# Fur Coats?



## Melensdad

We just got back from a shopping trip to Chicago and one of the things the lovely Mrs_B got on this trip was a new casual fur coat.  While in the fur vault at the store I noticed a series of brochures that can best be described as 'pro-fur' propaganda.

Obviously my wife is not one of the PETA 'anti-fur' sympathizers   The only thing that upset my daughter was that I told her that she was not getting a coat too.

But I thumbed through the little propaganda brochures and there were several points about how most of the wild harvest animals are harvested for both food and fur.  They also made a big point about the fact that many of the wild harvest furs are collected in humane traps_ (they did not define humane) _and are collected by native indians, eskimos, etc.  

There were also brochures on fur ranches, etc.  

I can recall a trip into Chicago about a half dozen years ago when members of PETA or ALF were arrested for spilling paint on a few women who wore fur coats.  I saw a lot of fur coats being worn by women, but then again it was about 18 degrees (F) and very windy, so fur coats are excellent for maintaining warmth in that type of weather.

Any of you ladies have thoughts about the 'evils' of Fur Coats?  Any of you guys care to weigh in on this issue?


----------



## Snowcat Operations

I think Fur coats are excellent but not needed anymore with todays modern materials and insulation materials.  BUT I also like the fact they use every part of the animal or as much as possible.  Thats just in my opinion good sense.


----------



## Snowcat Operations

My mom took her Mink fur coat and had it turned into Teddy Bears for all the Grandchildren.  The eyes are 3 or 4 carat diamonds.  They are the softest Teddy bears ever!  I have no idea how much its worth.  We keep it in the safe.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Farming is farming.  I had a friend growing up that was a mink farmer.  No different than anything else.

PETA people are deranged from the lack of hemi-iron in their system.


----------



## BoneheadNW

Personally, the only animal skin coat that I would (and have) buy is leather.  I don't care for the other animal skin coats.
Bone


----------



## fogtender

B_Skurka said:


> PETA
> 
> Any of you ladies have thoughts about the 'evils' of Fur Coats? Any of you guys care to weigh in on this issue?


 
*PETA*... isnt doesn't that stand for *P*eople *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.....???


----------



## Melensdad

fogtender said:


> *PETA*... isnt doesn't that stand for *P*eople *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.....???


And I'm sure that definition makes the members of PETA a little more crazy!  



BoneheadNW said:


> Personally, the only animal skin coat they I would (and have) buy is leather.



Interesting point.  I have a few leather coats and never considered them to be similar to a fur coat.  In fact, leather is really not much different than a fur coat that has been shaved.  I wonder why "fur" gets such a bad rap from so many people but we rarely hear complaints about "leather" coats/shoes/belts/wallets/purses/etc.


----------



## DaveNay

B_Skurka said:


> In fact, leather is really not much different than a fur coat that has been shaved.  I wonder why "fur" gets such a bad rap from so many people but we rarely hear complaints about "leather" coats/shoes/belts/wallets/purses/etc.



<Tommy Chong voice>

We all need to switch to wearing hemp clothing man!

</Tommy Chong Voice>


----------



## DaveNay

B_Skurka said:


> I wonder why "fur" gets such a bad rap from so many people but we rarely hear complaints about "leather" coats/shoes/belts/wallets/purses/etc.




The same reason those people will protest and destroy personal property, and then go to TGI Fridays for a burger.

They are hypocrites!


----------



## fogtender

B_Skurka said:


> I wonder why "fur" gets such a bad rap from so many people but we rarely hear complaints about "leather" coats/shoes/belts/wallets/purses/etc.


 
Because it isn't as "Touchy/Feely" as a fur coat, and fur denotes "Cute"...  

Besides, can you imagine some radical anti-fur/leather person going up to a "Hells Angel" and dumping red dye on his "Leather Colors"!  It would pretty much end their "Anti" anything protest from there on...   Much less, ability to attend any more "Anti-fur/leather" rallies in anything less than a wheelchair.  So I figure that is why they don't do leather...


----------



## Deadly Sushi

> My mom took her Mink fur coat and had it turned into Teddy Bears for all the Grandchildren. The eyes are 3 or 4 carat diamonds. They are the softest Teddy bears ever! I have no idea how much its worth. We keep it in the safe.


 
     A real fur teddy bear....... with FOUR CARROT diamonds for EYES!?!?!?!?!?
Holy crap man! That little guy has to be worth $25K!!!!! I could pay 2.5 years of rent with that animal. I could invest!
Hey.... ahhhhhhhh..... Im up for adoption... so..... Im just putting it out there.


----------



## BoneheadNW

B_Skurka said:


> And I'm sure that definition makes the members of PETA a little more crazy!
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting point.  I have a few leather coats and never considered them to be similar to a fur coat.  In fact, leather is really not much different than a fur coat that has been shaved.  I wonder why "fur" gets such a bad rap from so many people but we rarely hear complaints about "leather" coats/shoes/belts/wallets/purses/etc.


A hypocrite is a hypocrite, whether they are ultra right wing or radical left.  Kind of like a$$holes in that way. 
Bone


----------



## dzalphakilo

Personally when I see a lady wearing a fur coat, I just think of a rich bitch.


----------



## pirate_girl

I wouldn't dare wear a fur coat.
It's vanity and cruelty combined into one package.
That's just me though.


----------



## Melensdad

pirate_girl said:


> I wouldn't dare wear a fur coat.
> It's vanity and cruelty combined into one package.
> That's just me though.


I don't understand the "cruelty" comment?  Is it more cruel than eating a steak?  Or more cruel than having some sausage on a pizza?  Or more cruel than leather shoes? Belts? Handbags?  Or shearling coats, are those also cruel?

I do know that some women wear coats as status symbols.  I know that some wear them for warmth.  Interestingly many people don't consider "shearling" coats to be the same as "fur" coats but really a shearling coat is just a fur coat that is turned inside out with the fur inside.  I wonder why "shearling" is not frowned upon like "fur"?  And, as previously mentioned, why "leather" is acceptable when "fur" is not accepted by some?

Many of the people in the department of Natural Resources suggest that without trapping we'd have major rabies outbreaks in many species and I know that I've read of several accounts where trapping has been eliminated and rabies outbreaks have occurred.  Is it cruel to allow over population, disease and starvation of species en masse versus trapping and controlling?  We have to remember that most of us live in states/areas where man has removed the natural predators like coyotes and wolves that would have naturally kept these species controlled, which would have naturally kept disease and starvation from occurring in these species.


I ran across this website today:*Wisconsin Cooperative Trapper Education Program (WCTEP)*


Photo from one of the University Fur Ecology Schools. John Irwin, trapper education instructor and University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Students.

The future of furbearer trapping in Wisconsin is secured through an educated public that understands the need for and value in wildlife management. This is accomplished through trained trappers familiar with modern and *humane methods* of animal restraint, as well as the proper handling of furbearers. The mandatory WCTEP program brings experienced and skilled trappers, trained and apprenticed in the trapper education program, into the classroom where they can share their knowledge and understanding with those interested.

Trapping of our state’s furbearers is a source of recreation and income for several thousand established trappers, as well as the hundreds of new trappers coming through our program each year. It is carefully regulated to protect sensitive species from over harvest such as with bobcat, fisher and otter. However, it can also be used *as a control measure to reduce certain populations, such as muskrat, beaver and raccoon, which can cause property damage and facilitate the spread of disease.* The future of trapping in Wisconsin depends on proper management and ethical trapping – a task that requires the cooperation of all trappers, landowners and resource managers.

Wisconsin's Cooperative Trapper Education Program is administered jointly by the Wisconsin Trappers Association (WTA) (Exit DNR) and the DNR. The WTA is affiliated with the National Trappers Association (NTA) (Exit DNR).​


----------



## dzalphakilo

Bob, people who utilize the animal in their enviroment and comparing them to what you bought your wife is sort of comparing apples to oranges.

Let's face it, you're just trying to justify what you bought.

Bottom line, who cares?


----------



## Tractors4u

B_Skurka said:


> I don't understand the "cruelty" comment? Is it more cruel than eating a steak? Or more cruel than having some sausage on a pizza? Or more cruel than leather shoes? Belts? Handbags? Or shearling coats, are those also cruel?


 
I don't get it either.  There is no difference between leather and fur.  Fur and sausage, etc.  It's legal in the U.S. and we have the freedom to choose to buy or not to buy.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Tractors4u said:


> I don't get it either. There is no difference between leather and fur. Fur and sausage, etc. It's legal in the U.S. and we have the freedom to choose to buy or not to buy.


 
Wait a second!  There's a big difference between fur and sausage!  Oh wait . . . this isn't the MLR is it?


----------



## Tractors4u

PBinWA said:


> Wait a second! There's a big difference between fur and sausage! Oh wait . . . this isn't the MLR is it?


 

Now that is funny right there, I don't care who you are.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Bob, people who utilize the animal in their enviroment and comparing them to what you bought your wife is sort of comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Let's face it, you're just trying to justify what you bought.


First, I don't have to justify anything. Second, you don't know what I bought for my wife other than the coat was made from animals, nor do you know how she is going to utilize it.  Why is it more noble for someone to kill, skin and sew a coat but less noble to buy it already made?  Both coats are going to be used for warmth in cold weather.  


Tractors4u said:


> I don't get it either.  There is no difference between leather and fur.  Fur and sausage, etc.  It's legal in the U.S. and we have the freedom to choose to buy or not to buy.


Exactly my point.

