Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We should cut out the plastic bottles in the first place. I must disagree with you that polar fleece is green. It's definately better to reuse it and get one more use out of it than to dump it in a hole in the ground if we already have the plastic around to begin with, but it's not exactly "green," just greener than dumping the plastic bottles in the ground. It's still not biodegradable, and is still made from a non-renewable and polluting resource (oil).
Very true. It would be better the plastic wasn't there to start with. Cotton & hemp are biodegradable, polar fleece is not, but from an impact standpoint, polar fleece is better than polyester.
Animal fur is biodegradable, but since most animal fur garments are sourced from fur farms and not trapped, polar fleece starts looking pretty good as the choice for less overall impact.
Fur will last through not being cleaned all the time. I mostly only clean my fur hats when they get dirty. Yes the synthetics can be re-used for some things, but sooner or later they will end up in a landfill, and will likely never decompose.
I believe we are only at "stage 2" in the synthetics' lifecycle, so to speak. They have only been around about 50-60 years. "Stage 1" was when they first were created, and now "stage 2" is where people are learning they need to recycle them. In addition, non-petroleum, degradable synthetics are being made of various materials including corn, soy, bamboo, etc... "Stage 3" will be where recycling is common and non-petroleum, degradable synthetics are also common. I always believe that science is pretty good at improving upon the state of technology/manufacturing. This is one thing most people fail to consider, that technology is continually improving upon itself.
It illustrates the point though that synthetics production is bad for the environment. Nylon is one of those synthetics. I know some ends up in synthetic rope and other products, but that doesn't change the fact these synthetics are not "green" by any stretch of the imagination. It's interesting that such a large portion of the nitrous oxide in the UK comes from nylon production whereas a good portion of it in the U.S. comes from agriculture. Interesting, odd, difference.
That's because the data is inaccurate (and I really get annoyed when people use inaccurate information when trying to prove a point). I went and found the new data. It was over 10 years ago that UK had relatively "high" emissions, but due to what I gather are more emission controls, they are less that 15% of the emissions. See figure 4 "Industrial processes."
Defra, UK - News releases 2007: 2005 UK climate change sustainable development indicator and greenhouse gas emissions final figures (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
More is used in the synthetics production simply because of the fact that the petroleum itself must be extracted, and most of it comes from overseas, then must be refined, and all of this before you even have a piece of synthetic fabric. And of course, with the fur, only the fuel used for transportation (for example, mailing the furs from where I live to one of the fur companies or auctions, then to the factory then to the consumer) is used, whereas in addition to the greater amount of fuel used simply to get the large quanities of oil needed from overseas sources, you've got the additional oil and energy used in the actual product.
That's not really true, because it would show up in the price of the product. The fact that modern technology can produce the product at much faster rates than the by hand process of fur is proof of that. How can a synthetic jacket with insulation sell for about $50-100 or so in the store if all the previous steps cost more than that? The amount of consumption is fractional per each item made because the processes have very large economies of scale. It may take a fair bit of fuel to get a tanker from one place to another, but the tanker holds vast amounts, so the per piece contribution is tiny. I found out the cost of buying plastic bottle caps, the kind from water bottles is less than $50 per 50,000 caps, and they are still making some money selling at that price. That's the fundamental reason why plastic/synthetic products are so cheap and affordable to the consumer.
Isn't that part of the reason the fur coats are so expensive? The process does not really get an increase in productivity due to technology because it is by hand. Therefore, it can't benefit in any significant way by technology. For example, a carpenter using all hand tools to make a desk. However, this trade can take advantage of technology. If the carpenter gets power tools the productivity is probably 4-5x greater. If the carpenter gets computerized tools then probably another 4-5x productivity, leading to around say 16-25x greater productivity.
Wal-Mart became the largest retail store in the world in less than 50 years because of one thing, price. The price of fur is far beyond what most people would spend on a coat. The cost of synthetics makes many products affordable to the masses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
I must admit I find it somewhat interesting that many people in the "green" movement constantly argue we need to reduce our use of or eliminate our use of oil, emphasizing all the negative effects of its use, and also the habitat destruction associated with our heavy/intensive agriculture, until it's suggested we use fur instead.
I'm just saying that when people are claiming that something is better than something else, I want to see the quantitative numbers. Also, as I pointed out, I believe in the progress of science, and I've provided links showing that the relatively "young" synthetic products are continually evolving to use far less petroluem and become far more recycleable and degradable. The use of petroleum is a temporary state.
