Does Ayu wear real fur?
 

And if so, which is her most expensive item? Just curious. :rolleyes

I would guess that she wears real fur. She wore a Vuitton fur jacket to one of their openings in Japan. Vuitton ONLY uses real fur.

There's no information on what her most expensive item is.

So she has'nt been egged by any hippies yet? :shrug

I suppose that she does.

But I don't think many Japanese people are very "ANTI-FUR!!!"..

And about the most expensive item.. perhaps it changes every month or so? :P

I think she told that the fur tanuki shippo is a fake one. But I don't know about the clothes.

eww real fur? thats ****ed up, then again its Ayu lol. When has she ever done anything or give to any charities lol? Dsosent seem like shes very sympathetic to anything other than looking "fabulous".

Cool points dropped, I'd throw red paint all over her .

ugh...i never thought about it, but i'm sure she does. :(

11.13.01: Ayu donates $40K; Avex Girls Releasing for Charity
The popular female artists from popular Japanese record company Avex Trax will combine singles and send profit to charity.

There will be pairing of singles between the following group of artists to raise money for donation to worldwide charities to aid refugees and world peace: Hamasaki Ayumi and KEIKO of globe (Dec. 12); Koda Kumi and BoA (Dec. 19); Amuro Namie and VERBAL (Dec. 27th); TRF's Yuki and Tomiko Van of D-A-I (Date?); by halna of HAL and BALANCe (Date?), finally; hitomi and Mochida Kaori of ELT.

In addition to this, Ayu has donated $40,000 to the September 11th disaster fund.

(Click on image for larger version)

-cough-

Of course she does. I mean, she's Ayu. =)

lol i guess i better catch up eh :laugh you have gotten me :bgiggle good show! :friends

is it possible to have more iinformations about Ayu charity ?

I remember something about donation 1 million sumthings (worth about 40k USD) to an Asian country hit by the tsunami i think... Very descriptive, I know :)

I dun know about the real fur, but her B&D PV inspired me to watch out for any really cheap fakes comming my way!

It could've been Ayu who donated to the tsunami..

But Namie was the one who went out and performed there or something..

I just wonder if celebrities donate for their image or by pure kindness. Sorry being bad　:thud

If she wears real fur, let's remove CREA and Maroon's skin and make a coat for us and see how would she react LOL

^^er...yuck, she wouldnt do that.

even she would to wear,er..maybe it can only cover her 2 arms. Its not even enough to make a top :D

I believe she wears real fur. D:

ANTI-FUR!

O_O Wow, wasn't expecting this much response. Probabaly just a 'Yeah' and 'it's her B&D coat'. LOL that's the video that made me wonder.

Ummm, as long as these furred animals are not treated cruely (like a lot of the chickens and some other domestiicated animals you may eat happily are being treated) I don't see the problem about wearing fur/ exotic hides. It's a really superficial point of view if you're not totally against wearing hides and eating meat. And the argument that "they're only killed for their fur" wont' do, as I highly doubt the animal cares, it doesen't really know anything besides that life is ending. And this is an "animal rights" issue, no?

and BTW silk worms are boiled ALIVE in the process of making silk... But does anyone care? PETA does.. :dead2

You know, I bet that would be one good way to explain her why not wear real fur :P

Seriously, if Vuitton really uses realy fur only, then I bet she is wearing real fur. Not sure if she's like "Oh no, it's fake, I will only wear realzz!!" or if she cares at all, but I suppose the Japanese aren't really pro-nature or anything yet... seeing how much of all those fish/whales/dolphins massacres reports come from Japan... guess they don't think much about the consequences... which is probably due to lack of education and awareness on these issues, so they don't care if it's real, if some animals have to go to slaughter, if they're putting some species to extinction, they won't let anything come in their way as long as it's luxury... it's weird, becouse after all, they can get their butts kicked very, very hard if they screw with the nature.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mac_veg...7594340778238/

Doesn't look like enough people care to really do anything about it in Japan..

After Petit pointed out that silkworms thing, I checked wiki entry about PETA... it's a lot more complex than I thought. They're basically against EVERYTHING that has anything to do with animals... from wearing real fur, to milk and fishing (yes, fishing!). I should dig into animal rights issue before I make judgement, but I still believe that animals shouldn't be killed for fur... It's not like fur does anything good to our health whatsoever (while eating fish or drinking milk generally does), it's just luxury.

And I can see this becoming an animal rights thread :P

Well, thing is, if you kill the animal for its meat..

Might as well use its other parts. But if its simply for the fur, and then you leave it to die, then that's jus F*F*F*K'd up.

Well, to me animal RIGHTS aren't about what happens to the animal after it's killed. Then it's dead, it's dead and it won't care what happens to it. Animal Rights are to me how the animals are treated in life. Of course a lot of waste is bad in general, so I get that point (trashing meat etc), but I don't see how that connects to animal rights. It should rather be a general environmental issue.

Ostrich, kangaroo and crocodile/alligator meat is eaten,

i don't like fur but i do think it's very annoying and rather stupid to have all reactions to someone that uses them, in NY if you walk with a fur coat some PETA losers throw things at you, have some respect, who wears them knows where they came from and know it's wrong. the funniest thing ever was a PETA activist (sp) once screaming on the tv about fur use and wearing leather pants...maybe she thought that cows were aliens (even if it's fake, if you don't like fur just don't wear them at all)

I don't know why people want to force their beliefs upon others in such freakydeaky ways..

I mean, it's not like they're making the animals extinct right?~

Tiger fur? They're still being hunted. :( Though not really sure how long that's going to last since there's only a few hundred left in the world now.... :no

^
No luxury brand would use hides from threatened animals. :rolleyes These animals are usually kept in farms and the like.