And when I was looking at the little trapping and fur brochures it really hit me that there is a lot more to the fur trade than most people ever consider.  Especially the points about it being cruel.  I was friends with a trapper _(he died a few years back)_ who cared more about the environment and animals than anyone I've ever met.  It seems like much of the information I hear against deer hunting is very similar to what I hear in opposition to fur coats . . . you don't need to hunt deer to eat. . . you don't need to hunt little animals to keep warm. . . etc etc etc

But when you consider that we've _(society)_ already killed off the natural predators that control these animals _(deer, raccoons, muskrats, fox, etc) _so we need to control them somehow.  Further, we could switch to all wool fibers, but there are all sorts of people who actually protest sheep farming    Which then leaves us with fibers like cotton, which are not practical for winter warmth.  Or with nylon, rayon & polyester which all come from oil and would increase our dependence upon foreign oil.  

Plus, we'd see a lot of people who depend on trapping lose their livelyhoods and that would cost society something.  Is not taking someone's living away also cruel?  

So there is economic damage, and their is damage to the ecosystem which will become unbalanced, but still people seem to feel that there is something 'more wrong' with fur that doesn't apply to leather, shearling, rib-eye steaks or hot dogs.  

Sorry, but I don't get it?


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> First, I don't have to justify anything. Second, you don't know what I bought for my wife other than the coat was made from animals, nor do you know how she is going to utilize it. Why is it more noble for someone to kill, skin and sew a coat but less noble to buy it already made? Both coats are going to be used for warmth in cold weather.


 
Bob, I don't really care what your wife uses a fur coat for (I would assume to wear in when it's cold out, but I guess only you and the misses would know what you're really going to do with it).

However, by asking the question on "furs" in general on this thread, and pointing out that you bought your wife one, yes, it does seem like your trying to justify it (also the fact that you presented more points to pirate girl).

As mentioned, I don't care.

The reason it's less noble to buy one is because you don't have to do the work yourself. As SO mentioned, there are plenty of materials out there that would be just as warm, but bottom line, it's not a fur coat. Sort of on the vain (sp?) side as well IMO. But opinions are like assholes, I realize that.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> As SO mentioned, there are plenty of materials out there that would be just as warm, but bottom line, it's not a fur coat. Sort of on the vain (sp?) side as well IMO. But opinions are like assholes, I realize that.


 
*It totally amazes me that city folks have no clue to what it is like in the real world, outside the Condo Assn.*

*In Stark contrast to what PETA (the other PETA with the fuzzy animals guys) they watch a episode of "Grizzly Adams" and figure that all the animals in the wild do group hugs....*

*No animal in the real world dies a "peaceful" death, with the exception of a few cases, they are torn apart by a preditor of some sort, man is the most humane by far in taking prey in most cases.*

*Doesn't matter if it is a field mouse getting speared by an owl's talons or a moose being torn apart alive by a pack of wolves, or a whale having it's calf beat to death by Killer Whales so they can dine on it.... Nobody makes it out alive!*

*The only animals that die a peaceful death is our house pets, we have taken the wild out of them and they can't fend for themselves in most cases, and would die if you tossed them out the door into the wild.*

*Having a fur in our past history ment that a person would be warm and survive the cold. It also ment that the person that supplied it was a great hunter, which was quite a feat, concidering it was mostly taken by a spear, rock or arrow. As time progressed, we still use the animals as was ordained by God, The Grand Wizzard, Alla or natural selection, which ever makes one feel better, they are all fully interchangible to suit one's "correct" belief.*

*Regardless, we are part of the food chain and the animals that we kill for that end should be used for whatever is needed, and not using the fur is waste, but even that will degrade and return to the Earth as part of the natural cycle. *

*So I guess as the "Far Left" see it, if a wolf is killing your dog, and you shoot it, it is better to throw the pelt in the trash than to wear it as a coat to honor the wolf's life?*

*That is the same with a cow, chicken, pig, and sheep you use everything that you take which is the way it should be.*

*The only person that I would say has a honest Issue with wearing fur, is one that is 100% vegitarian, uses no animal parts what so ever... which is still almost impossible even in this modern world... so that makes even most of them a hipocrite, which is far worse than someone who honors and uses life and what it gives us.*

*Wearing fur is not only good looking, it is extremely practical. Fall into a frozen lake or river and try not to die wearing the "New Modern Fabrics", and you will more often as not, die unless you can reach shelter. *

*I get such a kick out watching these clowns come to Alaska with all their hi tech camping gear, and as soon as it gets damp, they are freezing.*

*I have a seal skin hat that I can't wear unless it below zero, it is too warm...  nothing modern in it, except maybe the head under it....*

*All preditors have the eyes facing forward, prey has their eyes on the side in an attempt to keep from being prey.... Guess where God, The Grand Wizzard, Alla or ____________(insert your version)** eyes are at, and they isn't for grazing in the yard....irate:*


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> The reason it's less noble to buy one is because you don't have to do the work yourself.


So using that form of justification, the only people who can eat corn are the people who farm it?  The only people who can eat beef without guilt are cattle ranchers?  The only people who can use gas are the drivers who haul it in tanker trucks?  Sorry but in a society that is built on specialty work there is no such thing as you suggest.  We are all co-dependent upon each other.  The eskimo who kills/skins/makes his own coat is dependent upon Remington for the high powered rifle, Bombardier for the snowmobile, Exxon for the gas & oil to power the snowmobile, Buck for the knife used for skinning, etc.  I don't make my own clothes so apparently I am not as entitled to fabric as the worker who weaves it, but that worker in the fabric mill is not entitled to the corn and soybeans that grow in my back yard???


----------



## pirate_girl

I don't eat meat, I wouldn't wear fur.
I am 90% vegetarian/vegan because I adopted that diet in order to improve my health.
It worked 
I won't wear fur because I love all things fuzzy and wonderful and couldn't stand the fact that I'd used them in any way for my own comfort.
Hunters can hunt for the sport.
People can enjoy a nice fat juicy steak.
It's a personal choice.
I'll just eat my tofu and Lasagna Florentine, thanks.


----------



## Bobcat

Mmmmmm, lasagna. Yum-O!


----------



## pirate_girl

bobpierce said:


> Mmmmmm, lasagna. Yum-O!


 .. but, I will eat a piece of turkey tomorrow just to appease my mother.
  
I always do during a holiday gathering.


----------



## fogtender

pirate_girl said:


> I don't eat meat, I wouldn't wear fur.
> I am 90% vegetarian/vegan because I adopted that diet in order to improve my health.
> It worked
> I won't wear fur because I love all things fuzzy and wonderful and couldn't stand the fact that I'd used them in any way for my own comfort.
> Hunters can hunt for the sport.
> People can enjoy a nice fat juicy steak.
> It's a personal choice.
> I'll just eat my tofu and Lasagna Florentine, thanks.


 
That is a choice you make and a good one for you!   

There is no way I would critize all the wild tofu that was harvested screaming from being "hacked" as a baby soy bean in the prime from, the green stock of life.... and then dragged all the way to the lunch counter for people like you to Munch on... nor would I tell you about all the cows that are now starving because they have nothing to eat, because you ate their life giving soy bean..... and some soybeans have replaced the cows life giving milk, further reducing their life span....  

Nope not me....


----------



## pirate_girl

fogtender said:


> That is a choice you make and a good one for you!
> 
> There is no way I would critize all the wild tofu that was harvested screaming from being "hacked" as a baby soy bean in the prime from, the green stock of life.... and then dragged all the way to the lunch counter for people like you to Munch on... nor would I tell you about all the cows that are now starving because they have nothing to eat, because you ate their life giving soy bean..... and some soybeans have replaced the cows life giving milk, further reducing their life span....
> 
> Nope not me....


*tossing FT a carrot stick*


----------



## pirate_girl

Do you know how much grain it takes to feed one cow for one year before slaughter, as opposed to how much it takes to make one loaf of bread?
Much of that grain could well be sent to third world countries to feed the starving, instead of fattening the already fatassed, diseased population we have walking around among us.
I'd rather eat a sandwich made with whole wheat bread, a thick slice of tomato,onion, pickles, swiss cheese and mustard- than a Quarter Pounder any day.
I have a mental clarity and more energy now at 47 than I did when I was 37.
That is why I won't eat or use anything _animal.._except for cuddling my doggie .. she's good for my health and state of mind 
Besides, pork and beef made me feel like my gut was going to explode.
I cannot digest most meat properly, hence- the radical diet change years ago.


----------



## fogtender

pirate_girl said:


> I have a mental clarity and more energy now at 47 than I did when I was 37.


 
Oh that, it is called Wisdom.... you have more of that now, so things "Seem" to have a bit more clarity now....

The term "Old age and wisdom (can be replaced with "treachery") will overcome Youth and enthusiasm any time!"


----------



## Bobcat

Isn't it true that people on drugs believe they think better and with more clarity?


----------



## Snowcat Operations

dzalphakilo said:


> Bob, I don't really care what your wife uses a fur coat for (I would assume to wear in when it's cold out, but I guess only you and the misses would know what you're really going to do with it).
> 
> However, by asking the question on "furs" in general on this thread, and pointing out that you bought your wife one, yes, it does seem like your trying to justify it (also the fact that you presented more points to pirate girl).
> 
> As mentioned, I don't care
> 
> The reason it's less noble to buy one is because you don't have to do the work yourself. As SO mentioned, there are plenty of materials out there that would be just as warm, but bottom line, it's not a fur coat. Sort of on the vain (sp?) side as well IMO. But opinions are like assholes, I realize that.








