The entire environmental-movement collectively choked on their shot of wheatgrass earlier this year when Fur Council of Canada’s executive vice-president Alan Herscovici said, “You want to help nature? Ride your bike to work, put out your blue box and buy a fur coat.” 

So wait! Mary Kate and Ashley are actually budding environmentalists? Sharon Stone is up with Planet Earth? Hmm…

Luckily the HSUS has released a report showing that the fur industry  makes enormous energy investments to run their fur factory farms and tanneries — including using a slew of gasoline-burning vehicles and a laundry list of toxic carcinogenic chemicals.

Check out the short video below to show how stars like Aretha Franklin and Maggie Gyllenhaal are not only making the cruel choice when wearing fur, but also the environmentally-destructive choice.

  • erin

    Only one problem with the video; I would have had her go elsewhere to buy the second coat (I don’t shop any place that sells fur- yes it limits things but there are a ton of places. hell even overstock (the website) went fur free.

    also I had quit using amazon because i was told they sell fur but someone else said they went fur free. if anyone knows definitively please let us know.

    Vegan Retreat Director

  • Adriana

    Amazon is not fur free and they even sell cockfighting magazines. They used to sell dogfighting videos, even. They’ve been sued for continuing to sell cockfighting magazines with ads for paraphernalia and arenas, in fact. Overstock is fur free, as you point out.

  • fbr

    That “report” is not even pretending to be objective. It’s nothing more than scaremongering.

    Take the “toxic chemicals” section. It’s the standard “Oh my god CHEMICALS!” nonsense. It goes on about how formaldehyde is a carcinogen and may cause leukemia. But fails to mention that it is also used in medicines as well as in the production of the vegetables you buy in supermarkets. The same goes to the other chemicals they write about. “Toxic chemicals” are used in the production of just about every single man made product.

    The arguments about the gas usage of snowmobiles used in trapping and transporting the pelts is ridiculous. The energy use is completely insignificant compared to just about any other industry.

    The only real conclusion one can draw from this whole report is that pollution caused by the industry is trivial.

  • parrish

    Erin- I’ve stopped linking anything to Amazon because readers have emailed that they are definitely not fur-free.

  • Banthe Furtrade

    Gosh, I hesitate to get into it with fbr, but here goes. 1) Obviously the HSUS isn’t going to be completely objective, but do you think the Fur Council is being at all objective in promoting it? 2) Assuming you’re right that the industry only causes a “trivial” amount of pollution, isn’t it a good idea to eliminate as much pollution as we possibly can? Every little bit adds up. 3) Regardless of the environmental impact, there is no denying that the fur industry causes an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering. Killing thousands (millions?) of animals a year for no reason other than fashion is sick and WRONG!

  • Erin

    We’ll stand behind you Banthe. Remember this is the “human” (i use that word lightly) who hides behind initials and says fur is still necessary… HAHAHAHA

    In 2009?!

    I go skiing in really cold weather (understatement) and with my flannels and thermal this and that and my big insulated non fur winter coat and I’m fine.

    Hey FBR – Newsflash. No one needs to skin live innocent animals anymore to keep warm. Honestly you need to have your brain scanned. Peta might help you out with that.

    Retreat Center Director

  • Oversneer

    Okay, so the fur industry is biased FOR fur, and HSUS is biased AGAINST fur. (yawn…) Sounds like a stalemate, and nobody’s mind is changed. Can I go back to my tuna melt now?

    Seriously, all that video proves is that HSUS needs better animators.

  • michael

    “Seriously, all that video proves is that HSUS needs better animators.”

    Oversneer, FTW!

  • fbr

    “Banthe Furtrade”,
    1) I never claimed Fur Council is objective, this argument is about an HSUS report. Just because the opposition is not producing objective arguments is no excuse for producing an obviously flawed report like this – it will only hurt their cause and make them look ignorant.

    2) No. That argument could be used as a justification for any arbitrary policy or ban on any conceivable issue. Furthermore, if the goal is to reduce pollution then the efforts should be used where they make the most difference, and that is most certainly not at attacking fur trade.

    3) Yes, I can understand people who argue against fur trade from ethical grounds, even if I don’t share those convictions. I don’t think using animals for clothing is sick or wrong, although I don’t personally think fur garments look good.