Tigers are more hunted to be used in more or less useless magic ingredient in chinese "medication" and the like. Now THAT is a waste.

It'd be more fair if each and everyone of them silk worms had a painless execution before being boiled, don't you think?

As for Ayumi wearing real fur, I'm sure she has at one occasion or another, since it's not always her deciding what to wear for photo shoots or galas. Perhaps she doesn't have any real fur in her private wardrobe, that's hard to tell, although I believe she very well might.

That's all I needed to hear. ^^ :D

$40,000 is almost a joke for someone as rich as ayu :laugh

what? :faint

are you kidding me? Its barbaric. You get an animal thats quietly living its life and you kill it simply because its got pretty skin? What the **** is thata bout? Not becoming extinct? thats your greatest justification? Neither are humans but hey lets go wear human skin why not, it looks so pretty!

What else are some good reasons. Oh its just fashion. Fake fur looks EXACTLY like real fur. Fake fur can be made to feel EXACTLY like real fur. But because humans, im sorry, rich pompous ****s are so stubborn, they have to have the real thing.

Also maybe you should look mor into animal abuse, animal cruelty, animal testing, things of that such. You think the animsl alreadydead when they start skinning it? They basically run a very sharp if the animsl lucky, knife right above its tissues, start peeling, peeling ist skin out while its bleeding to death, and then once the skins off, the carcass is just thrown in a trash can.

But sure, its cool, it makes us look pretty. You really need to youtube animal cruelty or read a book.


oh and on Ayu donating: wow 40K that's really alot. Its pocket change compared to the millions she spends on her dogs. Pathetic, I'm sorry but it is. Maybe she out to skin her pups and wear them since she loves fur so much.

I thought there was a thing that if you kill the animal first to remove the skin later, the skin will get hard and will lose it's softness because of the rigor mortis, so they kinda have to remove the skin while the animal is alive. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Real Fur? Nasty. And Link, beggers can't be choosers. It's rude of you to demand her hard earned money to be given away. I'd be greatful that she donated any of it.

No, you're right. If anything, watch this video...

http://youtube.com/verify_age?next_u...%3Df79pF2GepNw

ITS GRUESOME, AS A WARNING
But thats the only way you teach people.

Source: www.furisdead.com


I'm not being rude, I'm just spitting the truth. You give what you can, not what you can to say you did.

ANIMAL KILLERS! I HATE YOU ALL! FUR IS NOT BEAUTIFUL!!!

the poor innocent animals :no POOOR ANIMALS! people have no shame!!!!

i was scared watching 101 dalmatians c'mon... they're puppies!! :( people discust me (yes i am against fur, why don't ya call me a hippie.)

Ugh, I hate it when people hold animals to a higher or even equal platform to human beings.

i hate it when people think just because they're superior, they have the right to destroy anything and everything below them.

LOL animals aren't the ones self-destroying the place they live, so yeah. It isn't the animals who are causing the global heating :) Sorry, but some human beings don't even deserve to be compared to animals, such low-life they are.

. . .

Whoa.

Just. Whoa. I almost started crying towards the end of that video. I never really viewed wearing real fur as a big deal but now... disgusting. *shakes head*

Then why don't you ask the almighty animals for a solution to all our world's problems?

LOL there's no need for animals to solve the world problems. Specially when most of these problems are created by humans themselves. :innocent And please, don't tell me that you're solving the world problems by wearing real fur coats and cruely killing and torturing animals.

Nope that was Namie ^^ she donated but keep it secret but then Vanness Wu revealed her donation and so they showed the conference where she donated it.

Why dont you re-read what I wrote.

I never called animals almighty. In fact I agreed with you that yes humans are almighty *******. The point of my statement was to challenge yours by saying that just because we're almighty dosent mean we have to abuse that power. Simply because our power is there dosent mean we shoulkd use it. Id hate to see you as a president of any country during war. By your remarks you'd be that idiot ruler who throws nukes the first chace you get, just because "you have the power to".

Please read all comments, even twice, before you start getting smart.

And yeah I'm with Impact. Even if animals could solve our problems, why? We're the idiots that cause all of them. You think killing an abundant of animals is harmless when you're actually disrupting a thing called the food chain. You kill a bunch of one animal in an area, you disrupt the system, and while I doubt your minds evolved enough to look at it from a bigger picture, yes it does affect us.

it's horrible if people think it's acceptable to kill animals for their fur, for the sake of fashion. killing animals for food is one thing, it's how the food chain keeps going, for one's survival. but having an animal suffer just to make yourself look good, ..there's just no excuse for that. i wonder how the people who work skinning animals can live with themselves :S

I don't think it's acceptable..

But it's not exactly "wrong."
I mean, just how long has mankind been killing animals? :|


Surely if our species was as adamant about saving animals back when we were all primitive people, we'd certainly not be here today discussing this. The mammoths and tigers of that age would've wiped us out. It's not like they care for our feelings, hm? Seems like one of the flaws in humanity is that we feel compassion for many things that we shouldn't..

Just to point something out, it was recently revealed that certain lines of clothing in America which claimed to be faux fur were actually REAL fur culled from raccoon dogs (which are actually dogs that have raccoon-like markings). Seems that the heads of the companies were unaware of it due to the fact that the clothes are made in third-world countries.

So if you're wearing faux, you might be wearing man's best friend.

I'm anti-fur as well but I'm telling you from personal experience, PETA people are insane.

