities of daily life and, therefore, no longer have a grasp on the harshness of nature.

 

So many people seem to think that food comes from the supermarket. They never stop to think that, somewhere, a cow was butchered to make their McDonald's hamburger. The gruesome details have been glossed over. I would bet that 90% of the people in the United States (or the word, even) would be unable to survive if they suddenly had to provide their own food.

 

Personally, life would be very hard for me. Monumentally difficult, even! However, I think that I could hunt my own food at least for the short term. Yes, I do have the "equipment" to hunt my own food, if you get my drift. I do know how to use it. I have done so before and I am confident that I could do it again if I had to.

 

I enjoy the convenience of suburban life. I am glad that I can get food from the grocery store. However, unlike the majority of people, I still have a mental connection with the realities of getting my own food and fending for myself, even if I am not adept at it as others.

 

I believe that it is groups like P∂TA who take advantage of society's naïveté for their own benefit.

 

They highlight the gruesomeness of nature. They try to show as much blood and guts as possible so that the naive population will be shocked into following their lead.

 

I am thoroughly convinced that P∂TA is a "blood-for-profit" operation.

If there was no more fur trade; if there was no more slaughter of animals for food, there would be no reason for P∂TA to continue.

[Guest]

I'm reminded of a VERY short cartoon from the late 60's?

 

"Bambi meets Godzilla"

 

 

OFF

[ReFur]

One member of the Furden, who goes by the name of Ref*r, will not wear lynx fur because she thinks trapping lynx is cruel.

 

Do you guys agree?

 

Tricia

 

Vince,

 

Yes. Your memory is correct. No offense taken, even though some thought you might have meant it that way due to the way your question was worded.

 

That is my personal opinion. Live trapping is simply something I do not believe in. I love fur like we all do, but we each need to make our own choices in life how we treat others and act. I also no longer eat Veal.

 

That does not mean that I feel my choice is right or wrong for another.

 

I don't pretend to be current on trapping methods. Maybe Lynx is now trapped differently.

 

Unfortunately I doubt I will be able to afford another full length Lynx soon. Actually, if I were dreaming - why not make it a Russian Lynx?

 

Linda

 

PS One thing I think we forget since I have been here so long in this male forum, I am a woman and although I can be tough when I have to, in truth I am a real softy.

 

I actually had to walk way from some fishermen the other day who had caught a small shark. It looked up at me and I almost felt like it was pleading with me to throw to back in!!! You are all right, nature is not kind. Just bothers me some times.

[DKMain]

Linda,

 

I know very few people who have as weak of a constitution as I do when it comes to blood and gore. When I was a college freshman, I made the girls in my Biology foursome cut up the fetal pig in lab; I could not stomach to watch it, let alone do it! Years later, I had to walk out on a child-birthing film in Child Psychology.... I get nauseous just seeing many prepared foods laid out on a table-- and I do not mean just (nor even mainly) dead animals. My psychological aesthetic is simply very narrow and tautly strung, which is my own cross to bear, so as to speak. I am genuinely grateful that there are others-- e.g., farmers, butchers, trappers-- who have the stomachs to do so many necessary and useful things that disgust my hypersensitive aesthetic.

 

The fact that something may disgust my aesthetic, however, does not impact my intellectual calculation as to what is moral or immoral, or what should be allowed or prohibited as a matter of law. It does not matter to me at all that anyone should choose not to wear fur, or anything else. (In fact, I do not wear fur, and have no desire to do so, any more than I would wish to wear stiletto pumps! To me, fur is feminine-- even though that is a decidedly minority opinion on this forum.) What bothers me very much is when such people try to force their morals, or ideologies, or aesthetics, upon the rest of us. Even if I were against fur-- the way, say, that I am against tattoos and most body piercings-- I would still take the libertarian position on the issue: free minds acting within free markets must be allowed to make their own individual decisions, as long as they are not infringing upon the individual rights of other such free minds-- meaning legally competent human minds!

 

The reason that Bambiheads wish animals to be thought of as the equivalent of retarded human infants is that by saying that rights inhere in the animal, yet the animal is not competent to protect its own rights, just as a human baby or an adult human retardate is not, the Bambiheads are claiming that they are the ones who need to be allowed to act in the animal's best interests. It is like an appeal to God's will: "You may not do [whatever] because God opposes it, not because I, his humble servant, happen to oppose it for my own personal religious or ideological reasons!" Thus, even a tiny minority of True Believers may say with straight faces that their minority position must hold sway against our majority opinion-- and be given the full force of the law against us-- because they are really representing a greater number (e.g., all animals) or a higher and transcendent force (e.g., God).

