real fur needs your help

[saynotofaux]

it looks as though fur is over in the uk unless something is done about it. 

if you want to see a load of not rights bully the trade out existence, then do nothing.. the government will get a few cheap brownie points out of this. 

I contacted BFTA and asked what could be done.  they suggest emailing [email protected]  and tell him why you oppose the ban.

we all need to do this now. 

don't let them win.

[Furloverzip]

A lot of Europe is trying to ban it, it's ridiculous. They should instead put restrictions on how fur farms are treating the animals, because the bans mostly stem from asshole corporate companies.

[saynotofaux]

that and unpopular governments trying to ingratiate themselves by  trying to score a few brownie points before they lose power and the other lot ban it.

people need to mind there own bloody business and stop interfering in things that don't concern them. it's NIMBY ism at it's worst. A hollow victory indeed if all fur production moves to low-cost countries, with no animal welfare laws. 

 

[Furloverzip]

Absolutely, China has NO animals welfare laws. They literally treat the animals like garbage and often skin them alive. Not only that, but they skin domestic dogs and cats, too. I refuse to buy from China.

[a_man_of_many_foxes]

They treat humans like garbage... I can’t imagine it’s much better for the animals there. 

[Tu_che_le_vanità]

On 5/21/2021 at 1:36 PM, Furloverzip said:

Absolutely, China has NO animals welfare laws. They literally treat the animals like garbage and often skin them alive. Not only that, but they skin domestic dogs and cats, too. I refuse to buy from China.

They do NOT skin animals alive in China.  That footage that was shot by the Swiss Animal Protection group was staged.  Skinning any animal alive is a barbaric practice and would result in damage to the pelt and possible injury to the human who did the skinning.  Use your brain for once.

[Furloverzip]

12 hours ago, Tu_che_le_vanità said:

They do NOT skin animals alive in China.  That footage that was shot by the Swiss Animal Protection group was staged.  Skinning any animal alive is a barbaric practice and would result in damage to the pelt and possible injury to the human who did the skinning.  Use your brain for once.

Whether or not they do that, they still treat them extremely poorly and have basically no restrictions on the fur industry 

[Captain fur]

It's terrible how the public get won over by these pathetic minority groups,  I can remember a time when furs were admired, and I would imagine some of those very people are against them now.

Sadly I don't see a way we can win,I'm collecting ad many furs as I can before the sale of used ones is banned.

[Cyclobasti]

What do you think would be a good message to send? If I do send an E Mail i want it to make sense and have a point.

[ShortsightedFarseer]

17 hours ago, Cyclobasti said:

What do you think would be a good message to send? If I do send an E Mail i want it to make sense and have a point.

I think there are many points one can make. I unfortunately don't have any of these sourced or checked, but it might be a decent starting point.

1) Fur trade is a business, and thus, a source of tax revenue. Miniscule, compared to other types of business, for sure, but still. I'm not fully aware of Britain's current economic standing (much less after Brexit), but with global economic recession looming on the horizon, ANY tax money counts. And any government that says it doesn't want additional income from taxes is blatantly lying (might not want to include this sentence)

2) Fur farming - and thus the fur trade as a whole - contributes to circular economy. If I remember correctly, animal remains from fur farms are either used to create fertilizers for agriculture or to create feed for farmed fish. Eliminating a part of circular economy might create complications down the line.

3) Fur is green - this tune has been played to death, I know, but compared to oil derivates and plastic fibers, real fur presents much more sustainable option. It decomposes better, has much longer lifespan given proper care, waste products can be utilized further and don't have to end in a dumpster. Given the fast that microplastic fibers are becoming ever bigger issue, eliminating those might also be a great goal. In an age where green options are heavily sought after, purposely getting rid of one such solution seems contradictory.

4) Fur has tradition - given the growing tendencies to pursue tradition and patriotism against globalism, you'd think governments would try and promote that. Why not furriers? Usually closely tied to their country of origin, businesses spanning generations (might need some factchecking on that), and usually those that would support nation's interests. That is, of course, unless said government tries to obliterate them out of existence.

5) "Making history", "setting example" by banning fur trade. Moral questions aside, this could potentially lead to a slippery slope of their own making. If they set animal welfare as one of their priorities is such a fashion, certain interest groups like the one starting with P might pressure them into going further, tapping into equally controversial areas like dairy and meat industry. Unnecessary pressure down the line.

6) Even though global market might not be something pleasant, free market should not be tampered with in this way. Banning an entire section? That's pretty bold cut. This should be left to public and customers. If fur truly is obsolete and "thing of the past", it would surely have died on its own by now. Turns out - no. There is still a demand, which means banning it entirely would be an infringement on people's freedom of choice (which is, technically, the only real freedom we have).

Radical cut into circular economy, going against traditions, eliminating ecologically more optimal option in the age of growing concern for the environment, setting yourself for high expectations, infringement on freedom of choice - based on what is basically an irrational judgement that people who buy fur are "really sick". You can cut or expand those points as much you like, some sources would be nice, though. Exact numbers, statistics etc. are eluding me, since I'm not versed in UK's economy.

[a_man_of_many_foxes]

You make a ton of great points. I’m not from the UK and haven’t looked too much into this, but is it only fur? Leather products are still allowed? What would a company such as Ugg do? Would they still be allowed to sell to the public in the UK? I can understand not liking fur, but to ban it altogether is ludicrous.

[Coyote]

I've filled in the DEFRA form myself, and sent an e-mail, and apparently the head of the UK Fur Federation has sent his argument to the government already.  outlining the economic, business, animal welfare and environmental repercussions.

Plus many people are pointing out the impact to peoples freedom of choice, and as has been said, that this going through, will very likely lead to further demands, such as leather and meat issues.

The more poeple who add their voices (Not only us in the UK!  hint, hint!) and the louder we shout, the more likely we are to be heard.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/call-for-evidence-launched-on-fur-trade

[Musquashmmm]

Ugg’s and leather products are a by product of the meat industry and not animals only killed for their skins.

[Joysie]

On 6/13/2021 at 10:57 PM, Musquashmmm said:

Ugg’s and leather products are a by product of the meat industry and not animals only killed for their skins.

Do we know for certainty that that's all they're killed for?

 

The cost to properly dispose of all the corpses? Surely fur farms would have some kinds of agreement with pet food manufacturers to deal with this? 🤷🏼‍♀️

[LordTheNightKnight]

6 hours ago, Joysie said:

Do we know for certainty that that's all they're killed for?

 

The cost to properly dispose of all the corpses? Surely fur farms would have some kinds of agreement with pet food manufacturers to deal with this? 🤷🏼‍♀️

And that argument is bunk anyway, since rabbit fur is also a byproduct of being grown for meat, and some still object to it while acting as though leather is fine.

[Musquashmmm]

I’ve kinda lost the thread of this discussion. Which argument is bunk?

 

[LordTheNightKnight]

On 8/10/2021 at 12:02 PM, Musquashmmm said:

I’ve kinda lost the thread of this discussion. Which argument is bunk?

 

That leather is okay because cows aren't directly raised for that.

Rabbits are raised primarily for their meat, so the fur should be okay. But then again these people also went after feathers in clothes, despite many of those birds ALSO being raised primarily for meat.

In short, these people are being selective about what animals should be acceptable.

Edited August 11, 2021 by LordTheNightKnight