    Erin, why do you insist on commenting on every story when all you ever do is spew ad hominem attacks?

  • herwin

    “Furthermore, if the goal is to reduce pollution ”
    the goal is not to reduce pollution, the goal is to offer facts against ridicilous statements from the fur industry that FUR is green. By mentioning all these chemicals that are used, people get a better idea that FUR isnt anything like some organic eco friendly busines.

    You are wrong, animals are not “used” for clothes, they are “abused” for clothes. thats what makes it sick and wrong.

  • fbr

    herwin, so they’re answering to ridiculous propaganda with their own ridiculous propaganda. And you think it’s fine to have ridiculous propaganda as long as it’s on your side of the argument, and not on the opposite side?

    The fact is that these chemicals must be used in production of many goods, including majority of vegetables. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with it. I’m sure you’d like it if everyone was fed with organically grown vegetables, but that’s simply not possible in the real world.

    Yes, I get you think it’s ethically wrong to raise and kill animals for clothes or food. However, there are many people who don’t think it’s wrong, and who can logically argue their positions. It boils down to holding different set of basic premises. Only you want to impose yours on others, while nobody is forcing you to eat meat or wear fur or leather.

  • herwin

    the HSUS clearly points out that there are many chemicals used for FUR production. Not even you denies these facts, you only try to sweep them under the carpet.

    the fact is that many of these chemicals ARE but not necesarely HAVE to be used in for many things. There is a diference there. and BECAUSE many people very correctly worry about them, organic goodies are becoming populair.

    “that’s simply not possible in the real world”
    thats the most dumbest thing i heard this week. who are you to say ? GOD ?

    where did i say that i am against raising animals for clothes or food ?
    this topic is about the FUR industry, FUR isnt even clothes, its a piece of unnecesary LUXURY.

    Yes i want to impose people to stop being cruel to animals.
    Thats a very normal thing in society, to “impose” other people. Like : “impose” other people from killing, raping, stealing, being rasist, etc.

    I enjoy talking with stupid people, so i am really having a good time. thanks.

  • fbr

    herwin, what I’m saying is that it’s completely irrelevant that these chemicals are used. The statements they make about these chemicals are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: Scare people who don’t understand how these chemicals are used in practically everything we produce, they’re even used as medicine.

    They do _have_ to be used. We couldn’t produce most of the things we have today without them. Yes, I’ll state it again: It’s simply not possible to feed everyone with an organic vegan diet. One does not need to be a god to understand this. Organic vegan diet is a luxury not attainable to the vast majority of the world.

    You’re falling into the obvious trap of assuming equality between humans and animals. There is a huge different between killing other people and killing animals. When you stop people from killing, raping, stealing, etc. you’re stopping these things from happening to yourself as well. This is not the case with animals.

  • Larry Sullivan

    The argument about imposing one’s beliefs on another…

    Maybe it’s best to look at the fact that the innocent animal canNOT speak up for itself.

    And to say one industry isn’t going to change another…

    All it takes is one individual and then another and another. Stop being such a pessimist. We have the ability to create great change.

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. —Margaret Mead

  • Whoever…

    Please do watch the following:

    If after watching it you still defend fur is an option, than you deserve one thing – to get the same treatment as those animals!! And yes that is the rule in the fur ‘industry’!! And this really happens, it’s real – I’ve know this for a long time… from different sources.

    Whether the fur ‘industry’ pollutes more or less is not even worth analysing…

    And fbr please do watch it! Maybe afterwards you can evolve a little bit and stop making pathetic and ignorant remarks…!!!

    It’s people like you that make me load humans!!

  • steph

    To whoever:

    i agree with you but decided ages ago that FBR is a lost cause and some miserable person who trolls a website that she argues every thing posted. i really have never seen someone so dedicated to making waves.

    i stopped paying any attention to her a LONG time ago…and i wish everyone else would too. if people don’t give her anything to thrive on, maybe she’ll go away.

    she does nothing but justify animal abuse.

  • Erin

    Steph do you really think FBR is a woman?! Could be now that I think of it.. Hmmmm. Good point. if you know something I don’t know please share ;)

    FBR :ad hominem attacks? are you serious? How many times have I sat and explained my stance and FACTS on fur in response to your argumentative attacks that are written for no other reason (as ALL others agree) but to make waves and be a troll.