 

For selfish reasons, I may hope that you eventually re-evaluate your specific stance on lynx. As good as you look in that fox, I know that you would look even better in an ankle-length Russian lynx-belly coat! " title="Applause" />

 

 

DKMain

[ReFur]

DK,

 

... I was reflecting on when I started to feel this way. I think it was when I got my cat that looked like a Lynx. Wonder if that was why? Did Lynx become my "kitty" - kind of like beef becomes cow? ...who knows.

 

... you are so right! Russian Lynx is so incredible!

 

Linda

[Guest]

If you go to page 7 of "Images of members with or without fur" you will see lovely Linda wrapped in several fantastic Lynx coats

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

... I was reflecting on when I started to feel this way. I think it was when I got my cat that looked like a Lynx. Wonder if that was why? Did Lynx become my "kitty" - kind of like beef becomes cow? ...who knows.

 

I know a few people who feel bad about using fur because they sympathize with the animals. I have no problem with that, really.

 

A couple of young kids came to visit my house to see our Teddy Bears collection. The older little girl (5 years old) picked up a real fur Bear and started petting him. She commented on how soft the fur was. I told her in a straightforward manner that the Bear was made from rabbit fur. She made a sad little frown for a few seconds until I told her that some people use rabbits for food. I told her that it is better to make the left over part into a nice soft Teddy Bear instead of throwing it away. She thought about it for a sort time then she nodded her head and said, "Yup!" She kept right on petting the Bear.

 

So the answer is that it is all just a matter of how you look at things.

 

With rabbits it's easy to understand and reconcile with your emotions. Yes, people do use rabbits for food, even if you, personally, never eat rabbit. So, what should be done with the fur? Should it be thrown away? Or, should it be put to good use? Making a nice, fur Teddy Bear is about the best use I can think of but it's just as reasonable to make fur hats, gloves and jackets from the fur. Otherwise it would be wasteful. Right?

 

Now, as to the question of lynx fur...

I don't know that people would use lynx for food. Not under normal circumstances, anyway.

 

Would you feel better if the animals were raised on farms, especially for fur?

 

Is it easier for you if you understand that lynx are often trapped or hunted to keep their numbers down to sustainable levels. (i.e. - If there are too many of one kind of animal in an ecosystem the balance is thrown off and some will have to die, either by nature or by thinning/culling their numbers.)

 

In that case, we are back to the point DKMain brought forward: Is it more cruel to let some animals die by Nature's hand or at the hands of Man?

 

Bottom line is that it's all about the way you look at things.

[Guest]

Farmed Lynx:

 

ACQUISITION AND OPERATION OF

FOX/LYNX FARM – VINCENT

ENTERPRISES

 

It's a pdf which you have to look up the full name to get on GOOGLE. Just copy and paste.

 

"i) Nature of Undertaking:

Proposed acquisition of an existing blue fox/lynx farm in Happy-Valley Goose Bay and

relocating to Welburn Bay Road located off of the North West River Highway, Happy

Valley Goose Bay. As a result of this acquisition and relocation, Labrador will continue

to house the only farmed lynx ranch in North America in an area better suited to this type

of operation. Vincent Enterprises may consider ranched mink in addition to the blue fox

and lynx, however plans for this have not been finalized."

 

Another twist is Fitch Farming in New Zealand.

 

The New Zealand government some time back approved the farming of Fitch since they are not a threat to indigenous wildlife. They eat fish. New Zealand has a LOT of fish scraps. As a result New Zealand is a fabulous source for superb Fitch and their economy benefits.

 

The other side of that is the import of the Nutria to North America by Mc Ilhenny in the 1930's. They got loose of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nutria-NorthAmerica.gif

 

It is believed they were a major source of Levy damage in the Katrina hurricane. Louisiana has a bounty of $5 per tail. You get to keep and sell the rest of the animal if you wish.

 

My point is that ANIMAL CONTROL is a big issue that can swing either way. Bambiheads have no place making decisions over this kind of issue. Emotions cannot rule.

 

OFF

[DKMain]

Linda,

 

A large portion of those who are against the fur industry and its supporters are against them because they think fur-bearing animals, like mink and lynx, are so beautiful, adorable even, that it is a sin to kill them (as Harper Lee said of mockingbirds, also for aesthetic reasons). If they were as ugly as, say, crustaceans, a large portion of the so-called Animal Rights crowd would simply fade away. (As Steve Martin used to joke: "I don't eat meat. Well, except ham-- but who cares about a dirty old pig, anyway?") The animals used for furs, however, are overwhelmingly carnivorous; and, their prey likely do not see the beauty in them the way that, say, a Dan Mathews does. (Dan Mathews is at least consistent--if lunatic-- in his philosophy/ideology: he gently traps cockroaches that invade his own living quarters and then liberates them out-of-doors!) Mink are, ounce for ounce, about the most vicious carnivores on Earth: they even have very rough sex as a matter of course (rather than as a decidedly minority lifestyle, a la homo sapiens)! If one were to use AR prophet Peter Singer's original utilitarian calculus of minimizing suffering vis-a-vis sentient beings as the standard of ethical behavior, then certainly the geometrically more numerous prey of fur-bearing animals' predation would change that calculus in favor of trappers, fur farmers, furriers, and fur-bearing women (and men), who thereby save the lives of countless millions of innocent prey in the wild!?! As for Russian lynx, I am quite certain of one thing: if Cruella de Vil (with whom I have been in love since I was four years old!) had already had a Russian lynx-belly coat in her fur wardrobe, she would never have given a second look to those newborn Dalmatian pups!