The reason in my view why Bob started this thread was because he wanted some honost opinions on FUR  and to create some wxcellent mini debates that bring a lot of people who tend not to contribute to open up and speak there minds.  Part of being a good moderator is to also generate good posts.  He has done so here.  Everyone here so far that I have read (and I probably should have read the entire thread before posting) has had excellent posts.  EVERYONE is entitled to there opinion.  What strikes me as odd for years was the FUR protestors who would rant and rave about yet were wearing leather belts, leather boots, leather gloves and a such.  To me a leather jacket is no diffrence than a fur coat as far as an animal had to die to provide it.  No big deal since GOD put them on this planet for our needs.  The diffrence stems from years of the stigma that a fur coat was a status symble.  You must "have" money if your able to buy a Fur coat.  When I was a kid they would let my mom back into the vault (just a fancy show room with a vault door on the front to further that image of wealth) so she could see and try on the really nice fur coats.  My mom would buy one every year or so and travel with it in cold climates.  San Francisco was a popular place to wear the fur coats since that Pacific winter cold wind would cut right through you.  I remember once my mom wrapping me in her caot with her and it was as warm as it could be!  Today that image has been destroyed which is fine but there still hard to beat for there warmth!  Modern jackets (Artic apparell) do beat out a fur coat for warmth but not buy much and in some cases at the same costs.  Great thread Bob.


----------



## REDDOGTWO

Last night, while opening presents, the wife made the remark that it had not better not be what she thought it was.  For some reason she thought there was a fur coat in the box, there was not, she does not want one.  She is not into that.

For the record, most of the animals that would go into a fur coat are not warm and cuddly, they are mean and vicious and would just soon take your arm if you tried to feed them.


----------



## RoadKing

pirate_girl said:


> Do you know how much grain it takes to feed one cow for one year before slaughter, as opposed to how much it takes to make one loaf of bread?
> Much of that grain could well be sent to third world countries to feed the starving,* instead of fattening the already fatassed, diseased population we have walking around among us.*
> I'd rather eat a sandwich made with whole wheat bread, a thick slice of tomato,onion, pickles, swiss cheese and mustard- than a Quarter Pounder any day.
> I have a mental clarity and more energy now at 47 than I did when I was 37.
> That is why I won't eat or use anything _animal.._except for cuddling my doggie .. she's good for my health and state of mind
> Besides, pork and beef made me feel like my gut was going to explode.
> I cannot digest most meat properly, hence- the radical diet change years ago.



Sounding a little bit self righteous aren't we. I agree you are entitled to your opinion and lifestyle. Don't judge mine. I happen to be one of those "fatasses"
you seem to find so disgusting. I've been overweight since I was five I will be sixty in the spring. Except for a few ER visits for stitches I've haven't been near a hospital since the sixth grade when I had my apendix out. My highest cholesterol test ever was 175 and my BP runs at about 110/70 and I have never taken a prescription drug or any drug in my life. There's nothing better than bacon, eggs and grits for breakfast or a nice thick RARE steak on the grill. I will admit some people's systems work better on what suits them.
As far as being "fatassed" I remember the pictures you posted of yourself when you joined FF and you could stand to lose a few pounds. I'm usually a pretty subdued guy until somebody attacks my bacon.


----------



## mak2

Cant we all just get along?


----------



## Snowcat Operations

mak2 said:


> Cant we all just get along?



LOL.  Man this is gonna get good!


----------



## Melensdad

I'm still unsure why some people consider it cruel to wear a fur coat but not cruel to eat a fish, scramble an egg, or wear leather shoes.


----------



## mbsieg

pirate_girl said:


> Do you know how much grain it takes to feed one cow for one year before slaughter, as opposed to how much it takes to make one loaf of bread?
> Much of that grain could well be sent to third world countries to feed the starving, .



I will only make one point here. Do you know how long it takes a Family to eat a WHOLE cow???????? It takes my wife and I about 18mo to eat half a critter. I bet a whole critter would last a Family of four at least 2 years. And yes we eat beef at at least 7 meals a week!!! as for all that grain??? 40-50 bushels of corn does not make that much bread.... And besides alot of the beef in this area never even sees grain it is strictly GRASS FED... I would personally eat a steak and a good burger than some field corn any day. But that is my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.


----------



## DaveNay

B_Skurka said:


> I'm still unsure why some people consider it cruel to wear a fur coat but not cruel to eat a fish, scramble an egg, or wear leather shoes.


 
Because...



> hypocrite
> Main Entry:hyp·o·crite
> 
> 
> Pronunciation:       \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
> Function:_noun_
> Etymology:Middle English _ypocrite,_ from Anglo-French, from Late Latin _hypocrita,_ from Greek _hypokritēs_ actor, hypocrite, from _hypokrinesthai_
> Date:13th century
> 1     *:* a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
> 2     *:* a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
> — hypocrite _adjective_


----------



## thcri RIP

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *B_Skurka*
> 
> 
> _I'm still unsure why some people consider it cruel to wear a fur coat but not cruel to eat a fish, scramble an egg, or wear leather shoes.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Because...
> 
> Quote:
> hypocrite
> Main Entry:hyp·o·crite
> 
> 
> Pronunciation:       \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
> Function:_noun_
> Etymology:Middle English _ypocrite,_ from Anglo-French, from Late Latin _hypocrita,_ from Greek _hypokritēs_ actor, hypocrite, from _hypokrinesthai_
> Date:13th century
> 1     *:* a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
> 2     *:* a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
> — hypocrite _adjective_




We have an area town that has a Gopher Count Days Festival.  Yep catch all the pocket gophers you can and cut off the feet and bring them in for the count.  (When I was very young the county I lived in paid for each set of front feet and I use to trap them)  Anyway back to the Festival on one of the planning meetings a girl came in to talk about how cruel this was.  Hypocrite, she had a Doberman (ears sniped and tail cut) and leather pants on.


murph


----------



## BoneheadNW

RoadKing said:


> Sounding a little bit self righteous aren't we. I agree you are entitled to your opinion and lifestyle. Don't judge mine. I happen to be one of those "fatasses"
> you seem to find so disgusting. I've been overweight since I was five I will be sixty in the spring. Except for a few ER visits for stitches I've haven't been near a hospital since the sixth grade when I had my apendix out. My highest cholesterol test ever was 175 and my BP runs at about 110/70 and I have never taken a prescription drug or any drug in my life. There's nothing better than bacon, eggs and grits for breakfast or a nice thick RARE steak on the grill. I will admit some people's systems work better on what suits them.
> As far as being "fatassed" I remember the pictures you posted of yourself when you joined FF and you could stand to lose a few pounds. I'm usually a pretty subdued guy until somebody attacks my bacon.



Self righteous or not, I believe the medical community is agreed that the U.S. population has an alarming rate of obesity.  Whether or not you have been in the hospital for your weight problem, that does not mean that being overweight is not a health risk.  I know this is off topic, but I wanted to set the record straight.
Bone


----------



## Melensdad

BoneheadNW said:


> Self righteous or not, I believe the medical community is agreed that the U.S. population has an alarming rate of obesity.  Whether or not you have been in the hospital for your weight problem, that does not mean that being overweight is not a health risk.  I know this is off topic, but I wanted to set the record straight.
> Bone


OK it is off topic, but it is not strictly related to eating meat, in fact a large part of the problem is related to the high carbohydrate and high fat intake that people who ingest fast foods and snack foods seem to eat.  Too many french fries, potato chips, quick burgers, soda pops and milk shakes.  What the medical community seems to agree upon is that a healthy diet includes a good balance of fat, protein and carbohydrates with some specific needs for amino acids, some of which are very difficult to obtain in a vegetarian diet.  

But back to the fur issue, it does seem that DaveNay hit it on the head a couple times and the term does indeed seem to be hypocrite but I believe that is an incomplete term.  I'd like to amend it to include the word judgemental so that we are really looking at are *judgemental hypocrites*.


----------



## mak2

Bob point taken but lets try not to make it look like a personal attack on PG.  She is kinda pleasant to have around.  So lets suffice it to say it is almost impossible to be a complete vegatarian in todays society.  So unless one is completely obsessed some animal products will used, if even by accident.  Like that half pound of ham i ate today.


----------



## Melensdad

mak2 said:


> Bob point taken but lets try not to make it look like a personal attack on PG.


Not my intent at all.  

Just matter of fact statement that seems to apply to a pretty broad spectrum of the anti-fur people.  Most folks who oppose fur are not members of the radical animal right groups like PETA, most are just average people who lump fur owners into the category of 'rich bitch', 'cruel' or 'vein' because they choose to wear a fur, but most also wear leather, eat meat, and don't consider shearling to be fur.

I still don't understand the cruel argument and nobody has even bothered to explain how it is cruel compared to the scenario that I laid out.  I'm not sure that I understand vein, given that most people spend all sorts of money on making themselves look good in many other ways.  I just don't get it.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> most are just average people who lump fur owners into the category of 'rich bitch'


 
Who you talkin bout Willis???


----------



## willie

I like fur coats.  I like to hunt, fish, etc. too.

We all got fatassed because we no longer HAVE to hunt, fish, etc to get our food or clothing if we don't want to.  I had a friend who is a vegetarian, and he swore his problem was eating meat too.  I told him of he got his chunky butt out from in front of the TV and video games and climbed down off his high horse, then only ate or wore what he could hunt, fish, trap, or grow, that not only would he be in better shape than he's ever been, but he'd have a real appreciation for critters and their purpose here on earth.  The same bunch that cries foul for the "poor animals" are typically pro-abortion.  Go figure...

It's true that some folks have a physiological issue digesting meat protiens, just the same as some can't have whey, gluten, or nuts.  If we had continued to live off the land and it's animals, how many of these problems would we have???  My bet is very darn few if any.  You want a fur coat or big fat juicy steak?  More power to you.


----------



## dzalphakilo

willie said:


> then only ate or wore what he could hunt, fish, trap, or grow, that not only would he be in better shape than he's ever been, but he'd have a real appreciation for critters and their purpose here on earth.


 
You realize it's going into the year 2008?

Don't know about you, but considering I work a good 50 to 60 hours a week during the day, if my food and clothing depended on what I hunted, I'd be in serious trouble.  Don't think fur trading will pay the house payments to boot.  I hunt to be outside and see how close I can get to the animal.  If I harvest somthing, great, if not, I enjoyed my time.  