Yeah, as soon as they found out that the clothes were really made of raccoon dog, they ordered the clothes to be pulled from the racks at the stores.

I agree lol Peta people are insane, I'm anti-fur and anti animal cruelty, but I enjoy a steak and soem bacon. I just wish they'd do it ina humane way. Fur though is unnacceptable. Theres a crap load of stuff people can wear that can give off the same glamour as a real dead animal on you.

Its liek cars. They KNOW gas prices are insane, they HAVE the technology to make something that isnt dependamnt on gas, but they wont, its just human stubbornness.

I wonder if Ayu's fur-thingie in her winter photoshoot last year was real ;D

Eve summed up my thoughts on the subject quite nicely. If I lived in a time and place where skinning animals for their hides is how clothing was made, I'd do it no problem. But in today's world wearing fur for fashion is just unneccesary and cruel.

Not everyone that donates to charity makes a fuss about it. There are several american stars that give to charity that you don't hear about because they don't go advertising it every year. I'd imagine that Ayu is probably the same way.

And as for the fur debate: Yes, fur bad. Skinning animals alive = bad and unnecessary. Think of it as being your own car or dog being skinned - I'm sure you'd be against that unless you are a psychopath. Whether Ayu wears real fur or not? She probably has. Whether she knows she is wearing real fur is unknown.

I do think it would be neat though if Hamasaki toured with a coat made of dolphins
 

Don’t elephants destroy trees in the African Savannah? I think it all works both ways. And to be honest you can say elephants don't know anybetter but most humans don't either.

I do strongly disagree with people skinning animals alive. That's just cruel and we don't need real fur into todays world. You can put on a coat if you think you're going to freeze to death, not skin the farthest thing away from you.

Of coorz, she's da queen

I seriously have a problem with people who see fur as uacceptable and still enjoy their chicken and cow and dog meat. Because as long as the animals is killed in the same humane way (NOT like in those chinese videos posted by link, and not all fur farmers treat their animals that way at all) I don't think there's a difference. Whether or not the animal is killed only for its fur I think would not matter to the animal.

Also, allthough I do not agree with PETA or their methods, I think their found reasoning is very thought through and reasonable because they are not dividing animals into the ones that are ok to kill and the ones that aren't worthy of such recognition. I don't see how any human at this point is able to tell "oh, those animals aren't suffering as much as these, they can be boiled alive and but OH! if these are even killed humanely it's horrendeous!"
By reasoning in such a manner in the end it boils down to which animals who're cute and cuddly enough or which ones are traditionally domesticated and that differs from culture to culture.

^ I agree with *Petit* , as long as you enjoy meat & animal products complaining about the fur-indrustry is hypocrisy. the quality of living is often better for the animals in the fur-farms than in the meat indrustry , the only difference is what happens to the animals after they've been killed.

the anti-fur material often used (whick -link- linked in this thread too) originates from China. in the western fur-indrustry the methods of killing/skinning are much more humane. in China animal rights don't really exist , and people don't know better than to skin animals alive.

fake fur doesn't compare to the real thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_fur

I wonder if animal rights activists have like, yelled at the people who live in the mountains who don't really have the option of "coats" and kill animals for the fur / food.. :O

I don’t get how you can compare using an animal JUST for fashion, and eating an animal. Easting an animal at least does us good, animals carry proteins, vitamins and nutrients that many vegetables don’t. I also don’t like how mass production treats those animals but at least they’re being used for a good reason. They aren’t killed in vain; people’s survival depends on that. Now what function does killing it JUST for its skin prove? Does it make us better? NO it’s just an image. And I think it would matter. Put yourself in that situation. If you had a choice of being killed just because you look so nice that someone wants to wear you. Or would you rather be killed because you might give someone a chance at survival?

I really don’t understand how you people don’t see that. You don’t need fashion to survive, you don’t need it to stay healthy, wearing it does NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that makes you benefit from it.

And no I don’t agree with any method of killing an animal inhuman, I'm not some PETA-obsessed freak, I just think we can live without using fur that’s all.

IT’S COMPLETELY POINTLESS

I doubt it, cause then that would be placing an animal above a human, I think they mostly get pissed at people who have a lot of options, but chose fur. Its like, Can’t they just pick up a regular coat? There’s no need to do that. If you're out in the mountains, using the animals fur as a coat is a survival tool. That’s why I'm saying we aren’t barbarians anymore where we NEED to kill an animal to get warm, I mean its ****ing 2007, not 600BC. :shakehead

Yeah, I don't get it either. Fur is something completely frivolous - food is not.

Wow this has turned into a moral argument about fur trade. Well wearing fur is something extremely cruel and stupid. I've done a whole project about it.

If you try researching about the fur trade you'll realise the huge amount of cruelty involved for these animals to make a dumb fur coat. These animals are grown in fur farms and they live in tiny cages. Since they are not used to a small environment they suffer psychological problems and self-mutilation. Also to kill them (since most companies are too cheap to use shots) they use cheaper methods - electrocution, drowning and many other cruel methods.

I'm not so familiar with PETA but hiding behind their insane actions to justify a cruel activity such as fur trade is pure idiocy and cowardice. Personally whoever supports this trade doesn't deserve my respect and is a sadistic fashion sheep.

There are many fake alternatives which are just as pretty as real fur or leather so why people still enjoy wasting money on fur coats? It's really dumb.

I agree with killing an animal for food though I don't eat meat or fish myself. But some people are unable to survive without meat and I won't shove my philosophy down their throat. But killing an animal for fashion is something I cannot accept. It's a cruel money-making activity.