I don't disagree that in some instances the use of fur is suitable for the marketplace. Areas where the features of such coats are needed or work well. Also where the environment is suitable for their manufacture. But for the common person, the cost and need of the product is not really justifiable. I see the petroluem based products as hold-overs until the future, and in the future greater amounts of recycling will occur of the current petroleum products. Those are thing many people may not be aware of.
My opinion is that the "green" marketing strategy of the "Fur Council" is largely due to the competition from synthetic "fake" furs, since they sell for much less. Although I have no interest in those things. However, I think fur will always maintain their niche market as a quality hand crafted item.
I believe we are only at "stage 2" in the synthetics' lifecycle, so to speak. They have only been around about 50-60 years. "Stage 1" was when they first were created, and now "stage 2" is where people are learning they need to recycle them. In addition, non-petroleum, degradable synthetics are being made of various materials including corn, soy, bamboo, etc... "Stage 3" will be where recycling is common and non-petroleum, degradable synthetics are also common. I always believe that science is pretty good at improving upon the state of technology/manufacturing. This is one thing most people fail to consider, that technology is continually improving upon itself.
Perhaps, we'll see where the technology goes. We still have millions of synthetics sitting in landfills, including plenty of fake fur because PETA et. al convinced so many fur is evil.
Corn based plastics are interesting. The only problem is the production of the corn itself (aside from habitat destruction, and the potential problems for food availability and prices). Corn heavily depletes nutrients in soil, so, to grow it year after year and get the high yields the big growers do, they rely on chemical fertilizers (which are, of course, oil based in many cases, and have tainted the groundwater in many areas). Corn based ethanol caused a major problem when it was required to be added to gasoline by the feds: a lot of farmers were putting all their fields into corn production and not into other crops they might have grown instead, and it (demand for ethanol production) drove up the price of corn, causing major problems with food price and availability in poorer countries such as Mexico. We need to get off oil but we do have to be careful how we go about doing so.
Quote:
That's because the data is inaccurate (and I really get annoyed when people use inaccurate information when trying to prove a point). I went and found the new data. It was over 10 years ago that UK had relatively "high" emissions, but due to what I gather are more emission controls, they are less that 15% of the emissions. See figure 4 "Industrial processes."
Defra, UK - News releases 2007: 2005 UK climate change sustainable development indicator and greenhouse gas emissions final figures (http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm - broken link)
That's interesting. The source I had checked was from around 99. Evidently a lot changed in about 5-6 years. I've been looking for the stats on production for the past, say, 10 years, in the UK but haven't found them yet. According to many sources nylon production has also been declining significantly worldwide, due to competition from other synthetics. Textile & Apparel - Declining trend in global nylon production - Nylon - - - - -
For example. I just wonder how much of that decline in nitrous oxide emissions can be accounted for by decline in production/demand and, simply, outsourcing to escape regulations (escaping regulations is often half the reason big corporations outsource). That's good news their output has declined. But it's still not as good as wild fur for the environment.
Quote:
That's not really true, because it would show up in the price of the product. The fact that modern technology can produce the product at much faster rates than the by hand process of fur is proof of that. How can a synthetic jacket with insulation sell for about $50-100 or so in the store if all the previous steps cost more than that? The amount of consumption is fractional per each item made because the processes have very large economies of scale. It may take a fair bit of fuel to get a tanker from one place to another, but the tanker holds vast amounts, so the per piece contribution is tiny. I found out the cost of buying plastic bottle caps, the kind from water bottles is less than $50 per 50,000 caps, and they are still making some money selling at that price. That's the fundamental reason why plastic/synthetic products are so cheap and affordable to the consumer.
Isn't that part of the reason the fur coats are so expensive? The process does not really get an increase in productivity due to technology because it is by hand. Therefore, it can't benefit in any significant way by technology. For example, a carpenter using all hand tools to make a desk. However, this trade can take advantage of technology. If the carpenter gets power tools the productivity is probably 4-5x greater. If the carpenter gets computerized tools then probably another 4-5x productivity, leading to around say 16-25x greater productivity.
Wal-Mart became the largest retail store in the world in less than 50 years because of one thing, price. The price of fur is far beyond what most people would spend on a coat. The cost of synthetics makes many products affordable to the masses.
