Jump to content

Real fur v faux


Debrotica
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/25/2021 at 12:25 AM, John Jones said:

I thought my wife a real fox fur coat about two years ago, from Laura at Fur & Leather boutique - it was a lovely coat nice a big with a huge hood.

Expensive as you’d expect, but compared to the luxury faux fur coats we have the real fur just didn’t feel as soft.

We’ve came to the conclusion that it’s faux fur for us at the higher end of quality though.

That's because real fur from real animals has guard hair and underhair/quiviut.  It's supposed to naturally vary in texture.  The different lengths of fur in a parka ruff help form a shield around the face and block cold air and wind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 8:03 AM, Debrotica said:

This is what we should be showing those idiots that support the anti fur establishment , for far too long we have been under the kosh when it comes to wearing real fur , people need to know that real fur does not harm the environment as much as the fake fur that theybrave so much about 

Screenshot_20210813-170529_Google.jpg

The best fur comes from wolverines, wolves and beavers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 2:02 PM, LeComte said:

Interesting thread. 

If you don't distinguish between humans and animals, it is murder. This is were a lot of people (unconsciously) touch the argument of the anti-speciesists that humans have in principal no moral right to dominate animals. Yet along this line goes a really important argument for me: "We use animals for food and a lot of other things and to me it is generally okay to kill animals for my needs. And fur is one of my needs (for whatever reasons). Nonetheless this does not allow for cruelty, as we are social beings and part of environment/the universe (or creation if you're religious), so we should minimize harm..."

One really should try to argue with human welfare first. I should have some talking points at hand...

In a subsequent step, this would also make it easier to introduce the "anti-anti-speciecist" argument that it is generally acceptable to kill animals for the human endeavour.

Fully agree, that's the gold standard of convincing someone. The problem is that it takes a lot of time, effort and skills if the topic is complex and opinions differ a lot and on fundamental levels.

 

Real furs from martens  wolves, wolverines, beavers and land otters keeps people warm in the winter.  Beaver and wolf ruffs, wolverine and wolf ruffs, wolverine paw ruffs. It's how people survive the cold. Same with  beaver trapper hats, otter trapper hats, and marten tail trapper hats. Same with beaver mitts and wolf head mitts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 8:24 AM, Luigi said:

Good point. Unfortunalety many young people know less and less about nature and do believe in smart phones...

I agree. I wish  more young people would learn about nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 10:16 AM, ShortsightedFarseer said:

Honestly, I'm not sure about that. I've had several conversations on this topic, and this argumentation line rarely works. Not because it's a bad argumentation, but because it's a wrong type of argumentation. Majority of anti-fur supporters approach this topic from moral standpoint of "killing animals is cruel and therefore wrong". "Our" line of argumentation is a collection of rational arguments. And just as you can't shoot a 5.45x39mm cartridge out of 9mm gun, you can't win fundamentally irrational discussion (no negative connotations attached) with rational line of arguments. It's a matter of compatibility.

In practice, anti-fur supporters "problem" comes from feeling that real fur equals unnecessary cruelty. This argumentation doesn't resolve their moral dilemma in our favour, because it doesn't properly adress their core issue with real fur. Instead, it "just" justifies the cruelty they perceive, which is often not only enough, but also hammers down their point that fur equals cruelty equals wrong. Because, technically, we don't dispute it. We usually assume that the fact that it's good will come naturally from our line of argumentation. But it can't, because if you look at it, their whole point starts with "Real fur is cruel, and therefore also wrong, because...", while pro-fur rhetoric starts from "Real fur is good, because...".

Our rational line of argumentation can't possibly dispute their main issue, because it simply doesn't adress it.
Combined with the fact that it's also rational vs. irrational, pro-fur and anti-fur might as well be talking about completely different topics because of the way everyone involved seems to handle it. The worst part of it all, though, is that... we might not have anything better to offer.

Our detractors don't realize that  there are humane and ethical ways to trap. Snares and body grip traps are the  ethical way to go for trapping

 

15 hours ago, furlvman1 said:

Some of the new high quality fakes are now being made from plant based materials, rather than petroleum oil. While I have a ton of real fur, I am now gravitating to the high quality fake fur as it is as soft, if not softer than a lot of real fur. And some of it is woven and breathes very well.

At whose expense are plant based materials being developed. This still hurts Indigenous trappers  and fur sewers financially. Wearing wild caught  fur is Pro Indigenous and Pro working class and Pro Environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AH7 said:

Also trapping pays the bills for working class people and Indigenous fashion designers and fur sewers. Real fur is from the woods and the tundra. Fake fur is from big oil.  Real fur from martens, land otters, beavers, wolverines, wolves is more sustainable than fake fur.

Oh shit, did the oil companies push the anti fur movement just to make fake fur popular?