I'm with -Link- ^^
I don't think that if you're not vegetarian you can't complain about others wearing fur or something. This is not about animals dying, it's about the way they die. I want to believe that, when they're killed for food, they aren't tortured like when they're killed for their fur :(

^
But they still are in many places in the world and by many companies, it's not like an animal is killed humanely by default just because it's for food.

Because 1) they are all animals being killed 2) The animals only know they are not allowed to live anymore, REgARDLESS of which type of animal it is.

So from an animal's point of view this is what's going on if it's killed without torture.

Killing animals just for their fur would then not be animal rights issue. are you still following my way of thinking?

I see your point, but it's not about ethics regarding animals rights. Also I find it hard to measure of how much importance one thing is to another person. You can also live perfectly happy as a vegetarian. You do not have to eat meat. It's not requied to survive. And let me tell you, there are people in fashion wearing fur that do not eat meat (or eat a lot at all, but that's another issue). Fur bring aestetics and other qualities that, and how much value that holds to another person is not up to you to decide.

Yeah, but then again, you are putting one animal's value above others. Who are we to put the line of which animals we're allowed to kill for "superficial needs" and which animals who are worthy of not being killed. And what is superficial needs? Is hunting game ok? Sure the meat is eaten, but it's not neccessary to eat wild meat to survive, and there's absolutely no reason to go hunting. How'bout lobsters? And then again the silk worms for silk. All are living beings.

On a different issue, I see how throwing away half of the animal just because we're only using one part of it is a waste and contributes to pollution etc.

Reason why you should never eat "Foie Gras", because those animals are tortured to death just so that their fatty livers are served in some rich madam table.

This is a complete twist of some of our point of views. Human beings have both instincts and traces of animals who eat both meat and vegetables. We have fangs to devoure meat and incisives to cut vegetables. Eating meat is part of being a human being, some manage to go against that and turn into vegetarians, but it is almost impossible to convice all humans to give up on eating meat. While some of you say humans can be strict vegetarians, that's not true unless you take vitamin suplemments. If a human being decides to go strictly vegetarian (and not take the suplements), they will have serious health problems as vegetables can't sufice all the metabolytes a human being needs. That would be a serious problems in poor countries, in which people don't even have the money to buy such suplements. Comparing eating animal meat to wearing fur is completely absurd. You can wear or do several stuff to avoid the cold, that doesn't involve torturing animals. I'd agree with a few exceptions, on which human beings with little resources, living in cold places, actually need the fur as meran of survival. These exceptions are rare, specially if you compare the ammount of animals killed for fur for futile fashionable reasons vs the ammount of fur used for survival, and aren't a justificative to think it's fine for pompous ladies to exhibit their fur in order to show off their fortunes.

And I don't care if faux fur has worse quality. Wanna wear fur, use faux. The fact faux is in worse quality doesn't still justify using real ones, because that's a very futile reason.

Eating and fashion are two different things. Eating is neccessary for survival while fashion is something you can live without. Plus many companies are now ensuring on developing non-cruel ways to kill animals in farms. In fact there's a tag used exclusively in Europe which labels the products which animals are treated as humanely as possible.


Animals are biodegradable. They don't contribute to pollution if you throw them away. Synthetic things do :rolleyes Plus most of the time the animals used for eating are domestic animals. Animals used for fur are usually wild animals (mink, squirrels, foxes)


Some people need meat to survive especially young kids who are developing. I dislike meat/fish but not everyone can survive without meat. Most people in fashion barely eat anything as it is evidenced in the super-skinny models we're seeing everyday. Fur is useless since you can have something identical without being cruel so it's pointless unless you're sadistic and enjoy seeing others suffer.

So you'd rather see millions of animals tortured to have some spoilt model like Naomi Cambell prance around with fur coats? I wonder if you'd have the same reasoning if you or your doggie were the one being skinned :rolleyes I don't agree with hunting or using silk or eating lobsters since I find these activities highly cruel too.

Exactly. We do have teeth for a reason and animals have been killing other animals since the beginning of time for food - it's how the world works. However, we don't see the lion killing the gazelle because it thinks the gazelle's fur would look oh so pretty to wear. That's the issue here.

This is particularly true. Iron deficiency in children can be a major problem, and most of the available iron for absorption an human being can find is on meat (ferrous iron). Iron is important for growth, red blood cells and muscles metabolysm. Oh, so beans are rich in iron? True, but the iron in beans can be considered as if the iron is inside a safe in which you've lost the pasword/key to open it (ferric iron). The iron from vegetables are difficult to be absorbed, and even though some of them are extremely rich in iron, this iron is useless for human beings because it can barely be absorbed by the intestines. You can manage to "open a few of these safes" if there's ascorbic acid (vitamin C) on the food you're eating, but it will still be below average. To make things worse, several vegetables have certain substances that makes iron (even the easily absorbable one from the meat) harder to be absorbed (fitates). Iron suplements? They suck (a lot of them have several gastroenteric adverse symptoms), and, unless there's a clear reason to use them, children should be better off without them.

IMO, an argument could be made that in the process of getting the meat, you could also use the fur.. :\

Cows and pigs do not make good fur coats.

Eeh, that's not necessarily what I mean. LOL

I would agree, but there are problems with that. One, is like Demure_Dusk said. The other is that in order to get the fur, the animal has to be alive.(supposedly) and that would leave the insides open to all kinds of bacteria and the meat would then be unusable. Such a morbid subject we have gotten on.

I think you misunderstood my point, I was trying to point out how killing only for fur is would leave a lot of waste. :yes It was an agrument against it sort of. I don't really see where you're going with this passage as it's obisously against using synthetic fur?