However, I agree 120% that if you kill it, you have every right to wear it or provide it for your family.


----------



## Melensdad

willie said:
			
		

> We all got fatassed because we no longer HAVE to hunt, fish, etc to get our food or clothing if we don't want to. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dzalphakilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize it's going into the year 2008?
> 
> . . . if my food and clothing depended on what I hunted, I'd be in serious trouble. . .
Click to expand...

DZ, earlier in the thread you indicated that my wife wearing fur is a lot different than an eskimo wearing fur because eskimos live off the land and my wife does not.  You implied that people living off the land were somehow more noble in their use of animals and implied they had extra legitimacy that others do not have.  But now you seem to imply that you don't need to live off the land to use animal products like meat, leather, or pelts because you, yourself, don't have the ability eat food gathered from the forests or to dress in pelts based on your hunting skills.

So which is it?  Do you finally buy into the argument that we are all interdependent for our needs and the society has become one of specialty where one person makes coats, another butchers hogs, still others make tables or TV sets and we all 'trade' our labor for these 'things' that we want?  If you agree with that, as your statement indicates, then why would it be OK for the eskimos to wear fur but not so much for my wife?


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> DZ, earlier in the thread you indicated that my wife wearing fur is a lot different than an eskimo wearing fur because eskimos live off the land and my wife does not. You implied that people living off the land were somehow more noble in their use of animals and implied they had extra legitimacy that others do not have. But now you seem to imply that you don't need to live off the land to use animal products like meat, leather, or pelts because you, yourself, don't have the ability eat food gathered from the forests or to dress in pelts based on your hunting skills.
> 
> So which is it? Do you finally buy into the argument that we are all interdependent for our needs and the society has become one of specialty where one person makes coats, another butchers hogs, still others make tables or TV sets and we all 'trade' our labor for these 'things' that we want? If you agree with that, as your statement indicates, then why would it be OK for the eskimos to wear fur but not so much for my wife?


 
Bob, I eat meat. Do I eat only what I hunt? Heck no. Do I like the way some of the meat is harvested for general use? No. I won't eat veal as well as some other "products" once I found out how that meat is harvested.

You read some "pro fur" brochures at the fur shop. Do you think a fur shop will have anything else but "pro fur" brochures?

Meat in our diet could be argued as a nessestiy sp?.

One reason why I guess there are more leather products in the marketplace as well.

Could the same be said for wearing a fur coat?

Don't know many people that eat fox, wolf or beaver at a restaurant (EDIT:  it has been brought to my attention by another member here that when I mentioned "beaver", I'm not talking about your girlfriend or wife).

What it all comes down to is if you have the money to buy what you want, nothing more.

As mentioned before, with technology, there are materials for clothing that make it warmer, "breathable", water resistant than actual "real" fur.

I guess for myself, what it all comes down to is why you want a fur coat.

From personal experience, and I'm digging myself a hole here I realize, I have noticed that women and men who wear fur "as fashion" do have a set of personal values different from my own.

As far as the "bitch" comment I made, I also noticed (from personal experience) that women who wear fur socially sp? tend to think their crap dosen't stink, that they are "number one" in your life even if you don't know it, and they never unlock your driver side car door when you open the passenger car door for them. They also tend to yank your rear view mirror in their direction when you're driving so they can put makeup on. 

The above was from observing three women, and I realize that they may not represent women "as a whole".

I realize your wife could be different, but it's what I've noticed and experienced in my own life to form my own opinions, particularly with women wearing fur coats.

The phrase "different strokes for different folks" and "whatever floats your boat" comes to mind per this topic.

Per the Eskimo's, I guess the difference IMO is nessesity sp? and the actual respect they show the animal. Don't know many hunters around me who actually say a prayer for the animal once it is harvested.


----------



## Cityboy

RoadKing said:


> There's nothing better than bacon, eggs and *grits* for breakfast or a nice thick RARE steak on the grill.


 
I didn't know you guys have Grit Trees in Massachusetts?


----------



## ddrane2115

I got a leather jacket for Christmas.  Chances are the the skin for my coat came from an animal that was also used for food, somewhere.  Furbearers, in most cases are NOT used for food, they are raised commercially especially to provide fur.  I hunted raccoon a few times, till one nite we did get a kill.  I found out right there that this human would not use anything but the fur...........and I never went back.  If you have a mink coat, chances are the animals used in it's production were never food for humans.  Same with some feline coats also.  

Back in the day a man wearing a warm bear skin coat, also used that animal to feed his family, I have no problem with that.  I have seen deer skin clothing, and both deer I have killed, even the skin was used.  I am not against meat eating, hunting, or the use of animal skins that are another use for the animal, I am against killing an animal for its skin alone.


----------



## dzalphakilo

ddrane2115 said:


> Back in the day a man wearing a warm bear skin coat, also used that animal to feed his family, I have no problem with that. I have seen deer skin clothing, and both deer I have killed, even the skin was used. I am not against meat eating, hunting, or the use of animal skins that are another use for the animal, I am against killing an animal for its skin alone.


 
Do you think any "high dollar fur company" is going to tell you that the animals used for the garment was raised for only it's fur?


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

dzalphakilo said:


> Do you think any "high dollar fur company" is going to tell you that the animals used for the garment was raised for only it's fur?


 

Growing up, I had a friend that was a Mink farmer.  They turned the Mink meat into dog food as part of their rendering operation.  Seemed to me that the whole animal was getting utilized.


----------



## Av8r3400

I have a couple of mink farms near me.  They, too, sell the meat and bones to animal food rendering factories.

Nothing is wasted.  That argument is DOA.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Av8r3400 said:


> I have a couple of mink farms near me. They, too, sell the meat and bones to animal food rendering factories.
> 
> Nothing is wasted. That argument is DOA.


 
What is the animal's primary reason for being "raised"?

Not for animal food rendering factories, for their skin.

Apologies, anyone wanting to wear a coat made from animals who were born and bred (the animals in question) just for their skin is just plain sick.

Yes, at least for myself, there is a difference between a pelt being taken from the wild and one from a "farm".

Would love to ask the owner of a mink farm if it would be ok to breed his wife and then skin his child for some handwarmers


----------



## willie

Agreed. I don't know of many fur-raising places that would survive if they didn't use the rest of the animal for money-making, ie, pet food, etc. People tend to ASSUME that because they might find something personally repulsive that everyone should. I've found that folks start getting uppity once they're three or four generations removed from the farm and no longer have a real sense of what it takes to raise their food. As far as this being 2008 and working 50-60 hours per week, you missed but made my whole point. People who live a "subsistence" lifestyle generally don't have the health problems we do and that was my whole point. Working hard just to eat and going hungry once in a while because your efforts were unsuccessful would cure the fatass disease. Instead, folks who live off the land wholly have famine, starvation, and other issues they have to contend with (such as often being at a lesser place in the food chain-or being prey to the right/wrong critter), as well as a generally shorter lifespan. I don't think there is anything more "noble" about their lives, as a matter of fact I think it is rather condescending to view them as "quaint" or "noble" because they aren't as "civilized" as we are. Do we waste more in general than Eskimos or like folks? Generally speaking, without a doubt. But I'd be willing to bet that if we looked at what it really takes to make the "better" man-made fibers that are being touted that there is less overall waste with furs or leathers, and guess what, they are a renewable resource. With the use of that renewable resource there is definitely stewardship issues to deal with, but to insist that wearing fur or hunting is somehow immoral because we don't "have" to is absurd.

I don't think there is any real difference between an animal being raised for its skin or its meat. The only issue is which resource is being considered a usable by-product. Is it more moral to raise an animal just for your personal enjoyment or companionship, such as a pet? Isn't that kind of dooming the wonderful animal to a life of slavery and subservient duty? Folks can rationalize their beliefs any way they want. Don't be a hypocrite.


----------



## dzalphakilo

willie said:


> I don't think there is any real difference between an animal being raised for its skin or its meat.


 
There we have a huge difference of opinion.

I go by the belief that you only kill what you intend to eat (and using the pelt utilizes part of the body), or kill that which intends to kill you.  Pest issues are another matter that must be dealt with accordingly (such as losing livestock to predators).

That is my belief, so how am I a hypocrite?

I mentioned before, I'm not against all people wearing fur.


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> *It totally amazes me that city folks have no clue to what it is like in the real world, outside the Condo Assn.*
> 
> *In Stark contrast to what PETA (the other PETA with the fuzzy animals guys) they watch a episode of "Grizzly Adams" and figure that all the animals in the wild do group hugs....*
> 
> *No animal in the real world dies a "peaceful" death, with the exception of a few cases, they are torn apart by a preditor of some sort, man is the most humane by far in taking prey in most cases.*
> 
> *Doesn't matter if it is a field mouse getting speared by an owl's talons or a moose being torn apart alive by a pack of wolves, or a whale having it's calf beat to death by Killer Whales so they can dine on it.... Nobody makes it out alive!*
> 
> *The only animals that die a peaceful death is our house pets, we have taken the wild out of them and they can't fend for themselves in most cases, and would die if you tossed them out the door into the wild.*
> 
> *Having a fur in our past history ment that a person would be warm and survive the cold. It also ment that the person that supplied it was a great hunter, which was quite a feat, concidering it was mostly taken by a spear, rock or arrow. As time progressed, we still use the animals as was ordained by God, The Grand Wizzard, Alla or natural selection, which ever makes one feel better, they are all fully interchangible to suit one's "correct" belief.*
> 
> *Regardless, we are part of the food chain and the animals that we kill for that end should be used for whatever is needed, and not using the fur is waste, but even that will degrade and return to the Earth as part of the natural cycle. *
> 
> *So I guess as the "Far Left" see it, if a wolf is killing your dog, and you shoot it, it is better to throw the pelt in the trash than to wear it as a coat to honor the wolf's life?*
> 
> *That is the same with a cow, chicken, pig, and sheep you use everything that you take which is the way it should be.*
> 
> *The only person that I would say has a honest Issue with wearing fur, is one that is 100% vegitarian, uses no animal parts what so ever... which is still almost impossible even in this modern world... so that makes even most of them a hipocrite, which is far worse than someone who honors and uses life and what it gives us.*
> 
> *Wearing fur is not only good looking, it is extremely practical. Fall into a frozen lake or river and try not to die wearing the "New Modern Fabrics", and you will more often as not, die unless you can reach shelter. *
> 
> *I get such a kick out watching these clowns come to Alaska with all their hi tech camping gear, and as soon as it gets damp, they are freezing.*
> 
> *I have a seal skin hat that I can't wear unless it below zero, it is too warm... nothing modern in it, except maybe the head under it....*
> 
> *All preditors have the eyes facing forward, prey has their eyes on the side in an attempt to keep from being prey.... Guess where God, The Grand Wizzard, Alla or ____________(insert your version)** eyes are at, and they isn't for grazing in the yard....irate:*


 
Uhm, could you make your point in less than four sentences? Perhaps its just me, but I'm not sure what it is.

