F_er, how should I know?

Forest_er...I'll just bet you were one of those protesters...

Either that or his was dressed in furry drag to represent the pro-furriers' side.

I get the impression that our good friend F_er is naturally furry...n'est-ce pas?

It's not really an environmental issue.

Killing animals for their fur isn't an environmental issue!?
Does it have to relate to forest ecology to count?

Like F_er, I am confused, now....

It's an ethical issue. Fur is a renewable resource... unless you're overhunting a wild species or causing some problem with the fur-farming process, there's essentially no special negative environmental impact.

Don't get me wrong, I don't "get" the whole ornamental fur thing (though my hiking boots are leather, eh?), but people falsely lump all these "leftish" issues together.

Saccharum,

I must apologise...you are correct....there is no room here for debate, disagreement or even opinions from sentimentalists, bleeding-hearts or, God forbid, "Leftists"...

And yes, I agree, it's an "ethical issue"....

To steal a phrase from "Sequoia"...

Peace.

LOL!

I am a leftist, friend! And damn proud of it!

I didn't say you couldn't discuss other issues here, just thought I'd point out (for Forester's benefit, more than anything) that it's not really an environmental issue.

Boy, people are touchy in this forum - and quick to jump to false conclusions.

Well Forest_er did say "let the fur fly"...but I think that only works for certain squirrels and monkeys...more of a glide than flight ;o)

Bats! Don't forget the bats. :-)

Here's the thing. I'm used to discussing these issues in environments (both digital and "real") where I am not surrounded by so many, um, "friends." One of the tactics that I have commonly encountered from conservatives is that they show unrelated, perhaps more extreme and logically vulnerable examples of ideation that some liberals exhibit, in effect saying: "See, this is how ridiculous liberals are. How can you take anything they say about the environment seriously?"

So, my reaction is: that has nothing to do environmentalists per se. It's a sneaky sort of ad hominem, maybe with some straw man thrown in. Of course, since people who care about the environment tend to be ethically-minded and thoughtful in general, many do care about animal rights, but each category stands on its own.

Saccharum (says I in my most friendly, non-confrontational and appeasing voice :>D).....you say:

"It's an ethical issue. Fur is a renewable resource... unless you're overhunting a wild species or causing some problem with the fur-farming process, there's essentially no special negative environmental impact."

Does that mean that you consider the logging of old growth forests "an ethical choice", as distinct from an environmental one? And ditto for the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? And ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

And for we illiterazzi, (well, for me!), does your phrase: "examples of ideation" mean the same as "ideas"?

And please, DO consider yourself among friends here!

Regards,

Shax

shax: Does that mean that you consider the logging of old growth forests "an ethical choice", as distinct from an environmental one? And ditto for the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? And ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

I agree that environmentalism also has ethical roots (in that one must first at least place value on the human species), but not all ethical issues have to do with the preservation of the environment. Sounds like a Venn diagram waiting to happen! I guess it would have been more precise to say, "It's an animal rights issue."

There are reasons to limit old-growth logging and CO2 emmissions that go beyond, "because it's wrong." These things and other environmental issues have potential long-term consequences for our species.

And for we illiterazzi, (well, for me!), does your phrase: "examples of ideation" mean the same as "ideas"?

Not exactly. It means, examples of the way people form ideas; their thought processes. "Examples of the way that people think and form ideas."

I am going to weigh in on the side of the sellers here. As far as I can tell from the article at least one of them is a used clothing store making the sale a secondary market. That seems to agree with the business owners POV. The protesters counter no one on the street seeing the furs would know the difference between a primary and secondary sale. They offer to pay the shipping to send the furs to PETA. Why not pay to remove the furs from the market? People on the street might not know the origin of the furs, but the protesters do. They should buy them and bury them if the issue is that important.

Bill
who wonders the credibility of a petition with only 35 signatures on it

Alex Bury Animal Rights Activist

Alex Bury former restaurateur

Here is a clue

Snip
If someone wears a fur coat on the street, they are saying furs are cool and it's OK to skin animals alive."

snip
donate the furs to People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, which buries or cremates the furs or gives them to the homeless or people in Afghanistan.

Okay, I'm confused also. If wearing fur is considered marketing for the fur industry, then why would PETA find giving it to the homeless or afghanistans acceptable? I guess dressing like a homeless person would be considered "uncool"?

Tell that to my 15 yr.old.

"If someone wears a fur coat on the street, they are saying furs are cool and it's OK to skin animals alive."

I have trapped and hunted animals for their furs and have yet to ever skin an animal alive. Nor have I ever seen it happen or visited with fellow hunters and trappers who have done it or witnessed it. Skinning an animal alive would be dangerous in many cases and would likely result in excessive damage to the pelt from knife cuts caused by the animal's movements and a resulting loss in pelt value.

