For anti-fur people.

I just had a big pig killed and had great pork chops last night...and sausage this morning.

mmm...mmm...good!

 

Ok but that still doesnt answer my question does it. Can you justify performing such an immoral act? I doubt it.

 

I do not consider it an immoral act.

I give my animals a good life with one bad day.

Besides....who are you to judge my morality?

 

Why?

But could you not survive without them? Yes, hence the one day can be avoided entirely.

You think all morality is subjective? It isnt.

 

Of course it is, or humans would never disagree.
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/objective-vs-subjective/
"The dictionary defines ‘objective’ as follows:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. "
Therefore subjective: influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; not based on facts; biased.

Your interpretation of what is "moral" is based on your subjective opinion, no matter how objective you think you are; is mine; as is everyones...or there would be agreement upon fur harvesting, abortion, etc. The problem arises when someone tries to force their subjective opinion upon others who have different influences. For instance you are young, not from the U.S., not a farmer. Therefore, you have limited experience, not subject to the laws of the U.S., no experience with farming, but you still try to force your subjective opinion as to the morality of fur harvesting upon those who live under the conditions affected by the loss of control over the populations of fur animals. Of course my opinion is subjective. So is yours. Do not force your wet-behind-the-ears-opinion on me.

 

It's completely legal in my state (Indiana) to trap raccoons or any furbearing animal during Nov, Dec and Jan. A raccoon pelt sells for about $10. $2 for possum, $7 for muskrat. I did it once, to get rid of some problem muskrats in the creek. Damaging little buggers, chewing down trees and collapsing the banks. Used an underwater cage trap to drown 'em. Gave the 2 bodies to my buddy.

Given that it's legal to trap and that there's a healthy fur market, I don't see how the anti-fur movement has anything to do with anything. Fur trapping has been restricted to winter since, like, forever. Raccoon coats haven't been fashionable since the 1920s, coonskin caps since the 1960s. The anti-fur movement had nothing to do with raccoon fur falling out of fashion and prices declining.

 

Before the anti-fur movement people started protesting outside fur coat stores (in the seventies), I received $45 (in today's dollars that would be how much?) for a single Racoon pelt...not even the top price then. After several years of Red paint being thown on women wearing fur coats, the price dropped to the point that it was no longer profitable to trap. The price of fur has increased over the years, but nowhere near what it was. The current prices being what they are, are a relfection of the fur market in other countries. The fur trapped here is being exported...there is still no real fur market in this country due to the anti-fur mind-set. Unless you were a trapper, as was following the events of the anti-fur movement, and the price of fur in such places as "Fur Fish and Game", you would not have been aware of, or cared about the cause and effect of fur trapping. The U.S. Fur market is not healty...it never recovered enough for people to return to trapping as supplinemtary income the returns on investment (traps, time, eqipment), is too small. In the seventies: fox $65, Ex large Racoon $60, Mink $20. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_value_of_a_1970_dollar_in_todays_dollars). What would a Mink coat cost today? What woman would risk wearing a fur coat costing thousands only to be embarrassed, and or have red paint thrown on it? That is why road killed Racoons are not quickly picked up skinned. The fur market has never recovered and the anti-fur people/animal rights still are active

 

Currently then, one can get 10.00 for a Racoon pelt. Sounds like a lot of money until one compares the that to 1970's dollar. A 10.00 bill (and a $10.00 racoon pelt), is worth only $1.84 now. See the problem? In order for the trapper to make any money, compared to the seventies, he would have to get 244.80 for the pelt I got $45.00 for. Do da math! http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th...todays_dollars.
I have trapping experiance. I have talked to other trappers. I have kept track of the fur market via "Fur Fish and Game" (and online), since the seventies. I have talked to trappers trying to sell fur at gun shows, Hillsdale Fairgrounds (open-market sales on Saturdays), etc. They all say the same thing: The fur market has never recovered due to the anti-fur movement. Now just where did you get your information?

 

If your trappers friends are claiming there was an anti-fur movement in the 1970s, they're full of crap, given that movement didn't start until the mid-eighties. Fur was already falling out of style in the 1970s, way before any anti-fur movement arose. It was seen as 1960s styling, the kind of coat a man bought for his mistress or trophy wife, and the modern 1970s woman did not want that look.

The plunge in the market for low-end fur also corresponds with the use of polyester faux-fur. While someone will care if a mink is real fur, no one cares about a little trim of low-end fur. Polyester faux-fur is cheaper and more convenient, so it replaced raccoon fur in most uses, and thus the price of raccoon fur plunged. That's how the market works.

Scapegoating might give the trappers something to vent about, but it's about as accurate as declaring vets coming back in the seventies all got spit on by the hippies. While there were a few cases, there was no widespread campaign, and paint-splattering happened more in hollywood movies than the real world.

 

"Late" seventies...I was there and remember the anti-fur movement well. As for no paint throwing; there were frequent accounts of that happening in the news at the time. The fur market was not dependant on all wormen wearing fur, it was the style, and would still be, of wealthy women...working class never could afford it. Faux-fur did not kill trapping; it was socially acceptable alternative for the wealty in response to critizisum for wsaring fur. Where were you when all this was happening? I was there, and paying attention. Are you even aware that there is still an active anti-fur movement? I have a daughter-in-law involved in it, and a sister-in-law who owns a mink coat but is afraid to wear it. "Now just where did you get your information?"

 

Addendum to above thread: http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/a/TimelineModern.htm
Here is a time line for the anti-fur movement.

 

From your link, for example, which shows no anti-fur movement before the mid-eighties. That's just one example. My sources are more reliable than yours, being they don't rely on vague memories from people with an axe to grind. Your memories an active anti-fur movement in the late 1970s don't match up with the historical record. Not to mention that the fur market had collapsed well before the late seventies.

And faux-fur isn't just a high-end replacement. It also replaced all those little jacket trims that used to make up the demand for low-end fur. That's what killed the raccoon-fur market.

 

My Memories are not vague. I was trapping and selling fur in the seventies. The baby harbor seal fiasco was in the news before (http://www.answers.com/topic/harp-seal) 1979. I was aware of what was happening in the news (people wearing fur attacked). I know and remember when it happened. The high grade, prime with black guard-hair raccoon was not used for trim. All the fur prices collapsed, including the expensive fox, mink, etc. I had chips in that game, you did not.

 

Historical record of anti-fur movement:
http://allisonsmf.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/the-rise-of-the-anti-fur-movement/
http://allisonsmf.wordpress.com/