If by chance that it's everything must die, and sometimes it's violent, and you should utilize every part of the animals body, I agree. 

By the way, my "high tech" wool clothes worked just fine when I was in Alaska.


----------



## ddrane2115

PBinWA said:


> Growing up, I had a friend that was a Mink farmer. They turned the Mink meat into dog food as part of their rendering operation. Seemed to me that the whole animal was getting utilized.


 

Dont buy it, they may do this, but the main reason for the animal is the skin, fur etc.   the by product is the meat for other animals.  

Still wrong.............


----------



## ddrane2115

dzalphakilo said:


> Do you think any "high dollar fur company" is going to tell you that the animals used for the garment was raised for only it's fur?


 

chances are they have no idea how the fur was harvested, unless they own a farm for fur in which makes them real jerks.


----------



## Melensdad

ddrane2115 said:


> Dont buy it, they may do this, but the main reason for the animal is the skin, fur etc.   the by product is the meat for other animals.
> 
> Still wrong.............


I guess I don't understand why the animal has to be used for food to justify the harvesting of the animal.  I don't care if they use it for food, for dog food, for fertilizer, or if they just throw it away after they harvest the pelt.  

Seems to me using the logic of having to harvest it for food would then logically make it immoral to harvest corn for ethanol instead of for food?  Afterall, starving people could have been fed with that corn instead of turning it into fuel for us to drive to the shopping mall.

I'm not advocating inhumane treatment, but there is no reason to suggest food is the only noble use.


----------



## ddrane2115

Corn does not have feelings and does not hurt when you harvest it.  Using the leftovers for fodder is a good use of the by-product.  Using an animal ONLY for its pelt is a waste in my mind.  It is also inhumane, especially when most fur can be manufactured.............

I would never back the idea of using an animal only for it's pelt.  The use of the by-product in food for other animals is a weak argument, I see this as a way to get rid of what is not used in a way to provide a small amount of $$, verses disposing of it.  

The rescue we volunteer at takes dead farm animals, the farmers are more than happy to give it to us, since even burying it is more costly.


----------



## ddrane2115

<<<<or if they just throw it away after they harvest the pelt.>>>>


this is the part we that care for animals have a problem with.


----------



## Melensdad

ddrane2115 said:


> <<<<*or if they just throw it away after they harvest the pelt*.>>>>
> 
> 
> this is the part we that care for animals have a problem with.


I care for animals too, have 4 in my house.  Had an opossum on the porch last night that wouldn't go away and that I could have easily have killed, but didn't see it as any threat and didn't see the need to kill it, I just wanted it gone.  However I don't have a problem with farming a species for its pelt.  Personally I think its great that they do use most/all of the animal for various products like 'mink oil', fertilizer, etc.  But I simply don't believe it is necessary for that to happen to justify the practice of animal farming for the pelt.


----------



## Av8r3400

So, even though the entire animal is utilized, pelt and carcass, it is still wrong?  No one has explained how it is different to cattle ranching where the meat is the prime purpose and the pelt is secondary.  I see no difference what so ever which is the prime reason.  Should all these farm raised (fur bearing) animals be euthanized and destroyed, then?

DD and DZ, I sincerely respect both of you and your opinions, I'd just like to understand them better.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Where does the meat "go" from a fur farm?

Anyway you cut it, if the general population didn't buy fur, I'd guess the fur farm wouldn't exist.

Part of my issue also lies with some of the idiots I know that are out there running these farms.

willie mentioned about pets and what the difference would be. Well, I've dealt with the dumb ass idiots who think if they get two dogs, hey, they have a business for breeding. Just two weeks ago we got a complaint from a lady in New York who was passing by in our area that went to see a "kennel". People don't realize we have no LE authority, and that we or those complaining must involve the local law to investigate. Let's just say it wasn't a kennel, but a shit house with over twenty puppies neglected, living in filth and not eating properly. The people "closed" their shop down right away when we showed up. Up in Galax Va, over 100 dogs were just shipped to various parts of the country for the same reason. Guess what happened to those dogs? I have no clue because those people didn't break any laws.

Now, is this the same with fur farms? 

I sincerely don't know, but knowing people and how they want to make a "quick" buck, I don't doubt it.

I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur. Where does the meat go? My point being is that cattle, unlike fur, primary purpose is for human consumption.

Remember my views on killing an animal? I don't have an issue with animals being killed.

Heck, there are people who have known me for five years down here and can't believe I hunt or actually own a gun.

As far as what to do with the animals in existing farms, I'd use them all up to make fur products and stop the breeding.

Added to the fact that I've noticed that most people I've met, who haven't spent a day "out in the woods" but have over a $1000 fur coat can be some real idiots, however rich enough to buy a coat that they only need to "show off".


----------



## Melensdad

dz said:
			
		

> Anyway you cut it, if the general population didn't buy fur, I'd guess the fur farm wouldn't exist.
> . . .
> My point being is that cattle, unlike fur, primary purpose is for human consumption.


So if human consumption is the key point, then lets go back to ethanol where we are taking a valuable food crop that could be shipped to starving people but we, being the selfish consuming Americans, have chosen to turn it into fuel of our cars so we can go out to the mall to buy fur coats to cover our fatasses.  How is ethanol production morally acceptable?



			
				dz said:
			
		

> I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.


 Interestingly tobacco is used in many medications and huge amounts of medical research, but the primary income most farmers draw from tobacco is the production of smoking tobacco.  Tobacco companies exist with the sole purpose of selling a product for income. Many American find the primary income generator of tobacco farming to be repulsive but it is still (for now) legal.  



			
				dz said:
			
		

> I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.


 I'd guess the primary income producer at a distillery is drinking alcohol, and accidents while drunk driving and unwanted babies are both consequences of drinking. 


			
				dz said:
			
		

> I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.


 I'd guess the primary income producer at a dairy farm is butter and milk.  Both are known to be leading contributors to heart disease, the #1 killer of humans.


			
				dz said:
			
		

> I'd guess a fur farms primary income is fur.


 I'd guess you are right, and I don't see a problem with that.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Bob

There is an old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I think you're a better man than to use the fact that we already make waste and cause death as a society by what we find acceptable that it makes everything else "ok".

People can make choices, however most of us are lazy.

Personally, I don't see the need for breeding and killing animals for a product that people don't need. That's just me and my opinion.

And how much does tabacco put in your pocket? 

I'm fully aware that people make their own decision to buy the prodcut (tabacco). 

Guess it all comes down to the almight dollar, that sir is a fact of life.

Did I mention that those three girls were real bitches?  I guess the question is was it the bitch that wanted the fur or did the fur make the bitch?


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> Bob
> 
> There is an old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."


 
That's just like: 

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?" 

isn't it?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Cityboy said:


> That's just like:
> 
> "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?"
> 
> isn't it?


 
Guess that would depend on the cause. 

Hayduke was always a favorite character of mine.


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> Guess that would depend on the cause.
> 
> Hayduke was always a favorite character of mine.


 
Never heard of Hayduke and had to Google it. The results kept coming back as "Eco-Terrorism", "vandalism" and "property destruction". 

Was Hayduke like those PETA people who "freed" all those minks from the mink farm somewhere, and those "freed" minks then proceeded to run onto an interstate highway and get smashed into mink-grease? 

Or those greenies that burn Hummers at the dealerships in the name of clean air?  

Or the ones that burn down houses under construction that then cause forest fires?  

Sorry DZ...gotta poke ya for that one.


----------



## dzalphakilo

George Hayduke was a fictional character in the novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" written by Edward Abbey .

The character was a former SF medic who served in Vietnam and ended up living in Utah. The character wasn't what you could call politically correct, and had a distrust for the goverment. Yes, the character knew explosives really well

Reading the book motivated me to go out Utah and see the beauty that Mr. Abbey wrote about. I ended up loving the area so much that I went out year after year exploring the area and I found it truely amazing and beautiful.


----------



## Junkman

pirate_girl said:


> ................
> I'd rather eat a sandwich made with whole wheat bread, a thick slice of tomato,onion, pickles, *swiss cheese *and mustard- than a Quarter Pounder any day.
> I have a mental clarity and more energy now at 47 than I did when I was 37.
> That is why I won't eat or use anything _animal.._except for cuddling my doggie .. she's good for my health and state of mind
> *Besides, pork and beef made me feel like my gut was going to explode.*
> I cannot digest most meat properly, hence- the radical diet change years ago.



Where do you think the milk for that Swiss cheese came from..... some fat ass????  As for more mental clarity, now, vs. when you were 37..... I sure would have like to see what type of mental state you were in back then in comparison to now.......





mak2 said:


> Cant we all just get along?