    You say above that someone’s mistake is believing that we are equal to animals. No matter what you say that is a matter of opinion. You obviously believe you’re superior to the animals (and to us judging from most of your posts)
    And no one is going to convince you otherwise. Just as no one is going to convince me that our mighty creator or a higher power or even the “evolution theory” made man more superior. When I look out how man has F’d up the world, the environment, the economy, children’s futures and all sorts of other stuff I think the animals are smarter quite frankly. They are at least in touch with nature, their bodies and this planet. Man screwed this planet up all on his own.

    And another thing; Do you really think that anyone besides the sick fur industry people themselves think it’s GOOD what they do to these animals? No way! In all my life all the experiences I’ve had with people who wear fur.. they either say they feel bad or don’t want to know what happens with the animals. No one thinks it’s right, good or even ethical. No one, and I mean no one can say it’s ethical what they do in the F’d up country called China to those animals. There are no laws (man they need to get their shit straight) The animals cannot stand up in the cages, they are forced to perform in cruel circuses fairs with NO governing laws at all. I don’t think anyone thinks it’s good except the schmucks who make money off of it.

    BUt somehow you come on here and defend it. You totally ignored the part where I explained (A FACT MIND YOU) that in the year 2009 we are not in the cave days where we “need” fur. I haven’t forgotten your earlier ridiculous posts where you tried to argue that people in cold climates are cold and we don’t know what it’s like there. I have lived in the coldest climates in the world FBR. I did not need fur. But like others have pointed out you conveniently brush the things under your big fur rug that you don’t want to talk about. Convenient on a damn blog is it not? I challenge you to a debate face to face. Because the difference between me and some folks on the web (especially the ones who hide behind initials) is I am not afraid to see you face to face and have you come out of your cowardly initial hiding corner and have some balls and be a man (or woman or at least SAY what you are) and see who the audience agrees with. I am 100% confident that however dramatic I might get on here at times that they’d agree with me over you.

    There aren’t many more practices more barbaric than the unregulated fur industry (especially in China) but it’s like – if we started a discussion on here about men castrating the women in Africa – I swear to God you’d come on and say it’s an ancient tribal practice and by God they should carve up the women’s private parts and fight us to the end.

    You are nothing more than a troll as you were just called in the post above mine. And as countless others have called you.

    I must learn to now ignore you too and encourage everyone to do the same. If we ignore him her it then i bet he she will go away. As he she says they don’t even like the look of fur (yes he said that above) further supporting my and others theory he is just like that fat fuck loser at the party who no one wants to talk with and makes everyone uncomfortable because he won’t stop arguing every last point people make at the conversation. The moron that everyone wants to tell to go away but are afraid. Eventually they do and eventually he might be thrown out by the owners bouncers or some guys who just throw him out. Sadly we’re on a web board so this schmuck cannot be thrown out but he can be ignored and that’s what we need to do from here on out. Myself included.


  • Erin

    Ah and one last comment I forgot; to say it’s not realistic to feed everyone with organic vegetables is outrageous!

    Man has been around for a long long time. Everything WAS organic before 60 years ago and that’s like not even a blink in the time as far as man has been around. So to say we couldn’t go back to the way it was without chemicals? Even my 7 yr old niece would know better than that. Some twisted logic. *shakes head*

  • herwin

    “Everything WAS organic before 60 years ago ”
    yeah!! thats why dfb is such a reall dumb ass. she’s ignoring facts and tries to replace it with inteligent sounding arguments.
    i wonder when she will bring up the “eskimo argument” to defend fur..

  • The Science Commenter

    Hey Y’all,

    Does this sound like Fbr

    People with ____ (deleted this on purpose) have a different way of arguing to _____(also deleted on purpose) people and may not always follow the accepted rules of argumentation.

    Superficially, their argumentation is overly logical, though it may not be valid.

    As ___________ put it in their discovery criteria, their discourse is often motivated by “a determination to seek the truth” in a style that is “free of hidden meaning or agenda”.

    Again, ____________conclude that their conversation is often characterised by an “ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting evidence”. – Which is a nice spin on saying that they don’t listen to other people’s point of view.