The synthetics have been cheap because of cheap oil. The fur itself is more expensive to begin with before a coat or something is even made. For instance, if a single mink fur costs, say, 20-30 dollars, and it takes several to make a coat, well, you get the picture. Still, the synthetics being cheaper doesn't make them better environmentally. Just cheaper, meaning people can buy more. Fur is widely used by average people in countries like Russia. Russia is, for example, one of the largest buyers of common furs such as raccoons. People simply buy something that's relatively high quality and take care of it, instead of buying several cheaper items, not taking care of them. Of course that's antithetical to our consumerist mindset.
Quote:
I'm just saying that when people are claiming that something is better than something else, I want to see the quantitative numbers. Also, as I pointed out, I believe in the progress of science, and I've provided links showing that the relatively "young" synthetic products are continually evolving to use far less petroluem and become far more recycleable and degradable. The use of petroleum is a temporary state.
I don't disagree that in some instances the use of fur is suitable for the marketplace. Areas where the features of such coats are needed or work well. Also where the environment is suitable for their manufacture. But for the common person, the cost and need of the product is not really justifiable. I see the petroluem based products as hold-overs until the future, and in the future greater amounts of recycling will occur of the current petroleum products. Those are thing many people may not be aware of.
Well even though you've shown there are scientists working on making synthetics more environmentally friendly, you've shown in the process that the synthetics we have used in the past and present are bad for the environment. Perhaps corn based synthetics, etc., will be able to replace the oil based synthetics, but I'm skeptical because of what modern corn production involves (in other words, we don't use oil directly for the plastic itself, but use it to grow the corn that's used to make the plastic, we're still in the same boat). And of course, if we do use agricultural products, we have the biggest threat to wildlife today: habitat loss. As I said earlier, more animals are killed, more wildlife lost, due to a loss of habitat than by any hunting or trapping, and this comes about because of clearing vast swaths of land for agriculture, developments, etc. With the large population today there aren't really any easy answers to these problems.
Quote:
My opinion is that the "green" marketing strategy of the "Fur Council" is largely due to the competition from synthetic "fake" furs, since they sell for much less. Although I have no interest in those things. However, I think fur will always maintain their niche market as a quality hand crafted item
It's aimed at the incorrect and misleading information put out against fur by groups like PETA (who of course want fur, and many other things, such as keeping pets or eating meat or even eating fish banned). In the early 90's, for example, there were some pretty well known models/etc. saying (for PETA) they wouldn't use any real fur, use the "alternatives" (synthetics), as though that were the right thing to do. Pointing out that fur is/can be much better environmentally than those alternatives, isn't just about the competition from the fake fur makers.
Very true. It would be better the plastic wasn't there to start with. Cotton & hemp are biodegradable, polar fleece is not, but from an impact standpoint, polar fleece is better than polyester.
Animal fur is biodegradable, but since most animal fur garments are sourced from fur farms and not trapped, polar fleece starts looking pretty good as the choice for less overall impact.
The farmed fur does throw a monkey wrench in the equation. Some of the fur farms are pretty good, some are pretty bad. The resulting product is biodegradable and therefore better than fleece, but the production brings about with it the same issues other farming does, as far as clearing land, feeding animals, etc., so it wouldn't necessarily be any better than wool production. Of course if we didn't have as much farmland cleared we'd have more wilderness, and more wildlife to supply trapped fur.
The farmed fur does throw a monkey wrench in the equation. Some of the fur farms are pretty good, some are pretty bad. The resulting product is biodegradable and therefore better than fleece, but the production brings about with it the same issues other farming does, as far as clearing land, feeding animals, etc., so it wouldn't necessarily be any better than wool production. Of course if we didn't have as much farmland cleared we'd have more wilderness, and more wildlife to supply trapped fur.
Oh Arctic, I don't know, those animals in captivity lead miserable lives, I can't imagine what a *good* fur farm could be . Minks are solitary animals in the wild, when they are housed together in captivity, they go nuts and they mutilate themselves. They're not domestic animals, they're wild. The method for killing them for their fur is barbaric. Legally, there are only voluntary guidelines, and as far as I know, the method of favor for decades now is anal and vaginal electrocution (so the fur doesn't get messed up). I don't know what method the OP plans to use to kill the animals he traps, but wild animals caught for fur are often beaten or drowned (again to preserve the fur).