Why............


----------



## fogtender

As long as any life exists, we have to kill life to survive.

Doesn't matter if you eat corn, meat or an apple, something had to die to keep you alive. We minimize eating vegitables because we don't view that as a life... but it is... Those gals wearing grass skirts, the shame they must feel from killing a growing, thriving life form that we only pay attention to when someone else wants to build a dam, put in a windmill farm or drill for oil.....

That should make a bunch of you feel some remorse now.....


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> As long as any life exists, we have to kill life to survive.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you eat corn, meat or an apple, something had to die to keep you alive. We minimize eating vegitables because we don't view that as a life... but it is... Those gals wearing grass skirts, the shame they must feel from killing a growing, thriving life form that we only pay attention to when someone else wants to build a dam, put in a windmill farm or drill for oil.....


 
Won't get an argument from me there.

My question is if Miss Skurka is going to die if she dosen't get that fur coat?

Again, it comes down to dollars, not life or death in this instance.


----------



## Junkman

dzalphakilo said:


> Won't get an argument from me there.
> 
> My question is if Miss Skurka is going to die if she dosen't get that fur coat?



Nope........... Bob is .......


----------



## fogtender

Junkman said:


> Nope........... Bob is .......


 

Nope, you have to carry it to the next step.... 

By having that fur coat, you have stopped the killing of whatever it was that those furs ate when they were alive.... By having a "GREAT" fur coat, that has ended the constant strugle of whatever those furs were eating daily with no remorse for their victims....

The circle of life is always bigger than the end of our nose!

Way to go BOB!!!


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Nope, you have to carry it to the next step....
> 
> By having that fur coat, you have stopped the killing of whatever it was that those furs ate when they were alive.... By having a "GREAT" fur coat, that has ended the constant strugle of whatever those furs were eating daily with no remorse for their victims....
> 
> The circle of life is always bigger than the end of our nose!
> 
> Way to go BOB!!!


 
Uhm, your breeding the animal in the first place for the fur 

People who buy that fur will not die if they don't have it.

Let me guess, you got your seal skin at Macy's? 

My point is that on average, people who go into a department store and spend big bucks because it's fur don't need that product to survive. They have money, so they can buy it. Supply and demand. They buy the product, so people will supply the product.  That's what it all comes down to, period.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Uhm, your breeding the animal in the first place for the fur
> 
> People who buy that fur will not die if they don't have it.
> 
> Let me guess, you got your seal skin at Macy's?


 
Naw, it was clubbed to death out on the West Coast of Alaska, the meat thrown to the sled dogs, the fur was cured by having it pissing on (uric acid used for tanning), then it was hand sewn by the local slave labor and given to me as a token gift for two cases of fine "Hooch"... Pretty much the traditional way.... 

You mean you can buy those in a store? What a concept! Do you cruise the fur isles often at Macy's?


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Uhm, your breeding the animal in the first place for the fur


Why would you presume that?  

Why would you not presume that the fur was trapped by a trapper who is trying to eek out a living off the land?  

Why would you presume_ (by default of your statement above) _that the native species would not overpopulate without that trapper, become diseased and/or starve?  

Why wouldn't you consider his life a noble life and why do you hope to snuff out his living simply because he sells his skins to someone else who then processes them into a coat?  

You previously implied that it is OK for someone who lives off the land to use the animals/skins to make their livelihood, but now you want to deny that very same person their right to make that livelihood and you, by default, want to interfere with scientifically sound wildlife management practices.

Further, people seem to imply that "need" for fur should be considered.  *Why? * Why not argue that people don't need gas guzzling cars?  Or that soccer moms don't need 4x4 SUVs?  Or that people don't need champaign on New Year's Eve?  Or that people don't need Starbucks Coffee, Coca-Cola or Hershey's Chocolate bars to survive?


----------



## fogtender

B_Skurka said:


> Or that people don't need champaign on New Year's Eve? Or that people don't need Starbucks Coffee, to survive?


 

Ok, you had me onboard til there....


----------



## Melensdad

fogtender said:


> Ok, you had me onboard til there....


Many people consider those things "excessive" and certainly many would argue that they are unnecessary for survival.  So if fur is not necessary then why not just list all the unnecessary things and ban/outlaw all of them?  And the jobs that go with them!  

I simply don't understand the logic of it all.  We have 4 dogs as pets in our house. . . in parts of the world they eat dogs.  Should we ship our dogs to the people who "need" them to survive?  Some people need to trap fur bearing animals to make a living, why should we not support them by buying mink ear muffs, ermine coats, fox stoles, beaver capes, coyote trimmed parkas, etc?  

Sure, 'fake' fur can be made, but a "turkey" can be shaped out of TOFU and served for Thanksgiving dinner . . . doesn't mean it is as good as the real thing . . . and I sure would not give 'thanks' if someone tried to pass off *TOFUrkey* to me for a holiday feast!


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Naw, it was clubbed to death out on the West Coast of Alaska, the meat thrown to the sled dogs, the fur was cured by having it pissing on (uric acid used for tanning), then it was hand sewn by the local slave labor and given to me as a token gift for two cases of fine "Hooch"... Pretty much the traditional way....
> 
> You mean you can buy those in a store? What a concept! Do you cruise the fur isles often at Macy's?


 
Not that it may mean anything, but I find your meathod in obtaining the seal skin acceptable IMO.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Many people consider those things "excessive" and certainly many would argue that they are unnecessary for survival. So if fur is not necessary then why not just list all the unnecessary things and ban/outlaw all of them? And the jobs that go with them!


 
Because killing an animal shouldn't be done just for a whim per what the consumer wants.

What effect on the economy would outlawing "fur breeders" have on the economy?

I said "fur breeders", not trappers.

Bob, did the fur whatever you bought your wife come from a "fur breeder"?


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Why would you presume that?
> 
> Why would you not presume that the fur was trapped by a trapper who is trying to eek out a living off the land?
> 
> Why would you presume_ (by default of your statement above) _that the native species would not overpopulate without that trapper, become diseased and/or starve?
> 
> Why wouldn't you consider his life a noble life and why do you hope to snuff out his living simply because he sells his skins to someone else who then processes them into a coat?
> 
> You previously implied that it is OK for someone who lives off the land to use the animals/skins to make their livelihood, but now you want to deny that very same person their right to make that livelihood and you, by default, want to interfere with scientifically sound wildlife management practices.


 

Bob, I can't beleive a smart business man like yourself would ask such a confounded question.

*Supply and demand*.

I have no problem with a fur trapper making a living (harvesting the animals from it's natural habitat). I do have a problem with people "growing" animals that will be destroyed for the whims of some people.

Since we're going on analogies here, what's the difference between someone growing animals for fur and people that raise dogs to fight? The same denominator (sp?) is *money*.

I guess it all comes down to what you find acceptable.

Apologies, still having issues "seeing" all the post. I have to go "the long way around" to see who's posting what, so my responses may not be in order.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Not that it may mean anything, but I find your meathod in obtaining the seal skin acceptable IMO.


 

The fact that my Seal Skin hat did come from the West Coast of Alaska and was a hand made gift really isn't the point.  Many people assume that because you are wearing a fur, that it had to come from a "Fur Farm", which isn't the case most of the time.  In Alaska, I don't know of anyone that farms fur, there was years ago (but that died off when they couldn't feed the minks whale meat any more...  picky little devils...).

In Anchorage during Fur Rondy, they have the annual Fur Auction where trappers sell furs.  Every year there is a handfull of the "Anti-Fur" faithfull standing accross the street freezing while the Auction is a success each year.  

Anyway, there is no way I would wear my Seal Skin hat outside of Alaska, too many people have no clue to what it is and besides, the furry Beaver trim really is too warm now that Global Warming is in full swing down there...  I get tired of telling them that the seal skin is circus raised and died of old age, and that the beaver drowned in the pond and was recycled....


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> The fact that my Seal Skin hat did come from the West Coast of Alaska and was a hand made gift really isn't the point. Many people assume that because you are wearing a fur, that it had to come from a "Fur Farm", which isn't the case most of the time. In Alaska, I don't know of anyone that farms fur, there was years ago (but that died off when they couldn't feed the minks whale meat any more... picky little devils...).


 
Don't hold the lower 48 to what you've expereinced.

I even have a piece of clothing that I picked up outside of White Horse that I know didn't come from a "fur farm".

Sad to say, in sunny N.C (I just got done mulching some leaves outside about an hour ago), I don't really need that piece of clothing anymore.

However, just by looking, from the "fur commision", in 2006, there were 326 mink farms in the U.S alone.

I'm not against harvesting animals for their fur, only raising them in a farm enviroment and using them for the primary purpose of their fur. Utilizing the entire animal is only smart business (and good marketing) for the fur farmer.


----------



## Cityboy

dzalphakilo said:


> I'm not against harvesting animals for their fur, only raising them in a farm enviroment and using them for the primary purpose of their fur. Utilizing the entire animal is only smart business (and good marketing) for the fur farmer.


 
I'm replying not because I care.....I'm just bored as hell sitting at my MIL's house till December 31. irate:  

I guess people decide to be for or against an issue for different reasons. I quit hunting several years ago because I was bored with it, and I went mainly because I liked sitting around the camp fire in the evenings with my buddies and consuming adult beverages. Plus, toward the end, I'd killed enough deer over the years that I wasn't interested in field dressing them and dragging them back to the truck any longer. I let several walk on by because I just didn't feel like killing them. Then I quit drinking and lost all incintive to go to deer camp. 

Conversely, I know guys who hunt and kill deer, but don't eat the meat. They do donate it to "Hunters for the Hungry" though. Whatever floats your boat, I reckon. 

