https://therealmccoys.com/collections/new-arrivals/products/yeti-hooded-fur-coat
I thought that most manufacturers were stopping this nonsense
I thought that most manufacturers were stopping this nonsense
Menswear: What were they thinking?
edit not sure what you mean
He means whether the skin / fur is a byproduct because the animal is hunted to be eaten or the animal is bred and killed purely for their skin/fur . Not that difficult really
Reason I am confused is because if an animal doesn't have its skin it's dead…
Leather is rarely a byproduct of the meat industry
What's the difference between killing an animal for meat and for fur? In both instances, the animal is being slaughtered unnecessarily for human gain.
edit not sure what you mean
He means whether the skin / fur is a byproduct because the animal is hunted to be eaten or the animal is bred and killed purely for their skin/fur . Not that difficult really
Reason I am confused is because if an animal doesn't have its skin it's dead…
Leather is rarely a byproduct of the meat industry
What's the difference between killing an animal for meat and for fur? In both instances, the animal is being slaughtered unnecessarily for human gain.
One of the most sensible posts I’ve read on here that isn’t mine.
Good luck using logic with some of this lot matey, you won’t get fur… I mean far,
Usually the fur is taken when the animal is alive so they are skinned alive which is obviously a lot more painful for the animal.
simply not true. i think there was a video circulating ages ago of this, and it actually led back to PETAask yourself;
from a logical view, why would anyone skin something alive? imagine how difficult it would be to skin something that is squirming, kicking and trying to survive/escape. all whilst the skinner has an insanely sharp knife in their hand, and the animal is trying to bite/scratch/kick.
a damaged pelt = worthless
fur = leather without the hair burned off. literally no difference
Usually the fur is taken when the animal is alive so they are skinned alive which is obviously a lot more painful for the animal.
simply not true. i think there was a video circulating ages ago of this, and it actually led back to PETAask yourself;
from a logical view, why would anyone skin something alive? imagine how difficult it would be to skin something that is squirming, kicking and trying to survive/escape. all whilst the skinner has an insanely sharp knife in their hand, and the animal is trying to bite/scratch/kick.
a damaged pelt = worthless
fur = leather without the hair burned off. literally no difference
Logic says you can sedate an animal, and then take its fur off. So it's still technically alive, and therefore a lot easier to handle.
Source: I just made it up, but sounds reasonable.
I did read somewhere that it's preferable when they're alive, because the skin is still 'fresh' (for lack of a better word).
Sign in to post in this thread.