  • fbr

    Whoever, I’ve seen many PETA videos about fur farming. It’s certainly not a pleasant thing to watch, but videos like that do not constitute an argument for banning fur farming. That’s in fact one of my biggest problems with PETA, they seem utterly incapable of composing a reasoned argument for their position and instead resort to tactics like making videos. Thus they most closely resemble a religious cult.

    steph, I couldn’t care less what you think about me. Pointing out flaws in arguments or presenting your own, complete arguments are the only things that have value. The rest, like you comment, are just a waste of time.

    Erin, you’ve explained your stance of fur farming many times. What you haven’t done is compose a reasoned argument for it, rather you tend towards arguments such as “Fur is MURDER if you don’t agree with me you need to have your head checked!”

    I made no argument about “superiority” of humans, whatever that would mean. The argument I made was that we are different and that the arguments that apply to human rights, for example, do not directly apply to animals. I also pointed out the reason why, if you’d care to read my previous post.

    There are people who do not think that raising animals for food or clothing (including fur) is ethically wrong. The fact that animals are treated badly in China has no relevance to the argument.

    If you’re going to refer to my previous arguments please quote me rather than paraphrase badly. I have never argued fur is the only option in cold climates, although I have argued that it certainly is a viable option.

    And unfortunately you once again deteriorate to a slew of ad-hominem attacks. Like I said, feel free to bash me all you want, I’m perfectly capable of picking the small pieces that resembling logic from a shit storm. In the interest of not making this post any longer than it already is I’ll forego poking you back with ridicule of your websites (as easy as it would be).

    The Commenter, feel free to point out where I do not follow the accepted rules of argumentation or where my logic is not valid. That would certainly be more fruitful than trying to practice psychiatry over the Internet without a license.

  • herwin

    “they seem utterly incapable of composing a reasoned argument for their position and instead resort to tactics like making videos”
    yeah, making those horrible videos is part of their Scaremongering tacticts…DUH.
    its called educating people about FUR industrie.

  • herwin

    anyway, this topic isnt about the cruelty of FUR but about that FUr industry isnt “green”, and HSUS defenitely educates people showing FUR isnt near “green”.

    only cinical FUR people can make statemenst like “if you want to help nature, buy a fur coat.”

  • fbr

    herwin, one might call it “education” if they provided a balanced view of the fur industry. Since they’re only picking the worst possible things to show they’re simply producing propaganda. Of course, seeing the extreme end of the propaganda might be educational in some sense, but if that’s all you’re basing your opinions on then your opinion is hardly educated.

    Fur is an organic, renewable natural resource, is it not? Fur garments also tend to last for a long time, and they’re biodegradable. Petroleum based faux fur (and other synthetic clothing) is certainly less environmentally friendly than the real thing in that sense.

  • herwin

    “Fur is an organic, renewable natural resource, is it not?”
    thats why you are so stupid.
    FUR isnt organic becauce , thats the whole point that won’t get through your skull, it uses a lots of chemicals.
    It’s also not renewable, and FUR isnt a “resource”.

    It is called education because it educates the general public about the use of much chemicals used in the fur industry.
    HSUS simply educates about one aspect of the FUR industry, facts that many people just don’t realise. That’s not propaganda. Propaganda is saying false things so many times that people actually will believe it.

    “Petroleum based faux fur (and other synthetic clothing) is certainly less environmentally friendly than the real thing in that sense.”
    and on which scientific data is that based ? the fur animals did use a lot of food (growing food takes petroleum based fertilzers), they produce lots of CO2, need electricity for their captivity, their skins need lots of chemicals, etc.

    You make simpleminded statements based on hot air.

  • fbr

    herwin, you need to do some basic research to get your definitions right.

    Organic: In a strict sense, any matter that is composed of molecules that contain carbon. In a broader sense, any matter that is capable of decay and comes from living organisms.

    Natural resource: A material or substance that has value and that forms in nature.

    Renewable resource: Any natural resource that replenishes naturally (at a significant rate).

    Propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a group or movement. (Nothing to do with being false or true.)

    Again you failed to read or comprehend my argument. I purposefully did not assert that the total pollution caused by the production of fur is less than for faux fur (such a claim would require research to back it up). What I claimed is that fur is a) natural, b) organic, c) renewable, d) biodegradable resource, qualities that are said to be environmentally friendly, while petroleum based faux fur is not.