A perfect example of exaggeration used for propoganda to exploit the touchy feely nature of the Bugs bunny/Peter cottontail/Tweety bird indocrinated general public that really believe animals have all the qualities of humans.

Besides, anyone who claims to have been motivated to their cause after reading one of Peter Singers works doesn't hold much creedence with me. Peter Singers, I hesitate to use the honorary title of Professor with his name, is so far off the spectrum that what I call the extreme left is right of him. He is anomalously leftish.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Seems like it would be a LOT harder to do when they're alive.

Watching to many cartoon with anthropomorphized animals scared out out of their skin/feathers/scales.

Good, my eyes are doing fine.

I'm not cofused here, I'm saddened. It seems that the PETA people in Guerneville didn't have a legit target for their protests (i.e. someplace selling *new* furs), so they vent their anger on what seems to be, overall, a progressive and environmentally friendly business (eviro-friendly because she is encouraging reuse, rather than new consumption).

Overall, as someone who has been a vegetiarian for almost 30 years now, and limits but does not personally exclude the use of leather, I think most of the PETA folks are barking up the wrong tree, especailly in this case. There are so many more pressing issue in this world, that directly affect people's lives and deserve our energy.

Interesting too how "animal rights" is almost exclusively a 1st-world issue. You almost never see reports of progressive activists in India, Brazil, or South Africa (to name just three "global south" countries which do have a great number of progressive activists) at an animal rights protest. I think they pay more attention to pressing issues affecting people's lives and their futures.

OTOH, I firmly believe their is no such thing as an "isolated issue." Sort of a "six degrees of separation" model. Everything is related, directly or indirectly. With a few hours research on Google, one can find relationships, for instance, between the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals and environmental protection and world hunger (hint: greed). Nothing is truely separate.

Peace,

- Sequoia

Merchants say fur protests backfired
Downtown stores reporting better sales after animal rights activists began picketing

Friday, December 31, 2004

By CAROL BENFELL
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Picketing by anti-fur protesters actually helped boost holiday sales at two fur-selling Guerneville shops and may have had a spillover effect on other stores as well.

Mikki Herman, owner of Kings & Queens Vintage Clothing on Main Street, said her 30- to 70-year-old furs flew off the shelves after newspaper and TV news stories about protests appeared.

"It's so amazing," Herman said. "A lot of people came in to support me and shop in Guerneville. Some people who were buying a fur said they never thought to buy a fur, but they felt a compulsion to make a statement."

Jennifer Neeley, owner of Memories That Linger, said shoppers stayed away the first weekend of protests, but returned as the protests continued, keeping sales high.

"I had a bunny farmer come in and spend $300 on Christmas ornaments," Neeley said. "You couldn't buy publicity like this."

Wayne Skala, who has a store about midway between Memories That Linger and Kings & Queens, said his sales had shot up as well.

"I had a definite kick-up," said Skala, owner of Wayne Skala's Jewelry, Gifts & Antiques. "It's wonderful."

A spokeswoman for Sonoma People for Animal Rights discounted the sales success, saying it did not represent a backlash, but was simply a short-lived show of support by owners' friends and pro-fur people.

The balance will shift when tourists arrive, said Alex Bury, who organized the protest. "Our tourist base is very progressive. They won't want to see furs or fur protests."

The animal rights group has temporarily suspended its protests, partly because of rainy weather and partly to mobilize the large number of people who have called and offered to help, Bury said. The group expects to gear up its efforts at Kings & Queens significantly after the first of the year, she said.

"We're getting tons of e-mails and phone calls from people who want to get involved," Bury said. "What the last few weeks of protest have shown me is that most locals are against fur. We're going to represent them and animals suffering in traps and continue to ask for fur to be removed."

Animal rights activists had called on the Russian River Chamber of Commerce to mediate with store owners with an eye toward ending fur sales.

But the chamber decided at a meeting this week not to get involved, said Ernie Carpenter, the acting executive director.

The chamber is not set up to mediate disputes, and there seems little middle ground between the two sides, Carpenter said. "The chamber doesn't feel there is anything to mediate."

Sonoma People for Animal Rights began picketing Dec. 4, the day Kings & Queens opened with three mannequins clad in faux fur in the window display.

Shortly afterward, the protest expanded to Memories That Linger, a clothing and gift store selling rabbit fur scarves and fur-trimmed items.

In recent weeks, counter protesters have shown up at the protests carrying their own signs and supporting merchants' and consumers' rights to buy and sell what they choose.

Sonoma People for Animal Rights has called off its protests at Memories that Linger, because Neeley has sold all her fur-trimmed garments and there is no longer fur at the shop, Bury said.

"When the furs disappear, we disappear," Bury said.

Neeley said she hasn't decided whether to carry fur scarves and fur-trimmed garments again next year. But it won't hinge on the appearance of protesters.

"It depends on if people want them next year," Neeley said. "Fur is in fashion this year. If you go to the mall you can hardly go into a store that doesn't carry fur."