 

DKMain

[furlondon]

again. those peta people destroyed wildlife in Europe by releasing American minks. These furry animals kill for pleasure destroying the environment. So if somebody's cruel, it's 'peta'...

[White Fox]

***Extremely important.

 

This thread has ended up very unfairly painting a mod here in a very unfair picture. I am allowing the thread to continue in order to see comments from individuals. However, I want to point out that Linda is a moderator here, and a true fur lover in every sense of the word. So this is all very unfair.

 

Since this is indeed not a true portrait of our moderator please do not direct any further messages to her, or insinuate that she is anti fur, etc.

 

We will allow the thread to continue on the basis of comments on lynx fur, etc. HOWEVER, if comments after this note are directed towards our mod we will unfortunately need to lock the thread.

 

I want to stress that we are in NO way blaming any members who replied after the original post. You folks were trying to help a very unfair situation and we realize that.

 

Thanks all

W

[AKcoyote]

One item that I do not believe was mentioned previously is that lynx have been ranched in Canada as well as wild trapped. Several months ago I happened to talk to a Canadian couple who had ended their lynx ranching activities due to insufficient return on investment.

[FrBrGr]

The thoughtful, intelligent replies to the original post are an indication of why The Fur Den is sixteen years old and getting bigger and better every day. You have truly taken a lemon and transformed it into lemonade. Now, then - Let's regroup, refocus and return to our magnificent obsession!

[DKMain]

I addressed my second and third posts in this thread to Linda because I was responding to what she had written. Responding to her is hardly the same thing as criticizing her, let alone attacking her or defaming her as being anti-fur! If that was the intended implication of White Fox's recent injunction [supra], I not only abjure it, I resent it!?! The only post that I have read attacking Linda was the one that was (oddly) posted by the same member at virtually the same time, but which was removed fairly promptly. Based on Linda's original response in this thread, I would assume that she did not even read that evil twin before it was removed from the board (presumably by some other moderator)!?! As for me, I explicitly stated that I do not care what people choose not to wear, for whatever reason(s) they may choose not to wear it. Any notion that anything that I have written in this thread has been a personal attack on Linda-- or anyone else, other than Animal Rights ideologues (mea maxima culpa!) and (fictional) mafiosi (blame the late Mario Puzo!)-- is not merely false but patently false! Accuse me of being didactic, or even pedantic, if you wish, and I just might consider copping a plea....

 

DKMain

[White Fox]

DK...

 

Believe me I was not attacking you or anyone else in this thread. I thought I made that clear when I said "I want to stress that we are in NO way blaming any members who replied after the original post. You folks were trying to help a very unfair situation and we realize that." That sentence was aimed at you and all others who replied. I meant that as a compliment to all of you! You folks tried to steer that to a conversation on lynx, and not one about out mod.

 

I am sorry if you took my post any other way than a compliment. I did not mean to look like I was being difficult to you for your last post. I meant the opposite.

 

On most every other site I know, this thread would have been deleted immediately after the first post was made. We try not to be that way here. However, I guess maybe we made the wrong decision on that, and I take full responsibility for that decision. It was the decision to leave things that led to this confusion. In the future we will try to be a little more careful with such things.

 

Again, sorry for any confusion. That was certainly and absolutely not meant in the way you took it.

 

W

[ReFur]

DK,

 

Thank you. In no way did I feel you were doing anything but discussing the topic. In fact, I have to admit, I learned more about my underlying reasons for how I felt.

 

As FrBrGr stated, lemonade!

 

I did not see the post you spoke of until after I responded to this one. Yes, it should have been removed as it was. That is why we have mods!!

 

So lets move on!!

 

Thank you again DK.

 

Linda

[Worker 11811]

I am the one who deleted the other message thread. I did it for two reasons:

 

1) It could have been inflammatory.

2) It was, essentially, a duplication of this message thread.

 

I left this thread in place because all the responses were "on topic" and didn't question another member's integrity.

So far, this thread has stayed on topic and I see no reason that it won't. Therefore, I have no intention of stopping this topic unless it becomes a problem.