  • herwin

    1.”organic” nowadays is used to decsribe if something was produced without synthetic fertilers, chemicals , etc.
    “organic” doesnt say much about if its environmental friendly. Many deadly poisons are organic, while a stone isnt organic but is harmless.
    2. FUR comes mostly from FUR farms, and is a “product”, and not a “resource”.
    3.As stated, FUR comes from fur farms, and fur from wild animals have reduced populations drastically. To call it a “renewable Resource” is laughable and bending any defenition just to serve your own arguments.
    4. spreading true information is considered “propaganda” by you ?
    Call it what you like, but spreading true information sounds okay with me..

    “I purposefully did not assert that the total pollution caused by the production of fur is less than for faux fur”

    i did get that idea by reading

    “Petroleum based faux fur (and other synthetic clothing) is certainly less environmentally friendly than the real thing ”

    what does the “LESS environmental friendly” part mean ?

    you seem confused..

  • The Science Commenter

    Who said anything about psychiatry? That has absolutely nothing to do with psychiatry, dear….Guilty conscious.

    Real fur is not renewable as trapping disrupts the natural cycle animals have controlling their own populations, such as making the predator/prey relationship off balanced (and disrupting their ability to “replenish themselves naturally at a significant rate.”

    And why do you care about Erin’s websites? That has less to do with what she’s saying on here than what you claim I’m doing (practicing psychiatry over the internet) to you (which I’m not).

    Sounds like she got you, and you have no other retort to use but to insult her personally.

    Apparently, she is enjoying what she does, is good at it, and obviously other people enjoy her services or she wouldn’t be in business. On the other hand, sounds like you don’t enjoy what you do and don’t feel good on an everyday basis, otherwise you wouldn’t have to get on here to “win” an argument to feel superior day in and day out.

    Technically, if you want to argue…In order for me to be “practicing psychiatry over the internet” without or without a license you would have to consent to my services (or a court would force you to) and I wouldn’t be able to blab it on a forum due to confidentiality issues.

    Just making some observations, that’s all.

  • fbr

    herwin, please re-read what I wrote. I already addressed your points. If you still cannot comprehend it, then I’m afraid I can’t put it any more plainly than that.

    The Commenter, the copy-paste in your previous post was from a (rather badly written) text about Asperger Syndrome. Thus my reference to you playing a psychiatrist over the Internet. You also continue to do so by conjecturing about how I “feel” and my need to “feel superior” somehow by commenting here.

    You can trap animals without destroying their natural reproduction. In fact there is a wealth of literature (as well as mathematical models) on what impact hunting has on animal populations.

    Also, I specifically did not insult Erin although she insults me in practically every post she makes. I merely pointed out that doing so would be trivial.

  • Whoever…

    :) :) :)

    I completely agree with Steph!

    Just ignore the fbr person and probably ‘IT’ will go away and stop irritating everyone around here. Because that’s what ‘IT’ wants and is obviously succeeding.

    I used to comment on Ecorazzi on a constant basis a few months ago and I find it very sad to realize this person hasn’t evolved one bit!!! :)

    Let me make a very rough comparison (and please note I’m not labelling anyone): imagine ‘someone’ going to a gay/lesbian site and start arguing with everyone there because that ‘someone’ is heterosexual… That someone would be fbr… fbr is nothing but a very frustrated person to whom probably no one pays any attention in real life and so ‘IT’ has to come here to get it!

    So don’t humour ‘IT’ and ignore ‘IT’ forever…


  • Erin

    whoever MUCH better analogy you gave than mine was. like someone coming on a well supported gay and lesbian site and continually saying it was wrong etc.. great example!

    also highlarious how you said “IT” lol.

    Yes I knew that “IT” would not answer my question about why it was impossible to feed the world with organic fruits and vegetables. We did it before 60 years ago… Just ignore IT and IT will go away.

    And thank you to science commentator and all others. I’ll give IT one thing. It is good at debating and would make a great politician since it doesn’t answer any of the questions asked of it..

    lol ok it’s old and tired now ;)


  • fbr

    Erin, you seriously think the gay analogy is good? It’s as big of a failure as your nonsensical circumcision analogy. If you started a discussion on the genital mutilation of any infants, male or female, you’d find me in opposition of it. Also gay issues are completely different from environmental issues.