Again, it will be the last time I post on this, the animals used for fur do not neccessarily suffer more than any other animal used, so whatever the animals will be used for after their death shouldn't matter to them, it's a human issue, not animal rights issue as they no longer feel anything after death. And yes, there are different companies with such labels etc etc in the fur industry also.



AGAIN, I AM NOT PRO-TORTURING ANIMALS. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: AS LONG AS THE ANIMALS ARE KILLED HUMANELY I DON'T SEE WHY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KILLING FOR FUR OR WHATELSE, FROM AN ANIMALS POINT OF VIEW. THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY WORSE TO KILL FOR FUR THAN ANYTHING ELSE AS LONG AS ANIMAL'S RIGHS ARE OVERHELD. ;) THis was what I was trying to say all along, nothing else.

Of course you can argumen that the less animals killed by humans the better and so on, but no one really did. I do not supprot torture of animals of any kind, nor overconsume overall by humans, no matter if it's chickens or mink.

And if I had to be killed, I wouldn't really care what happened to me after I died, I would prefer not to die.


Fur Farming. Please do compare all you like to regular farming.

Lol, that kinda made me feel uncomfortable. Not sure how much do animals really feel, but I have this feeling it'd be awful to be born in some restricted space, outside the natural habitat, born just to die to become someone's cover for a cold night... makes me think of the movie "Chicken Run".

Too bad animals can't grow their skin back, so that we could use it without killing the animal. Like sheeps.

I'm sorry for interjecting here, but I was just reading this thread and it's amazing some of the nonsense I came across.

First off, this is NOT the issue here. Lions, as last I checked, were not the dominant species on the planet. They haven't built cities, established civilizations - they do not read or write and many would argue that they have not yet reached a state of advanced thought processes. So no, we don't see lions doing this, not because lions have higher ethical standards than we humans do, but because THEY CAN'T. Lions don't HAVE "fashion sense"... they don't go to expensive restaurants for rare and exotic foods.

Additionally, it takes a very special creature to differentiate between inhumane treatment of animals for food and inhumane treatment of animals for their fur. Is it insane what some countries do? Sure! Unfortunately, it isn't a practice associated ONLY with the fur trade.

It's just ridiculous to try and label purposes for animals and declare one to be superior than another. It's STILL using the animal, it's STILL interrupting the animal's life.

Get some perspective. I know! Why don't we just shut down all factories (pollution), stop all things that run off of fossil fuels (pollution, depletion of natural resources, global warming), stop using toilet paper (deforestation), stop reading and writing (yet more deforestation), and stop showering (water conservation).

Do I approve of fur? You know, I don't actually give a flying ****. It's amazing how many of you are complaining about these poor animals when somewhere in some dark, dingy, smelly room 50 young girls are sewing clothing made of synthetics - just so that you can afford the luxury of "ethics".

Thanks for stating the obvious. :rolleyes I think you missed my point entirely.

Nobody is talking about other ecological problems here, so bringing that up is really off-topic. We are talking about FUR and animal torture here, not other means of pollution and ambient degradation. This discussion would branch off into a lot of pointless arguments if we were to dissect every little thing the humanity does wrong. In this thread we're focusing in one particular subject. If you wanna talk and know our opinions about deflorestation, make a thread about it. However, i'll say a word about this comment: showering, using toilet paper, and using fuel are unquestionably MUCH and I mean, zillion times more important to us human beings in general, than a fur coat. I won't even start talking about fossil fuels and their importance because this thread would get polictical and it would be closed. If you compare how much fossil fuels influence global economics, social life, and world polictics, you'll see how futile a fur coat simply is. A fur coat is a futile fashionable item to show off someone is millionaire, it doesn't add anything to society, AT ALL and causes suffering to the animals involved just for that, to be a futile thing these rich madams will probably wear only once (as these rich people usually do). Is that too hard to undrrstand?

To be honest a fancy site with the lovely photos doesn't impress me. Just give me a professional photographer and people will think that fur farms are an animal friendly environment. Oh give me a break. Europe might be slightly more friendly but many developing countries are unregulated and do not really care about ethics. I suggest reading this site instead and watching the videos. I specifically suggest you check this page to showcase the mass cruelty of fur. To kill them they smash their skulls, break their necks, drown them or electrocute them (to avoid harming the fur). Also while being skinned some animals remain alive and feel that tortuous pain.

Also farming animals are not all reared to be killed. I mean most farm dogs are kept alive, some hens are reared for laying eggs, cows for their milk. I'm not saying that all are reared for their product rather than meat but some are. So there's a difference and it's actually for something which is vital for some people. I still do not agree with it but I see the fur trade as more cruel.

Let me rephrase. Animal remains do not contribute to pollution. Synethic aka manufactured materials pollute the land though (plastic, oil, etc).

I'm not blind and you don't need to write in caps. I know you're not. Problem is that you are not aware of the monstrosity of the fur trade. They are not killed humanely in most cases and are tortured for their life. Also sometimes they skin them alive.

Also animals caught from the wild are actually creating another problem: biodiversity loss. The strongest animals are usually caught in these traps, since they are the most active, leaving the weaker species alive. And let's not forget that many other animals are caught in these traps, especially many innocent pets which end up disabled for life or worse dead.

Imagine an animal being out in a leg-hold trap. Let me tell you that these are extremely painful and animals stay for hours. The pain is so excruciating that they sometimes gnaw their limbs off. Then there are snares which work in a very twisted manner. When the animal struggles to escape they tighten. It has been reported that 40% of animals caught are non-target animals. Even if released animals can suffer internal injuries and die. The target animals are savagely clubbed to death.