 

**********

 

The way I see it, this topic is pretty important.

 

Here, we are discussing peoples' reservations about harvesting animals for the purpose of making fur clothing, even among those of us who enjoy fur.

This is an important thing to discuss! Isn't it?

 

Personally, I have no problem when animals are used to make fur clothing as long as they are well treated up until the time they are dispatched for their pelts. As for the actual process of taking the pelts, I believe that it should be done in the quickest and, hopefully, the least painful way possible. As far as I know, the majority of fur bearers are euthanized with anesthetic gas. There are some species which can not easily be bred in captivity, such as beaver. In cases where they need to be trapped, some forethought for the animals should be taken. As far as I know, most jurisdictions have strict laws about trapping animals with regards to types of traps and methods used to trap. In Pennsylvania, where I live, I know for fact that trappers must inspect their traps every 36 hours. The laws in Pennsylvania with regard to trapping and furtaking are pretty strict: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=620836&mode=2#2361

 

The bottom line is that I think this shows that people who love fur aren't all "monsters" like some animal activists portray us.

I think it's clear that we do have limits and we expect them to be upheld... even as we enjoy our warm, wonderful fur coats!

[DKMain]

Thank you, White Fox! Here was the basis of my own confusion: (a) You stated that the thread had ended up being problematic and was falsely portraying Linda as someone who was actually anti-fur; and, (b) you asked that no further messages be addressed to Linda. As to (a), I had not seen a single message in this thread that had done so. Perhaps one or more were posted and deleted in between my visits!?! Even the original post-- as opposed to its aforementioned evil twin (to which I did respond also, before that thread was 86ed)-- I do not see as actually attacking Linda. It merely references her opposition to trapping lynx, and asks the rest of us if we share her opinion in that regard, which strikes me as a quite valid issue for us all. Now, personally, I find it both unnecessary and, frankly, a tad tacky to reference someone among us who is identifiable, whether a moderatress or not, in posing such a question. Others may agree or disagree with me, based upon their own respective views of what is polite or politic in matters social.... As to (b), it implied, to my mind, that there had been some problem(s) in previous posts addressed to Linda; and, again, unless some posts in this thread were deleted before I ever saw them, my two earlier posts are the only two that I have seen in this thread that actually address themselves directly to Linda, although the points that I was making were obviously also intended for general consumption, else I would have sent her private messages explaining myself. The bottom line is, I think that the original post posited an interesting and important issue for us to consider; however, I feel that it unfortunately did so in a decidedly sub-optimal fashion. Also spracht DKMain....

[DKMain]

P.S. Then again, maybe I merely misunderstood the question posed to us all in the original posting: Perhaps we were merely being asked whether we agreed with the assertion that Linda held such an opinion, rather than being asked whether we agreed with the opinion (which she subsequently confirmed to us all that she does hold) itself!?!?!

[White Fox]

DK

 

On answering this here I have to be seen to be chastising another member (not you) and that puts me in an extremely awkward position. I try my best to never do that! Again, that is why I put that line in the former post to try to assure everyone and even really compliment them on trying to resolve a situation on their own. Members here often do that so we have very little to do really.

 

Two things.

!. Yes indeed there was material that was deleted by a mod. As mentioned I fully support that action. That material makes it very obvious as to the purpose of the writer of the material. I really cannot say more without unfair posting against another member.

2. You are a highly involved member here. Which is fantastic! However, if you step back, and look at the thread from the eyes of a casual observer, I think you might see it differently as to the way that they would take it. No individual message. But the general way in relation to the deleted material that some members would have seen, and the whole thread in total. I totally agree, that not everyone would take it that way. Indeed maybe more than 50% would not. But certainly some people would see the general direction in a certain way, due to the wording of the first post in relation to the other material. Problem was that it made a certain person to look to be anti fur. And, you know what that would mean on this site!

 

Again, if I try to explain further (and it would be so easy to do so if I mentioned certain things), I have to be chastising another member or members in public and I just cannot do that. If you would like to switch to PM's it would help, but even then, I can only go so far. Sorry, but we try our best to not do that.

 

Some of you may be interested. I don't have the exact facts and numbers here. I cannot easily tell how many messages are trashed here in the last year. Problem is that it is almost all spam and it takes so long to sort, but the number of trashed messages by members is extremely low. Disregarding things like double posts or such, it might even be less than 10. Also, I may be wrong, but I believe that we have not banned one member in the last year. I believe that no more than two members received warnings. That is extremely unusual on forum sites. We try our best to treat everyone fairly here and not to be seen as unfair to anyone. Most forum sites will ban a member at even a suggestion of a mod doing something wrong for instance. We here like to see that so we can learn from it.

 

Hope that helps. Again, feel free to PM if you wish.

 

W