    I didn’t respond to your “60 years ago everyone was fed with organic fruit and vegetables” because it’s a trivially false statement. 60 years ago everyone was not fed with organic fruit and vegetables.

  • JL

    If you can’t defend your ethics in a sensible and coherent fashion, what use are you to the cause?

    I may not always agree with FBR, but he has every right to make his arguments; he does it quite eloquently and has a firm grasp on the rules of logic. That shouldn’t scare you guys – that should give you the drive to rationalize with the man, not to condemn him for going against your grain.

    It may be frustrating as hell, but I’ve seen the determinism in most of your posts; a cogent response that doesn’t rely on personal attacks or accusations is NOT beyond you.

    We’re all here because we care, at least partially, about something above and beyond our own lives. This is a great site, with informative posts – I hate seeing these childish antics play out in what otherwise would have been a healthy debate.

  • Erin

    To JL – the other person who insists on going only by useless initials (which, in my book. means hiding under anonymous)
    I believe you might care -despite some of your posts – but at least you have valid arguments whereas FBR (who I am ignoring now) just argues for ARGUMENTS SAKE! Yes IT is a grand debater because IT never answer the questions we ask of it.. Like, WHY can’t the planet exist on organic food? WHY is it “unrealistic” for the people of the planet to all eat foods that are organic? IT either doesn’t have an answer OR as I said (as have others) just wants to argue for no better reason than to argue.

    IF “it” really addressed the questions we asked that would be one thing, but that’s not the case – hence the reason we are fed up. There are others who constructively argue and I don’t think anyone’s ever ignored them. And FBR is good because “it” writes very well without saying much of anything.. would make a great politician. FBR.. FDR…but I’d say the similarities with those two would end at the initials… :)


  • fbr

    Erin, what’s wrong with being anonymous? Arguments should stand on their own. In fact, arguing while anonymous is beneficial as the audience doesn’t get distracted by who you are rather than focusing on what you say.

    I have written a detailed argument before on why it’s not feasible to chase a utopia where everyone is fed with organic vegetarian diet. I don’t know why you want me to keep repeating myself, but I’ll make the main point again:

    Non-organic food (i.e., use of various chemicals) is not produced just to spite environmentalists. It’s produced because it’s a more efficient way to produce food. You can get higher yields from the same amount of land and you can keep using that land for longer. The produce will stay edible for longer and can be transported further away. Moving to purely organic vegetable diet would mean that we would have to use significantly more resources to produce food, or in all likelihood we would not be able to produce enough to provide for everyone.

    All I need to do is to look at the 2 feet of snow outside my window to realize that fully organic vegetarian diet could not feed people in this part of the world. You can’t grow the produce locally for the vast majority of the year and you couldn’t transport it from elsewhere because organic vegetables don’t stay edible for long enough (you don’t need to go back very long in history to find a time when many fruits were simply not available).

  • herwin

    “because organic vegetables don’t stay edible for long enough”

    thats nonsense, they do stay fresh long enough to be transported long distance, thats easily to observe looking at the labels in a supermarket, where i can see organic fresh veggies from other countries.

    there are also canned organic veggies.

    The reason that many fruits werent available has nothing to do with organic or not organic.
    more with the developing of highways and railroads. and anyway, many fruits became available in a time everything was still organic, so there is another argumement whats so obviously incorrect.

    the rest of the arguments are equally questionable, like stating that using chemicals you can use the land longer. what about natural fertilers, crop rotation, etc, you can use the land indefenitely that way.

    “organic” isnt a utopia, it was a reality until not long ago,a dn still is a reality.
    the true utopia is to produce whatever we want for as cheap as possible without regard for nature and thinking we can live unattached from the rest of the world / environment.

    well, i will stop commenting on “it”, because its obvious what its motivations are, and its arguments hardly can face the facts.
    indeed, its like a politician, much hot air.

  • fbr

    herwin, the air transport of fresh vegetables has been increasing rapidly in the recent past. Want to hazard a guess what they’re flying in, the non-organic produce that lasts for long time or the organic produce that doesn’t last as long?

    Sure some organic produce stays long enough to be transported across borders. However, I could not go into a supermarket and maintain a diverse organic vegetarian diet, unless I was willing get many of the produce flown in. In other parts of the world people might be able to. Sure better logistics have allowed more produce to become available, however that is only one part of the issue.