In some nations finally some people are developing something similar to a conscience and they're banning them. However I can tell you than in my country where hunting is so popular that hunters disregard law and threaten everyone with their rifles since their intelligence is limited.

Have you ever seen how they kill baby harp seals to avoid damaging their coat? They club them to death. How "heroic". I must say I admire those British who throw paint over those idiots wearing fur coats. I've seen videos of baby harp seals being killed and it was something extremely cruel seeing a path of blood on the white snow while those poor creatures tried getting away. By the way, just adding this so people know, the fur industry is well known to use dog/cat fur for trimmings around coats.

However do not think I am not aware of other cruel activities. Alive lobsters thrown into boiling water, and the illegal trade of exotic animals and so many idiocies humans come up with. I do not support these but I wanted people to be aware of the fur trade because I think it's one of the most futile, useless and cruel industry.


Also Gedatsu, seems you have completely missed the point so don't go around claiming what SunshineSlayer said was nonsense. It's not like we're approving the exploitation of underage children in the third world here. Even the fur which is extracted from animals is usually manufactured by the "50 young girls" in a dirty dingy room, since in developing countries manufacturing is cheap. So don't think buying fur is going to save any exploitation of human beings either.

Plus real fur takes more than 60 times as much energy to produce a fur coat from ranch-raised animals than it does to produce a fake fur. And they load your lovely fur coat with loads of chemicals so it doesn't decompose onto you. (I wouldn't be surprised if they later on found out that it causes cancer or something) Also since fur trade is such a barbaric activity, it's not unusual for a landfill owner to end up with loads of dead carcasses because of illegal dumping.

If it was so obvious then perhaps you should have rethought that analogy. My point is that you were trying to make an analogy using the idea that a lion kills for food, not for looks. However, because lions don't actually have a choice in the matter, your analogy falls flat. Period. No analogy, no point - which was mine.

To Demure - In no way did I indicate anyone was approving of child labor exploitation. To infer so shows an extreme failure in general logic and understanding. Similarly, I never did suggest that buying real fur would save anything - please see the next response for a clear declaration of my point, something you failed to address. To your most recent comment regarding how the animals are brained, beaten, and otherwise put to death in fur farms, I ask that you admit that any site against such a thing would choose the worst of the worst, the cruelest of the cruel to make their point whereas you might have a hard time finding any sort of zealous website about the humane treatment of animals in some facilities. Also, please look into such things as pig farming, chicken farming, and calf-raising for the purposes of veal (yes, I know, you stated some animals are taken for meat, but you neglected to address the simple fact that they, too, can and often are treated horribly in the process). There's a reason why they're called "free-range" chickens, yeah? It's either naivety or oversight to compare the two without acknowledging such.

Finally, to Impact. No, that's entirely understandable. I do understand that certain of the things I mentioned have a large impact on global economy - but have you thought about how many people might make their livings off of fur trade? I do not have - and I assume neither do you - any hard census data indicating what sort of impact a complete banning of real-fur trade across the globe might have. Remember now, it's not just "real fur - oh baby!" - by oversimplifying the situation you are removing the hundreds of thousands of people that might be affected by it. (note: I am not necessarily suggesting that the real-fur trade has as significant an impact as oil on global whatnots, but it's not as if just a few rich people would be affected, either.)

Also, by pointing out that real fur, too, is possibly processed by this same labor, you get to the core of my point - there are more things in this world worse than killing an animal for its fur - yet people here are judging others because of their belief that there can be humane fur trading. (Here is the point I made, Demure) I think most of us would agree (or have) that the overly cruel or inhumane treatment of animals for any purpose is, well, just that - cruel and inhumane.

I'm just saying that there CAN be a middle ground - you don't need to be ZOMGNOFURZ4EVA or KILLDATANIMALZnTAKEITZFURZ, you can still think that wearing real fur is acceptable as long as it was obtained through humane means.

geeze this topic got pretty intense. Two days of being without internet and it’s turned into a BBC News report.

I thought about it all, and everyone’s made some good points for and against, while I'm still against we each have our opinions and whether we want it to end or not, its really not up to us as individuals but as a group. I still think we can live without it, call me and old-fashioned hippie but I think everything in life deserves some sort of respect, even the meat we get on our plates.

I dunno if this is appropriate or not, but I don’t really cry so much for the meat on my plate since I already do a prayer before each meal. The important thing is to recognize that the animal gave its life for our wellbeing, and while I guess Petit was right about animals not being a necessity, I come from a Hispanic background and we're just carnivores lol. But anyways, yeah while killing an animal to eat it when there’s alternatives is selfish, the animal didn’t die in vain, I thank it for giving up its life. Take that as you may lol, but it's just how I am. I don’t ever EVER waste food, food is sacred. Fur isn’t.

Either way, this was a pretty cool discussion lol, thanks all for participating :thumbsup Psh, and they say we can’t have a heated argument without getting outta hand :cool

Well a lot of people live of criminality, robbing and murdering innocent people. If we were to stop criminality these people would suffer. A right (people having to have a job in order to earn money, etc) doesn't justify a wrong (working with cruel activities for a foolish result). These people who are living of making fur coats could always have other activities.
Also, if we were to stop fur coat sales, the chain of people affected can't even be compared to the ammount of people that would be affected if we were to prohibit the use of fossil fuel, water showering , etc. That's quite unquestionable. You can't really compare such IMPORTANT things to something as banal as fur coat producing.