So what's greener? I think as f_m said, we'll find more and more ways to make synthetic fabrics green (the Patagonia example is great, I forgot about their recycle program). The demand for animal fur continues to go down, so the market will fill the void with synthetics anyway. The pressure will be there to make those fabrics greener.
Oh Arctic, I don't know, those animals in captivity lead miserable lives, I can't imagine what a *good* fur farm could be . Minks are solitary animals in the wild, when they are housed together in captivity, they go nuts and they mutilate themselves. They're not domestic animals, they're wild. The method for killing them for their fur is barbaric. Legally, there are only voluntary guidelines, and as far as I know, the method of favor for decades now is anal and vaginal electrocution (so the fur doesn't get messed up). I don't know what method the OP plans to use to kill the animals he traps, but wild animals caught for fur are often beaten or drowned (again to preserve the fur).
So what's greener? I think as f_m said, we'll find more and more ways to make synthetic fabrics green (the Patagonia example is great, I forgot about their recycle program). The demand for animal fur continues to go down, so the market will fill the void with synthetics anyway. The pressure will be there to make those fabrics greener.
I think if the pens or whatever the animals are raised in give them enough room it may be okay. I'm not a big fan of "factory farming" in general but any animal could be raised humanely. The animals raised by fur farms have been bred to a point where they aren't the same as the wild animals. I believe one type of fox has been bred to where it can be kept as a pet pretty easily. If the minks mutilated themselves it'd destroy the value of the furs so I don't think a fur farmer would want that to happen. Minks are a little "crazy" in the wild anyways (not really crazy but they may strike some people as such because of their behavior though it's how they're supposed to be), constantly hunting (though not as bloodthirsty as a weasel, they're aggressive little critters, they'll take on anything they see that looks like it would taste good, despite being very tiny), and they don't like competition too much. Not quite as impressive as a fisher cat though, they'll take on porcupines.
I usually use a .22 rifle on what I catch, except it's not necessary on the body gripping traps (since they kill the animal instantly). I'm not a fan of drowning (perhaps because I have a fear of drowning myself, almost drowned to death as a child) though I've been told by a biologist that some animals (like beavers, muskrats) don't drown the same as us, they actually slip into a coma quickly before dying, they actually have valves in them that keep water out of their lungs, for whatever that's worth. The body-gripper traps are perhaps the best because they do kill instantly, but they don't work on wild canines (too cautious to stick their heads in one) and other animals that have become cautious and trap-shy, and they're risky if there are pets or small domestic livestock (and even children in the case of the big ones for beavers) around because whereas a foothold won't harm an animal that is not being targeted allowing it to be released, a body-gripping trap will of course kill it.
And here is another take on Fur Farming, from In Defense of Animals: Animal Rights
It also shows a link to info on the same kind of traps and methods of killing which have been discussed on this thread. Completely different perspectives, wouldn't you say?
And here is another take on Fur Farming, from In Defense of Animals: Animal Rights
It also shows a link to info on the same kind of traps and methods of killing which have been discussed on this thread. Completely different perspectives, wouldn't you say?
Certainly a different perspective. It's the opposite of mine, for the most part.
On the trapping related articles there (for instance, "when fur is used in fashion..."), there is a lot of incorrect info. For starters, this quote:
Quote:
Animals trapped in the wild suffer other horrors. Caught in steel-jaw traps with pointed teeth or strangled by wire snares, prisoners of these barbaric devices can linger for days or weeks in the frigid winter before a trapper comes to kill them. These animals are so terrified that about one quarter of them chews their own limbs off to escape, only to be killed later by predators.
Firstly: traps with teeth are banned in many states, my own included, and even where legal most trappers won't use them. The teeth were meant, on otters and wolves, to keep the animal's foot/leg from sliding around and causing injury and loss and weren't made to penetrate the skin. In any case with improved traps there's really no need for them anymore. Currently I only know of a handful of traps being sold with teeth, and they're mostly meant for collectibles (bear traps aren't legal in the U.S. anymore, only Maine allows foot snares to be used on bears, and the big wolf traps aren't really used, putting out a $100 trap is not something many trappers would do). See for yourself, one of the top trapping supplier's catalog, trap section, note the jaws on most of the traps: MN Trapline Products Online
Only the collectible bear and some wolf traps have teeth. The most popular trap for wolves in Alaska is not there but is the Alaska #9, which has smooth jaws, no teeth.