    Farmers already rotate crops. They use industrial fertilizers because they’re more effective than organic ones. Of course, the organic fertilizers come largely from waste of farm animals (which wouldn’t exist in a purely vegan world). Going to purely organic farming means less yield per land area and thus more land would have to be used. I’m not sure whether the land could be used indefinitely as you claim, but I certainly know that before industrial fertilizers became available depletion of farm land was a serious problem.

    If you go far enough back in history when all produce was organic (although we’ve always eaten animals), you’ll find that the population of the planet was significantly less and that people’s diets were significantly worse. Is that what you want to go back to?

  • JL

    Erin – Yeah, I wouldn’t attack anonymity around here. I may be an ALF-er. I may be a politician who doesn’t wish to isolate my hunt/farming constituents. Or, maybe my profession thwarts me from any linkage with AR groups, who are often reduced in the media’s eyes to terrorist or pro-terrorist organizations.

    Either way, the internet is always pretty anonymous, no matter how many links you post to personalized websites.

    On Organic farming feeding the world – hem, haw. Some studies show it’s possible. They have an alright argument. There’s an argument here that sheds the opposite light:

    Now, I usually don’t support GMOs… but they may end up feeding the world. And I’m not alone, plenty of Nobel Laureates are in support of GMOs for this reason:

    The world doesn’t have the climate of Florida. Duh, you know that. But a LOT of the communities who do share your latitude are (and have been) going through nasty cycles of deforestation and desertification; in the name of exportation and big business, of all things.

    It’s a tough call. Even if Organic can replace Traditional methods across the globe, the GMOs that have already been applied will be detrimental to the seedlings and germination of Organic species.

    In cold climates, items can be canned and stored – but it takes time. And time is money. And not a lot of people have money these days.

    But this thread is about fur, no?

  • steph

    Why do you guys even carry on with FBR?!?!! I log in and all i see on reccent comments is back and forth with this loser.

    You WILL NOT CHANGE HER MIND and she OBVIOUSLY gets off on this.

    No matter what you say, she ALWAYS says the same things back. That you are unintellgent or your comments have nothing to so with what she is saying or that you can’t PROVE anything.

    And even the times people link her to reports showing proof, she poo-poos that too.

    PLEASE try to just ignore this animal abuse justifying moron and lets just get on with our lives.

  • steph

    Oh! To Erin:

    Didn’t see your response right off cause as i said, i ignore all this FBR bull when i can.

    BUT, i don’t know anything other then “fbr” like you always point out they hide behind. i usually default everyone/thing to a she XD i don’t know why :P

  • Hidden

    fur is for animals and stupid evil people
    I dated a boy who’s father was a trapper and his house always smely like… something putred I asked him one day and he said it was the chemicals used to make the pelts not biodegrade
    after the boy behaved like his father and kicked my adopted fox I dumped him though so no worries (:

    poor Kitsune she has a scar on her left flank now ):

    and another thing why are we suddenly talking about organic food? what does fur have to do with food?(except that people who wear it are food) I mean seriously?!

    and by the way “IT” GO AWAY!!

  • Doug

    FBR I think you are on a losing wicket here simply because you are dealing with kids. Or if they are not kids, then they certainly haven’t mastered the adult art of fact finding and resonable debate. Like most kids, they make their mind up about something and then just quote the extreme information they find to prove they are right. If Anyone proves otherwise, then they are considered wrong, and are therefore open for name calling and verbal abuse. It’s pure kids playground stuff. No point arguing with them, until they learn to grow up and approach the world with more adult wisdom.

    The sad thing is that by preaching their extreme, simplistic, erroneous and misleading “Truths” thay are leading the gullible further and further away from an understanding of the true world, the intricate ecosystem, and how animals interact. It is by ignoring all these, and setting Homo sapiens up as some saviour of the world and animals that they will in fact result in it’s collapse.

    To get back to the original article. There can be no doubt that the use of fur is the least damaging to the environment when compared to pretty well all the other indsustries that sustain our ridiculous Western life style. The fur industry is a tiny industry compared to most others. Does HSUS REALLY believe that other industries don’t put in even more investment of energy, and use even more petrochemicals and other so called “nasties”? They’re in cloud cuckoo land if they do.