These farms are controlled just as tightly (if not more,because the anti fur movement people are constantly watching them too) as the farms of other domesticated animals, so there isn't any difference. I remember a while ago when some animal rights people were attacking the farms releasing the animals and later on they found a lot of dead animals in the woods, starved to death because they could not survive by themselves... :no

I've been through all (or at least most) PETA sites already (like furisdead), before making this argument, and making up my mind about this, I have seen thata page and others already.


I have no idea how you can claim this, as it says in my earlier posts, I have been reading PETA material and other sources...

I'm against cruel farming, but not fur farming that is as humane as other farming. You're making it sound like all fur trade is cruel, or rather the nature of fur trade is cruel, and that's not true.

Like mentioned earlier in this thread, no serious fashion haouse would use threatened animals in their products. Usually the animals are farmed in their native country or native environment, like crocodile and alligators.

Not only would it be a tradegy if a fashion house used threatened animals, but it would definetly not be good for the image and it would probably suffer a long time profits.

Allthought I couldn't care less about hunting myself and I think it's horrible, if banned a lot of animals would probably catch diseases and starve as there would be too many of them.

And this makes is...? Worse? better? Cats and dogs have any more value than mink? I was not aware...


Yeah, I think it's important to remember that PETA/Fur is dead is one of many sources of material and it's just as important to be critical on taking in that as taking in any other information.

Huh? You obviously did not get my point. You were complaining about child labour involved with synthetic fur and I was pointing out that child labour is not only linked with synthetic fur trade. So you are obviously the one not getting the point, at all so do not be rude.

That doesn't justify anything, these actions are still being done in many countries, especially since fur trade is highly unregulated in many developing countries so the animals are still sufferring cruelty.

Did I ever say I supported these? I don't eat meat and I am aware of other activities which are cruel to animals and I do not support them. However the case we are discussing is fur trade and not farming, pollution or global warming. You cannot justify a bad action with another action which is just as bad. Also I was mentioning the point that they weren't killed since you were discussing the case that "they are going to be killed anyhow" so do not take it out of context.

Do we look like crazed anti-fur trade people? As Impact said most fur coats get purchased by rich people and not commoners which only use it once and we are mentioning how this doesn't justify the death of all those animals. That's all. There are worse things but we are talking ONLY about freaking fur trade and nothing else.

That's only in some nations which are aware of fur trade and it's cruelty and rightly so. In many other countries fur trade is unregulated so the animals do actually suffer. C'mon do you seriously believe that they are being regulated in Africa or Asia? There is a difference you fail to see: fur is something frivolious, food is neccessary, otherwise we die. Would you rather own a fur coat and die of hunger?


To a point it is cruel because you are killing loads of animals for something which is frivolious and can easily be replaced. These animals are not domestic animals. Most domestic animals have been protected by men for years and used to being protected by humans and have little chance to survive in the wild. However wild animals have instincts and also require a bigger space than those tiny cages they are put in. These wild animals might be treated well, in some farms but they still suffer psychological problems and are not happy to live in a tiny cage since it is not their natural enviroment and they have not adapted to human environment like dogs and cats have done.

Are you kidding? Most of them have no clue what a "threatened species" is let alone care unless people start speaking up. Their aim is provide fashion and get loads of profit. And why do you think there's so much illegal hunting of rare animals such as tigers and seals? Canada has in vain tried to slow down harp seal hunting but the hunters think of their pockets rather than saving "threatened species". Obviously rare fur is still a very profitable fashion material. Most women would rather but the rarest and most expensive coat to flaunt their power.

It's only in the past few years that fashion is finally getting aware of this and they are providing fur-free fashion shows. However there's still a long way to go. Also no they are not usually farmed in their environment. I never considered a cage as a natural environment as most fur comes from caged animals.

Wow then I wonder how all animals and fish did not catch diseases and starve before humans started mass hunting? If you research well the food web is well designed to have a stable system. Natural predators exist to keep down the number of animals so they wouldn't "starve". Also the predators and largest animals have less cubs so that they would not eat every single animal alive.

You misunderstood my point. I am showing how hypocritical some people are by calling their doggies their "best friends" and then go wearing their own fur on them.

Yeah but they are providing us with the horrible truth that so many fur companies are so conveniently hiding. Also I suggest reading here and here to see that a percentage of the fur trade doesn't give a fig about humane treatment or threatened species. Guardian are independent journalists and rarely side with any part.

Well, the issue here isn't illegality... how do you make the logical jump from fur farming to murdering innocent people? This thread is being bombarded by failed comparisons.

I would like to point out that YOU are making a *judgement call* based on YOUR values. "A right (people having to have a job in order to earn money, etc) doesn't justify a wrong (working with cruel activities for a foolish result)." - at least make some attempt at the subtlety in your righteousness. No offense, but who are any of us to tell someone living in China, working hard every day to feed his family, "You, you no longer work here. This is cruel, go find something else to do to feed/provide for your family!" It's unfair to push your ethics onto the entire world. Please don't counter with something as ridiculous as, "Well, then who can say murder is wrong?" - besides the fact that they are incomparable, such is the purpose of *laws*. They help to detail in a society (be it local, country-wise, or global) what is and is not "ethically" acceptable behavior. Sometimes societies agree, sometimes they don't.

If we're just going to start saying people should stop doing things because it's morally offensive to *us*.... yeah.

At the risk of turning this even MORE political, this is *exactly* what the U.S. does. Too bad I'm moving to Japan AFTER Bush is out of office /sigh

-disclaimer- Anything I say is not MEANT to be rude unless I specifically indicate someone to be an ***. I appreciate the stimulating discussion!