Second: lingering for days or weeks is not accurate at all. My state (VT) requires all traps on land be checked each day, traps under water at least one in every 3 days (anything caught under water will be dead so won't suffer). If I left an animal in a trap for several days or weeks, I'd not only be very likely to lose the animal and its fur to predators like coyotes, but the longer it's there, the longer that trap is out of service, unable to catch anything more. Makes no sense whatsoever to a trapper to do that. Any trapper who wants to be successful checks his/her traps everyday. And animals are generally pretty relaxed in the traps. They'll try to get out, of course, when the trap first catches them, but they'll settle down and often go to sleep. They don't suffer as the essays there suggest. Here's a video showing this: YouTube - Destroying the Myth
Okay, next: regarding animals chewing their own legs. That's inaccurate. There was once an issue with raccoons chewing off their feet, many decades ago, not any longer. Using more correctly sized traps, and ones that use double jaws, have eliminated this. Muskrats had a slightly different problem: they'd twist around and their fragile leg joints could easily twist apart, leaving their leg behind. They didn't chew their legs off but it wasn't too nice either. That has been solved by using stoploss traps, also called guarded traps, which eliminates that problem entirely. If a quarter of the animals trappers caught chewed their legs off and escaped, trappers would be out of business. With both muskrats and raccoons, using body-gripping traps which kill the animal instantly, also work to get rid of those issues that were an issue once but haven't been for decades since we found solutions to them. No trapper wants to lose his catch.
It should be remembered that foothold traps are what have been used to re-introduce species like wolves. If the traps caused the sort of damage/injury that article claims, it wouldn't of worked. Federal and state wildlife officials and biologists never would have used them or hired people to use them to catch their wolves (or fishers or otters or other animals) for their programs.
One other quote (from "fur: the deadly luxury..."):
Quote:
Many "trash" animals also die in traps, including companion dogs and cats and non-target wildlife (some that are endangered).
Foothold traps don't kill so non-target animals can be released. Body-gripping traps are set in ways, and sizes chosen, to minimize non-target catches. For instance, to target raccoon but avoid catching bobcats, sweet baits are used instead of fishy ones, and smaller traps are used that the non-target animal is less likely to want to stick its head into. To target fisher using large (220 size conibears) but avoiding bobcats, in VT after the bobcat season ends, they must be above ground a certain number of feet (5 last time I checked). The big traps used on beavers (330 size and bigger) can only be set in water. To avoid otter the trigger wires can be moved to the side and the tension adjusted to make them less sensitive, while still catching beaver. Just some examples. There have been some instances of pets being killed but, generally the pet owner is in violation of leash laws (domestic/feral cats wreak havoc on nature, killing wild birds, etc., so they must not be allowed to run free in the woods), and it's the result of too much development encroaching on the wilderness we have left.
Now on fur farming:
Quote:
On fur farms, mink, fox, raccoon and other wild species are bred and raised in crowded, filthy wire cages unprotected from temperature and weather extremes. After a lifetime of being denied all natural instincts and behaviors, animals are killed painfully by poisoning, electrocution or having their necks broken. Some don’t die right away, and are skinned while still alive and conscious.
As I said earlier, there are bad ones and good ones. I'm not a big fan of factory farming myself, but they are picking the worst examples and saying they're all like that. I believe that they are referencing something that happened in China with the part about being skinned alive. Quite disgusting but it must be remembered that China is much, much different when it comes to animal welfare than the U.S., Canada, or Europe. They don't even treat their people too well over there either.
Certainly a different perspective. It's the opposite of mine, for the most part. .
That's a fact, jack!! (got Bill Murray on my mind for some reason) ~
Now, what the heck is a collectible? Something you kill to put their heads on the wall? I find that so incomprehensible...
"Animals are relaxed in the traps" - WTH? Relxation has a completely different connotation to us than to animals. I'm sure they don't relax in the same way as we do when we're lounging on the couch. Relaxation in the animal world can simply mean giving up. Fear makes some animals "freeze", play dead, slow their heartbeat. Fear can make human beings "freeze" as well. Remember, fight, flight or freeze? You are presupposing an animal's psychological state - wouldn't that mean they have cognitive abilities, feel pain and fear? (I know we'll never agree on this).
