Jump to content



Do you consider Greenpeace a threat for us?  

24 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you consider Greenpeace a threat for us?

    • Yes
    • No

Recommended Posts

As far as I know Greenpeace is not (and probably never was) a threat to us furriers and fur lovers. They only chase the outlaw hunting (like seals in Alaska and other) and not the farms.

However do you think they are a threat now or will they evolve to a threat someday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenpeace sets itself on protecting the environment. As long as fur farming does not endanger animals, or hurt the surrounding ecosystem, they will let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenpeace is focused on protecting the nature against pollution, unconscious industrialization, etc. They have nothing to do about furs. So they are not a threat for us. Moreover, I think they are on our side that as the nature dies, the fur animals may become endangered or extinct. For continuity of furs, we fur lovers should be sensitive about environmental issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not say "They are not a threat to us". I would say "They are generally not a threat to us".


They could very, very easily become a threat or be taken over by folks who would make them such in the future. Would just take a small change in leadership to change direction, etc. Also, as they chase seal hunters, or do anything like that it makes the press, and then PETA and ALF and all of these other groups can play on that to make it into free publicity on their side.


So, I voted that they are not a threat. But with reservation.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is more or less what I also think about.

This is why when a girl from Greenpeace approaced me on the road and told me of their activities (which had to do with the whales, the mutated food etc) I decided to support them with a (small actually) amount.


But I had to ask to see if the members here thinked differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most folks of course will never hear of your donation. However, of those who do, it will maybe help them to realize you are not an anti animal maniac. But instead someone who does care about animals and the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After voting (no), thought I'd also throw 2 bucks worth into the bucket as well, opinionwise, that is.


On the whole, Greenpeace is the acceptable face of Enviromentalism. As such, they are more mainstream in their activities, although still can't avoid doing the odd daft thing for publicity, especially when it comes to Japan's Whaling Scientific research WEG.


Now, if they came out against fur, they'd be cutting their own throats, cause they'd also by default arguing for oil companies. Ergo, they'd avoid it.


One thing to note though is that, like all so-called non-political organisations, they are heavily into politics of the internal and external variety. So whilst "goodies" at the moment, only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greenpeace is one of the few groups I will literally get into the boat with.


They have almost single handedly been responsible for the ban on whale hunting and have been the ones reasonable enough to go allong with native exceptions.


One of the few groups that fully understand the total scope of the impact of fossil fuel use.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that some elements of greenpeace are okay; and do highlight many important issues especially re habitat destruction.


Let us not forget what they did to the inuit of greennland through their actions in the late seventies/eighties. though they have subsequently apologised, it can never be forgotten.

Also there are rogue elements in Europe who do actively campaign against issues such as steeplechasing...which actually protects habitats.


Also their criticism of gm soya crop devastation in Argentina and logging in Scandinavis has fallen FAR short of actually saying that the fur industry (either Argentine chinchilla/nutria or Sami fur trade) actually HELPS habitat.


I therefore have not voted on this as there are still many things about them I am not happy with; though they do some good positive stuff. A lot of their stuff is "stunt" led.


Let us be honest about this.


1.In West africa leopard were hunted for thousands of years for fur but survived. Coffee plantations etc have wiped them out

2.Argentina used to support a thriving fur industry and now there is gm soya in its place which has wiped out vast habitat

3.The New Zealand ceasing of fur production has meant opposum have run riot and caused an eco catastrophe.

4. The Sami's "traditional methods and pratcices" are fur and reindeer harvesting. While they have said that their way of life prevents logging, and they have teams in there supporting them, they STILL haven't said

publically that fur is good.


So actions speak louder than lack of words. The WWF have big game hunting and sable reserves in Africa/Siberia.


They are the ONLY organisation who are REALLY doing something to protect habitats; by pointing out that hunting and fur may actually help conservation.


I hope that Greenpeace as a group come to the same realisation. There must be people in there who are onside of this.

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
  • Create New...