I do like to poke fun at hunters (and myself because I used to be one), and boy do some of those guys get pissed about it.  I stirred up a bunch of poop at TBN once doing that. I added up how much per pound deer meat costs by the time the typical cityboy loads up his 4-wheeler into his 4wd pickup with his Weatherby magnum, climbing stand, hooks up the 30' camper, et al, etc., and heads to the woods to commune with nature.  

I'm not against hunting, but I am concerned with the increasing number of idiots in the woods with high-powered rifles. Anyway -we are talking about Bob S hunting fur in it's natural habitat....The Mall,  not deer hunting, but I digress.....

DZ - Those critters you are concerned about would not even exist in the first place if not for the fur farmers. They created, through breeding, these minks, rabbits, etc., specifically to supply the demand for their pelts. Were it not for the breeders, Skurka would not have been able to buy the fur coat and then start this thread -because subconciously he felt guilty about killing those poor, cute fuzzy little animals- and give my bored ass something to type about, and I would have to be in the living room with the rest of the inlaws. 

So, for that reason, I have decided I am for the fur trade, especially beaver :string: today.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Bob, did the fur whatever you bought your wife come from a "fur breeder"?


It clearly makes no difference to me, but part of it is from an animal that is consumed by people on a regular basis and part of it is from an animal that is typically hunted/trapped.  So _(I'm guessing)_ that part of it was farmed and part of it was not.

She has a few other fur coats, one of which is clearly 'ranch' raised, but I believe most of the furs on most of the coats were trapped/shot, honestly never thought about it before.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

I believe its time this picture was posted . . .


----------



## fogtender

PBinWA said:


> I believe its time this picture was posted . . .


 
Well.... did you win any of the races "you" were entered in?


----------



## willie

No matter how you slice it, that is just plain not nice.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Hey PB, ever decide that you want to give back to your community and work at a special olympics event?

Work at one and see the kids, and what it actually means to them to be there.

If you ever did,  you'll understand when I say to you that I would love to knock your big frogger ass back to where it belongs for using a picture of a child with a metal handicap to make a point.

Your kids must be so proud of you.


----------



## Tractors4u

dzalphakilo said:


> My point is that on average, people who go into a department store and spend big bucks because it's fur don't need that product to survive. They have money, so they can buy it.


 
That is the same reason that people buy Corvettes.  Who needs one?  The speed limit is 70 MPH on the interstate.  Anything over 70 is a waste.  Why anything that exceeds the minimum that will get us by?  Because we can.  It is just like the people that complain about gas guzzling SUVs.  They complain about them because they see them as status symbols, perhaps a status symbol that they can't afford.  They don't complain about my 15 MPG full size truck because it isn't something that they want or that they envy.  There are plenty of them sucking down the fuel, probably more so than the number number of SUVs.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> That is the same reason that people buy Corvettes. Who needs one? The speed limit is 70 MPH on the interstate. Anything over 70 is a waste. Why anything that exceeds the minimum that will get us by? Because we can. It is just like the people that complain about gas guzzling SUVs. They complain about them because they see them as status symbols, perhaps a status symbol that they can't afford. They don't complain about my 15 MPG full size truck because it isn't something that they want or that they envy. There are plenty of them sucking down the fuel, probably more so than the number number of SUVs.


 
I've already made the comment that it comes down to money and supply and demand.


----------



## Tractors4u

Yes, but your original comment in this thread was;

"Personally when I see a lady wearing a fur coat, I just think of a rich bitch."


And then you were taking up for the animals.  



dzalphakilo said:


> Because killing an animal shouldn't be done just for a whim per what the consumer wants.
> 
> What effect on the economy would outlawing "fur breeders" have on the economy?
> 
> I said "fur breeders", not trappers.
> 
> Bob, did the fur whatever you bought your wife come from a "fur breeder"?


 
My point is that I don't think it is as much about fur farms, fur traders, etc as it is you just don't like people with furs or things that you feel are in excess.  This of course is just purely speculation based on your first post in this thread.


----------



## Melensdad

Tractors4u said:


> . . . you just don't like people with furs or things that you feel are in excess. . .


Don't we already have a bunch of laws based on things like envy and even personal dislike?  Look at our tax laws for penalties based on class envy.  We also have excise taxes on many goods, another term for excise tax is luxury tax and that is the term that was used historically.  In a similar vein are the dislike laws . . . like the 'assault weapon' and 'saturday night special' regulations in some states.  Pick something you don't like, get some Hollywood stars to agree with you, add some disgruntled moms to support it and you can pretty much pass a law that will restrict someone else from doing something you don't want done!  

What gives someone the right to take away my rights?


----------



## pirate_girl

RoadKing said:


> Sounding a little bit self righteous aren't we. I agree you are entitled to your opinion and lifestyle. Don't judge mine. I happen to be one of those "fatasses"
> you seem to find so disgusting. I've been overweight since I was five I will be sixty in the spring. Except for a few ER visits for stitches I've haven't been near a hospital since the sixth grade when I had my apendix out. My highest cholesterol test ever was 175 and my BP runs at about 110/70 and I have never taken a prescription drug or any drug in my life. There's nothing better than bacon, eggs and grits for breakfast or a nice thick RARE steak on the grill. I will admit some people's systems work better on what suits them.
> As far as being "fatassed" I remember the pictures you posted of yourself when you joined FF and you could stand to lose a few pounds. I'm usually a pretty subdued guy until somebody attacks my bacon.


 
Don't take what I said so personally, Geezus!!
I was speaking of the decline in health amongst people who don't give a shit about what they eat, nor do they listen to their personal physician's advice on how to change their diets and improve their health.
Don't blame me because you like to apparently shove great gobs of crap down your throat and have packed on the pounds because of it.
Me, lose a few pounds?
Never sweetheart.. that would mean I'd have to walk around looking like the rail thin, sickly women that you probably fantasize about.
Curves are in. 
You should know that hehe


----------



## Bobcat

There can be too many curves, we need to wrap a fur coat around these...


----------



## pirate_girl

mak2 said:


> Bob point taken but lets try not to make it look like a personal attack on PG. She is kinda pleasant to have around. So lets suffice it to say *it is almost impossible to be a complete vegatarian in todays society.* So unless one is completely obsessed some animal products will used, if even by accident. Like that half pound of ham i ate today.


Not at all.
I eat beans, rice, bread,fruit, vegetables, meat analogs (no fat-not cholesterol)..I enjoy a BK veggie on occasion, I do eat fish but rarely.. I had a piece of turkey (farm raised/organic) to make my mother happy both at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
I don't wear fur, don't own anything made of leather, I love all animals and my health is great except for the occasional bout with gout in my foot and a heart condition that I've had since age 26 (MVP).
Since adopting this weird vegetarian diet, I have rarely had a cold, I dropped 15 lbs without even TRYING, and I can walk and swim better than I did at age 20.
This isn't ABOUT fur per se.. it's about where MY food sources come from and my choices and knowing what I do feels right.
The fact is, I wouldn't ever harm an animal, nor would I make one a constant in my diet.
I feel too f**king good now to do so.
AMEN!


----------



## pirate_girl

bobpierce said:


> There can be too many curves, we need to wrap a fur coat around these...


Man Bobcat.. I nearly posted a pic of my naked flesh, you know.. my nakedness that needs to lose a few pounds??
lol


----------



## Snowcat Operations

OK Bob why the picture of the uh pumpkin?  Maybe I shouldnt ask.


----------



## Snowcat Operations

pirate_girl said:


> Man Bobcat.. I nearly posted a pic of my naked flesh, you know.. my nakedness that needs to lose a few pounds??
> lol




DID BOB say you needed to loose a few pounds?  Ive seen them pictures you speak of and there is nothing WRONG with your Nakedness (well it was not quite nudy stuff) But still NOTHING wrong with you body!


----------



## Bobcat

She was referring to the picture I posted of you pumpkin butt. Got it from BigAl. Says he took it when you two were sharing a hotel room during a cross-country road trip.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> Yes, but your original comment in this thread was;
> 
> "Personally when I see a lady wearing a fur coat, I just think of a rich bitch."
> 
> 
> And then you were taking up for the animals.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that I don't think it is as much about fur farms, fur traders, etc as it is you just don't like people with furs or things that you feel are in excess. This of course is just purely speculation based on your first post in this thread.


 
Man, good thinking but I think your somewhat off.

I mentioned the reason for my comment per the "bitch" remark. That's something I noticed first hand which helped me form an opinion, nothing more. I'm smart enough to know that not all women are bitches who wear fur coats, but I'd be willing to bet that most of them are 

Since I don't know a lot of men who were fur coats, don't have a personal opinion on them, however I have noticed if I'm in a large city and I see a guy wearing a full length fur coat my first thought is he's a flaming gay.

I don't mind excess, hey, you work hard, that's your right. Spend you're money as you wish. I do not however like excess at the direct expense of another life, even if it is an animals life.

I'm not talking about fat people eating too much, but someone like Mrs. Skurka who wants a fur coat (even though she dosen't really need one) and through demand, the market supplies. Chances are that market is a fur farm breeding and killing animals for the primary purpose of their pelt, so people like Mrs. Skurka can feel nice or whatever I guess. Again, chances are when you're in Macy's or a department store, with over 336 mink farms in the U.S, I find it hard to beleive that the fur isn't "farm bred".

Seems you guys are just making excuses about how bad the "Real world" is and that nothing you do can change that, or becuase we're on top of the food chain, it's our right to do with the world as we see fit, come hell or high water. I would think with greater thinking comes greater responsibility.


----------



## Cityboy

pirate_girl said:


> Man Bobcat.. I nearly posted a pic of my naked flesh, you know.. my nakedness that needs to lose a few pounds??
> lol


 
OK, PG...quit screwin' around  & teasin' us boyz and post the nekked pics already!!