"body-gripping traps which kill the animal instantly" Instantly? Sure, we hope. What are called 'padded' traps in the site I posted addresses that issue.
"Foothold traps don't kill so non-target animals can be released." Sure, they may minimize incorrect catches, but minimize how much? And would a hunter/trapper release an animal with a broken or shattered leg? Animals can die of fright and stress. If you were "targeting" fox, and a raccoon were caught in the foothold trap, how exactly would you release it?
Anyway, I only posted the site for the references to trapping, not anything else. I wasn't able to post a link only to the trapping part of the site. So, you got it all. And, I wanted to share a site that more clearly supports my opinion, just as you did-
BTW, I did read a lot of the site you posted about. Did I miss the section which supports their statements, anything even closely resembling supportive evidence, or a citation of any scientific study? I could've missed it, I know. So would you post exactly where I could find that info, please? And I'm not watching any kill videos, either.
It's nice to read a thread where no one's gotten hysterical over someone else's opinion. Good show.
That's a fact, jack!! (got Bill Murray on my mind for some reason) ~
Now, what the heck is a collectible? Something you kill to put their heads on the wall? I find that so incomprehensible...
No the traps are collectible. There are trap collectors who don't necessarily use what they collect. For instance, big antique bear traps are worth quite a bit (or can be) even though they're not legal to use.
Quote:
"Animals are relaxed in the traps" - WTH? Relxation has a completely different connotation to us than to animals. I'm sure they don't relax in the same way as we do when we're lounging on the couch. Relaxation in the animal world can simply mean giving up. Fear makes some animals "freeze", play dead, slow their heartbeat. Fear can make human beings "freeze" as well. Remember, fight, flight or freeze? You are presupposing an animal's psychological state - wouldn't that mean they have cognitive abilities, feel pain and fear? (I know we'll never agree on this).
Well they're certainly not kicking and fighting the trap all night like some of the animal rights groups are saying. They're generally pretty calm.
Quote:
"body-gripping traps which kill the animal instantly" Instantly? Sure, we hope. What are called 'padded' traps in the site I posted addresses that issue.
They do kill instantly, they've been scientifically tested. That's why their use on land is so heavily regulated.
Quote:
"Foothold traps don't kill so non-target animals can be released." Sure, they may minimize incorrect catches, but minimize how much? And would a hunter/trapper release an animal with a broken or shattered leg? Animals can die of fright and stress. If you were "targeting" fox, and a raccoon were caught in the foothold trap, how exactly would you release it?
With a catchpole to hold the animal still while I step on the springs of the trap to release its foot. I've heard that in places where there are mountain lions sometimes a tranquilizer gun is used to put the lion to sleep so it can be safely released if they're hard to control safely (safely for both animal and human) but that's not the usual way of releasing animals. Any non-target animal in a foothold trap can be released. The traps don't break/shatter bones so that's never an issue. Of course, animals with prior injuries from other causes are sometimes caught, but not too often.
Quote:
Anyway, I only posted the site for the references to trapping, not anything else. I wasn't able to post a link only to the trapping part of the site. So, you got it all. And, I wanted to share a site that more clearly supports my opinion, just as you did-
I tried posting a direct link to the articles I was quoting myself (from that source) only to see it couldn't be done. Tell them to re-design their website.
Quote:
BTW, I did read a lot of the site you posted about. Did I miss the section which supports their statements, anything even closely resembling supportive evidence, or a citation of any scientific study? I could've missed it, I know. So would you post exactly where I could find that info, please? And I'm not watching any kill videos, either.
That video I linked to in my last post has no kills. Everything caught was released in that video. Which site are you talking about? Here's some info. on the BMP's, that have been tested: Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (http://www.fishwildlife.org/furbearer_resources.html - broken link)
Quote:
It's nice to read a thread where no one's gotten hysterical over someone else's opinion. Good show.
Yep. So far anyways.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Minks are solitary animals in the wild, when they are housed together in captivity, they go nuts and they mutilate themselves. They're not domestic animals, they're wild. The method for killing them for their fur is barbaric. Legally, there are only voluntary guidelines, and as far as I know, the method of favor for decades now is anal and vaginal electrocution (so the fur doesn't get messed up). I don't know what method the OP plans to use to kill the animals he traps, but wild animals caught for fur are often beaten or drowned (again to preserve the fur).