Not that the owners would be against it for their own families, but this also conveniently keeps that luxury out of the hands of the "undeserving".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LordTheNightKnight said:

Oh shit, did the oil companies push the anti fur movement just to make fake fur popular?

Not that the owners would be against it for their own families, but this also conveniently keeps that luxury out of the hands of the "undeserving".

Yup. Big hemp, big soy and big oil are the ones promoting fake fur. All at the expense of Indigenous trappers and fur sewers. That's why I buy wild caught fur. It's the best option for the environment. Wolverine, wolf, and beaver are the most environmentally friendly furs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 12:13 PM, a_man_of_many_foxes said:

Yeah agreed, unfortunately. Most people only see it as murder. They don’t really care about the harmful effects of fast fashion. I honestly feel more people are indifferent to furs and animal products. You just have a small majority with a loud voice and large platform controlling everything. I can’t think of a great rebuttal to someone who sees it as murder. I just don’t see much difference from the meat industry. You need neither meat nor fur to survive so…. I’ll keep on wearing them as long as I'm alive. 

People don't realize that snaring and body grip traps are proven ethical trapping methods and are way more ethical than foothold traps .Plus most of our detractors have anti Indigenous motives. Also people DO need both meat and fur to survive. In some towns in Northern regions,   store bought food is more spendy than subsistence foods. Store bought clothing is not as affective as hand sewn clothing. People wear fur and eat meat to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AH7 said:

Our detractors don't realize that  there are humane and ethical ways to trap. Snares and body grip traps are the  ethical way to go for trapping

 

At whose expense are plant based materials being developed. This still hurts Indigenous trappers  and fur sewers financially. Wearing wild caught  fur is Pro Indigenous and Pro working class and Pro Environment.

I agree it hurts all those people who work in the real fur industry. When I was young I spent plenty of time in the woods checking traps with an old WW1 vet who was a trapper & logger. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, furlvman1 said:

I agree it hurts all those people who work in the real fur industry. When I was young I spent plenty of time in the woods checking traps with an old WW1 vet who was a trapper & logger. 

Exactly why I believe that wolverine fur, wolf fur, and beaver fur are the most sustainable fashion materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, AH7 said:

Scientists at UW have proven through research as well as testimony from elders that wolverine is more affective and warmer than the synthetic stuff.

I have wolverine, wolf, beaver, sheepskin and reindeer. I am thankful for  beaver, wolverine and wolf.  The first parka that I sew will either have a wolverine paw ruff or a beaver and wolf ruff and probably beaver cuffs. Depends on the color of the cover and liner.

The main advantage of Wolverine fur is that it doesn't freeze. I understand it is the ONLY fur that is that way. It's not soft to me anyway, and river otter is gonna be a LOT warmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, AH7 said:

Scientists at UW have proven through research as well as testimony from elders that wolverine is more affective and warmer than the synthetic stuff.

I have wolverine, wolf, beaver, sheepskin and reindeer. I am thankful for  beaver, wolverine and wolf.  The first parka that I sew will either have a wolverine paw ruff or a beaver and wolf ruff and probably beaver cuffs. Depends on the color of the cover and liner.

The main advantage of Wolverine fur is that it doesn't freeze. I understand it is the ONLY fur that is that way. It's not soft to me anyway, and river otter is gonna be a LOT warmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, AH7 said:

Scientists at UW have proven through research as well as testimony from elders that wolverine is more affective and warmer than the synthetic stuff.

I have wolverine, wolf, beaver, sheepskin and reindeer. I am thankful for  beaver, wolverine and wolf.  The first parka that I sew will either have a wolverine paw ruff or a beaver and wolf ruff and probably beaver cuffs. Depends on the color of the cover and liner.

The main advantage of Wolverine fur is that it doesn't freeze. I understand it is the ONLY fur that is that way. It's not soft to me anyway, and river otter is gonna be a LOT warmer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, AH7 said:

Scientists at UW have proven through research as well as testimony from elders that wolverine is more affective and warmer than the synthetic stuff.

I have wolverine, wolf, beaver, sheepskin and reindeer. I am thankful for  beaver, wolverine and wolf.  The first parka that I sew will either have a wolverine paw ruff or a beaver and wolf ruff and probably beaver cuffs. Depends on the color of the cover and liner.

The main advantage of Wolverine fur is that it doesn't freeze. I understand it is the ONLY fur that is that way. It's not soft to me anyway, and river otter is gonna be a LOT warmer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, furlvman1 said:

The main advantage of Wolverine fur is that it doesn't freeze. I understand it is the ONLY fur that is that way. It's not soft to me anyway, and river otter is gonna be a LOT warmer.

Land otter is good for trapper hats, mitts, mukluks and cuffs but for ruffs, it's wolverine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...