[*Petit*]

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

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?

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,.. )

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

To a point it is cruel because you are killing loads of animals for something which is frivolious and can easily be replaced.

Like someone wrote in an earlier post, the effect of fur cannot easily or perfectly be replaced. Usually fake fur is spottable quiiiite easily.

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

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?

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 )

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Demure_Dusk

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.

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.