    As said before above. If you want to make a difference, start cleaning up the culprit that creates the worse damage, not the one that creates the least.

    Oh! just one thing. Everything organic before 60 years ago? – rubbish! Synthetic pesticides and herbicides perhaps, but for hundreds of years before that, man was pouring some pretty nasty stuff onto the earth to help his crops grow. Arsenic and lead spring immediately to mind but there were a lot more.

    Feed the world with a vegan, organic diet? In your dreams! This would have been possible perhaps 1n 1900 (my grandfather’s time) when world population was just 1.6 billion (that equates to the population of today’s India, spread over the whole world.) When I was born it was 2.5 billion. It is now 6.7 billion! and rising to an expected 9 billion in just 40 more years. Does that worry you guys so little that you think you have time to go after the fur industry? How are you going to find food, water and clothing for that many people. Jeez guys! you think knocking the fur industry is going to have an effect on that? – Get real! If it’s animal suffering you are really worried about, (and not perceived and erroneous wealth envy), then you aint seen NOTHING yet. You might indeed be able to do something about to minimise it but you wont stop it, and you are going to have to get cracking fast and seriously. Dissing the fur industry aint going to do a thing about it. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree. I wont be around to see it, but for anyone under 35, you’ve got some some pretty ugly stuff on the horizon.

    Your grandchildren are going to be lucky just to SEE a wild animal (apart from pictures). And it wont be the fur industry thats done that, it will be your cosy Western lifestyle, the one and only culprit. Stop knocking others and look to yourself. Yes, one person CAN make a difference, and one can grow to two, to a hundred, to thousands, and millions. But it happens through one individual’s quiet example. Not by ramming emotional dogma and suppression down other peole’s throats if they dont agree with you. If you don’t agree with fur – fine don’t wear it, but don’t try and force your views on others. If others see you and agree with you, then they too will stop wearing it. If they don’t, then maybe you are wrong. Then if you want you might change YOUR ways to their ways, it’s your choice. But to get all emotional about it, to keep spouting spurious “facts”, and ramming rhetoric down people’s throats aint going to change a thing. You’ve got just a few decades left to grow up. you’d better start today!

  • Ginette

    Someone once told me: “I would like to have a lamp shade of human skin!”
    I guess it’s a right. You don’t have to have a lamp shade of human skin. But someone else can. What makes humans so special?

    Specicists declared themselves the judges who arbitrarily decide which animal is cute enough to live, which one has nice fur to kill, which one taste too good to be true.

    They do not care that:
    Everything that has live wants to live, it will fight to escape from confinement, it will fight for survival and freedom and to avoid pain.

    Just like a human would. We all feel pain, we all can suffer, we all want to be free, procreate and have families. We have more in common then not, that is reason enough not to kill other species.

    Watch an animals led to slaughter and see how it knows that death is there and how it fights to get away. Every human knows it feels it and abhors it. But some try to go as along with the murdering system. Most can only do it for a while. It is killing not only the animals it is killing compassion and feeling. It is killing society! It is making us a callous people. As long as there are slaughterhouses as long there will be battlefields.

    If wanting something is reason enough to produce it, why not put humans on the menu to and use their skin as well. Open up hunting season.

    I personally would not partake. I do not kill unless attacked and direct fear of my life. Even then I would still find it a terrible thing to do. But I imagine there are people out there that will justify killing of human for harvesting organs, skin, and food. If there is demand why not supply. Morality to hell.

  • Adeline

    Doug,( or should I say mister I-know-it-all)
    Have you ever heard of something called …hope. Well maybe you’re too old so you enjoy your role as a joy-killer but also you have to know that we are not all hopeless utopians and we are perfectly conscious that we cannot change what cannot be changed like everyone goes vegan but wearing fur is something that could be changed because its survival mainly relies on one thing…fashion, I know a lot of brainless people take this religion very seriously but it is changing direction all the time and we would just want that it takes the fur free direction for good just to spare some animals an entire life of pain and I don’t think that its too much to ask neither irrealistic.
    Also what makes you think that you can patronize everyone like you do.
    we’ll keep fighting even if that seems trivial and useless to you , that’s our choice like yours is to be a sad man.
    My grandchildren wont blame me at least because I ‘ll be able to look at them in the eyes…not that it would be a great consolation of course but still