I didn't justify the fur trade. I simply said it's silly to use food-farming when it is just as bad. As you said, "So there's a difference and it's actually for something which is vital for some people." Veal is not vital. Not all types of meat are *vital*, hence why I was pointing out the cruelty involved there as well. There *isn't* a difference... you cannot differentiate between the cruel treatment of animals for one use or another! Cruel is cruel, I'm sure you would agree.


TBH, yeah, but only a tad (grin). I again refer to my above point.. we are NOT talking *only* about the "freaking fur trade" - you yourself brought another animal-related industry into the discussion, and my point is the same as in the above paragraph.


I call BS. I don't know about other countries, but in the US the amount of grain wasted, either to keep prices stable or to feed livestock (such as beef cattle), is an extremely large amount. Yet again someone is taking a heavily moralistic perspective and assigning biased value. You're trying to pit "frivolous fur" against "righteous food" - but you forget that many people eat more than they need to, throw even more away, etc. It's not as if all fur goes to rich people and all food feeds the most needy and hungry lol That's some non-existent utopia. Read this - of course I don't have the time or resources for full-out fact-checking, but it indicates that both the US and UK waste a great deal of food. In case the significance is missed, this in reference to the *necessity* of food.


Enter the human being onto the scene long ago. Higher reasoning capablities, loftier goals. The food web IS made to work so that there is a stable system. But the moment humans started learning to process animals into things such as tools, ornaments, clothing, that web got ****ed. Natural predators do exist, yes, but unfortunately human beings have taken the role as THE natural predator. Your last statement does make sense, but again I point out parents who have 5+ children. Humans do not obey such cut-and-dry rules.

No, and like I mentioned, I do support that. How many times do I have to repeat it? You can't treat the entire industry as a whole, just like with almost every other industry.

I see that difference, but I don't think there's a difference for the killed animals. Point is, humans kill animals. And like I mentioned earlier unless your argument is, as long as the we imagine (theoretically for just this passage) that the animals are treated the same way in life, that it's a waste to kill only for fur (which would not be an animal's right issue), I don't see how you could "justify" it to the animals, and thus I don't see why one thing is more horrible than the other. Idon't think cows and pigs are less worthy of living than a shark.

(And just for the record, I don't like meat, I manage fine hardly eating it at all,.. )


Like someone wrote in an earlier post, the effect of fur cannot easily or perfectly be replaced. Usually fake fur is spottable quiiiite easily.
Well, like I mentioned, these so called wild animals still didn't manage to survive when the animal rights people released them. But I still agree with you that those cages aren't the best place to have these animals, and that they're probably better off in a more natural environment (allthough I've never seen any research on this). However if they were only in the wild it would be harder to regulate the number of creatures and they would be more prone to extintion because of over hunting.
Please show me a link to a page of a MAJOR fashion house that still uses Tiger? Tigers and other animals are also being hunted for a number of other different things (like teeth and, believe it or not, testicles), not mostly their furs.

Also, the biggest luxury company today, LVMH, does a lot of things to support the environment. The last time I checked Jean Paul Gaultier was providing the company from which his mink came from. YES, they are mostly concerned about getting people to buy their stuff, but they also know that more and more people would like to know where their products come from and how it's been cultivated. ESPECIALLY in the luxury business which sells not only a product , but also a more ficle "luxury experience" and "dreams" these things are very important.

(I have no clue about the seal issue :) , but I haven't really seen any seal furs being used by most major luxury companies either as it is probably too controversial. I do however know a few small brands selling it as it's still sold around here, but this is the country of whale hunting so it should be no surprise. =P )
This is very basic biology, but it doesen't work as easily as that anymore because humans have interfered and regulated the populations for so many years. We had epedemics some years ago on foxes here that nearly wiped out all of them.

Again, I don't see why we should ban all fur trade or why it's a shame to use it if you know the animals are being treated well.

THis certainly turned into an interesting thread, I think well just have to agree on disagreeing, allthough I think in the end most of us are against bad treating of animals. ;)

What? you're talking some nonsense there. First of all, Animal Torture is a crime. I was just comparing crime with crime. Using fuel fossils isn't a crime.

It is unfair to tell such people to do other activity for their lives but it isn't unfair to torture animals? I disagree. I'm not the one forcing my ethics here, but you're making use of extreme compassion to justify something that is WRONG. When an animal specimen is about to be on complete extinction, the hunt has to drastically be stopped, and legal measures to stop such people of doing such activities is done. A good example would be with lobster hunting. Some people are extremely poor but have the material to catch lobsters and live of such activities, but there are times lobster hunting is legally forbidden. Such people suffer a lot when lobster fishing gets forbidden, and some even resort to illegaly doing that secretly, in order to have the money to feed their starving family and all those grand reasons you'd be babbling about, but end up being caught by ecological guards. So, in that case you'd spill all of your humane compassion and say the ecological guard is stupid? nonsense guy. Animal protection is a serioius thing. Now bringing back that to fur (I know you'd just going to say my last example had nothing to do with fur coats, I was making an example of ilegal animal activities vs social problems. a crime is a crime, it doesn't matter what your social problems are): Animal torture is a cruel thing and isn't justifiable even for poorer people, unless they have no other option to survive (people in an isolated cold mountain that have no other ways to have a protection from cold, etc). You'd be quite narrow minded to even think hunting would be the only activity those people in china could do to earn money. They resort to that because obviously, the money of their fur hunting comes easier than if they were to engage in other righteous activities instead. It is the same as what happen to drugs traffic.

I'm closing this thread because you were nice enough to push it to polictical bounds though.:headache It would get polictical sooner or later anyway :shrug