----------



## pirate_girl

Snowcat Operations said:


> DID BOB say you needed to loose a few pounds? Ive seen them pictures you speak of and there is nothing WRONG with your Nakedness (well it was not quite nudy stuff) But still NOTHING wrong with you body!


 
No, but Roadking did, and that's whose statement I was referring to.


----------



## Tractors4u

dzalphakilo said:


> however I have noticed if I'm in a large city and I see a guy wearing a full length fur coat my first thought is he's a flaming gay.


 
He could be a pimp.


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

dzalphakilo said:


> Hey PB, ever decide that you want to give back to your community and work at a special olympics event?
> 
> Work at one and see the kids, and what it actually means to them to be there.
> 
> If you ever did, you'll understand when I say to you that I would love to knock your big frogger ass back to where it belongs for using a picture of a child with a metal handicap to make a point.
> 
> Your kids must be so proud of you.


 
Sorry, DZ I'll change the picture next time to use f'tard.  In your case that might be more suitable.


----------



## dzalphakilo

PBinWA said:


> Sorry, DZ I'll change the picture next time to use f'tard. In your case that might be more suitable.


 
No problem, I know you guys are slow anyway 

The question I can't help but wonder though is what if the picture you posted per being retarded were of your child?  How would you feel?


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

dzalphakilo said:


> No problem, I know you guys are slow anyway
> 
> The question I can't help but wonder though is what if the picture you posted per being retarded were of your child? How would you feel?


 
Man DZ, you are just the super PC police in this thread.  Do you want to come over and sift through my garbage and make sure I'm recycling everything properly.

You do that poster justice.  Chill out and get a life.


----------



## dzalphakilo

PBinWA said:


> Man DZ, you are just the super PC police in this thread. Do you want to come over and sift through my garbage and make sure I'm recycling everything properly.
> 
> You do that poster justice. Chill out and get a life.


 
Hey, you've got over 1400 more posts than me and I need to get a life  

I'm as cool as an ice cube 

Take a look the last time someone here used that same "poster".  They got the same response I gave to you.

Personally I expected more from you.

If you want to pay for my airfare, I'll be glad to go through your garbage


----------



## mtntopper

Who would think that the topic of buying a fur coats would create this much heated debate and discussion? Each person posting shows individual strong opinions as to the right or wrong of furs coats and the killing of animals for human usage. 

I believe if you have enough money your going to spend it on something that someone else does not approve of in the end. This is just human nature responding to personal desires that not everyone is going to agree upon as essential needs. Live and let live, it is just a personal choice and not world war III. My motor vehicle fleet is my personal way to express myself. Many people believe it is wasteful and it probably is, but I never asked them for their opinion as it is my personal choice to have many different types of fuel guzzling vehicles that seldom get used. 

Bob did ask, so go ahead and torture him to the fullest.... Great and very interesting debate for all of us to watch and follow...


----------



## Melensdad

mtntopper said:


> Who would think that the topic of buying a fur coats would create this much heated debate and discussion?
> . . .
> Bob did ask, so go ahead and torture him to the fullest....


I actually figured this could be a heated debate, but I figured wrong on who the people would be who oppose fur coats _(or at least the people I figured have kept out of the discussion thus far)_.

As for the torture, it is far from that!  I'm actually enjoying this.  There are some points that I had not considered, but honestly now that I have considered them they still don't bother me!  I just packed my little sister off on an airplane to New York city.  She was wearing a Persian Lamb and Mink coat.  I'm guessing it was 'farm/ranch' raised  

I believe, after looking into the closet, that my wife owns 2 farm/ranch raised coats and 3 'trapped/shot' coats    I also noticed 3 leather jackets in that closet are mine, but I suppose that the tree huggers think its OK to wear the leather since the meat probably ended up as a Big Mac and was passed out of a drive-thru window.  There were some goatskin gloves, pigskin gloves and a few pairs of leather gloves in the same closet . . . Lots of dead animals in that closet, some of which were probably tasty, some of which were probably destined for dog food.


----------



## thcri RIP

B_Skurka said:


> I actually figured this could be a heated debate, but I figured wrong on who the people would be who oppose fur coats _(or at least the people I figured have kept out of the discussion thus far)_.




So the ones that stayed out of the discussion oppose fur coats??


----------



## fogtender

The issues of to have or not to have is more based on where a person lives.  

The ones that live in the city as a whole don't have a clue to what it takes to "Harvest" furs, either from a farm or from trapping.

The ones that live out away from the city life are closer to what it takes to live closer to the land.

Farmers know that without the use of animals on the farm or in their lifestyle, they don't make a living or survive.  

People in a city go to the local store and buy a prepackaged steak with no real idea of what it took to get it there for them, much less the milk, wheat, corn etc.  Then they bash the fur trade when they are all one in the same and these people for the most part have no clue to what they are talking about.

The movie that Sean Penn's did "Into the Wild" is based on a guy that had no clue to what being in the wild was about and it cost him his life, he was an idiot (Penn too).  He died a few miles from where we live here.  But I read the reviews of all the city folk that went to see it and they are all in awe of it...  Not a clue to what an idiot the kid was, or even how to save himself.

Point is that these same folks that dislike furs, come here to see where the bus is to be in awe of the "Wild", which is my backyard (front yard, side yard...).

Life starts at a blade of grass and ends up with the humans, and everything in between is life, you use it and cherish it for its use.  

The talk of using all the man made products to replace fur, is a stupid debate when you figure how much "damage" to the enviorment was done to drill for the oil to get the base for synthetics clothing to mining for the metal to make a zipper.  (and I am not anti mining or drilling, just putting it into context)

So instead of killing an animal to make a fur coat, we wipe out a habitat to make a fake one....  kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...and in the big picture, pretty lame excuse for being anti fur other than the cute fuzzy issue....

Wear fur, it is real.


----------



## ddrane2115

dzalphakilo said:


> Hey PB, ever decide that you want to give back to your community and work at a special olympics event?
> 
> Work at one and see the kids, and what it actually means to them to be there.
> 
> If you ever did, you'll understand when I say to you that I would love to knock your big frogger ass back to where it belongs for using a picture of a child with a metal handicap to make a point.
> 
> Your kids must be so proud of you.


 


I will AMEN this, very bad taste


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> I believe, after looking into the closet, that my wife owns 2 farm/ranch raised coats and 3 'trapped/shot' coats  I also noticed 3 leather jackets in that closet are mine, but I suppose that the tree huggers think its OK to wear the leather since the meat probably ended up as a Big Mac and was passed out of a drive-thru window. There were some goatskin gloves, pigskin gloves and a few pairs of leather gloves in the same closet . . . Lots of dead animals in that closet, some of which were probably tasty, some of which were probably destined for dog food.


 
Bob

I'm going out on a limb here. Without any data collected in any fahsion, but just going off a hunch from experience, if your wife went to college (which I'm thinking she did because you mentioned she is a school teacher), I'd bet you $100 that she was a member of a soriety in college.

Am I right big guy?


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> So instead of killing an animal to make a fur coat, we wipe out a habitat to make a fake one.... kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...and in the big picture, pretty lame excuse for being anti fur other than the cute fuzzy issue....
> 
> Wear fur, it is real.


 
Please mention two examples of where we wipe out a habitat to make a fake fur.

I can't wait...


----------



## JimR

I see nothing wrong with a fur coat.  Some people wear them because they are nice and warm.  I doubt we will ever wipe out any population of animal harvesting furs.  Some people on the other hand, like my neighbor's wife, wears one to look the part of a trophy wife.  She's blonde with no brains who constantly shakes her head from side to side throwing her hair around like a dog in heat. Oh, maybe she has fleas. I'm sorry.  I can't stand her because she is a pompous sn-b a-s who sh-t doesn't stink and because she and her husband ripped off a contractor I know for $14K.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Please mention two examples of where we wipe out a habitat to make a fake fur.
> 
> I can't wait...


 
Well that was Sarcasum, based on the view from the other side, but to make my point I will play the Devil's advicate.

First: Petrochemicals are what most synthetics are made from, which is oil. Any of the Enviorwaco's will say that drilling for oil is distroying our enviorment (which it isn't) but that is their claim, so I will use that one... One only has to look here in Alaska at ANWR and see that oil is a bad name, because it is a "Wilderness" and can't be touched... That is a bunch of crap, but that is what they feed you guys in the Lower 48 states. The oil fields in Alaska are regulated so badly that if you spill a drop of oil, it could cost you your job. Anyway oil has had a bad name from the past which is not the present but they still beat that dead horse.... They claim Birds can't nest, Caribou can't have calves, wolves can't stalk the calves and other bunk...

Second: Cotton, peanuts, corn and other crops to farm where all the natural "Old Growth" had to be wiped out so they could be planted to make synthetic products that are made from those crops chemicals as well as food... Snakes and frogs can't live without the old Growth to hide in...

Third: Mining, hundreds of thousands of acres have been stripped mined to bring you the metals and chemicals to make a colored plastic zipper for your new Hitech coat zipper... Now the fuzzy rabbits have no place to hide and breed....

Fourth:  Rubber trees are planted where jungle used to be, for the rubber and other products that are made from them... Again, the forest is stripped clean to plant the trees and so forth...

Fifth: You should get the point by now.  

For every action there is an equal reaction, which is not paid attention to by the "Anti" crowds on either side of the isle....  They say cattle are "Farting" too much and distroying the air... well duh... the Buffalo were doing the same thing in as great of numbers until they got replaced by cows... Every issue has two sides and somewhere in the middle lies the common sense area that eludes most people.... (Dem's mostly... had to get that in there...)

Like I said, a lot of people don't look past their nose. The statement that I think you said it was "Acceptable" to go out and trap your fur, verses a fur from a farm is "bad", is equally nuts. Fur is good...period.

Jerks see someone in a fur, then assume that that person is "Rich" and a snob. That is equal to looking at someone with a synthetic jacket and saying that A$$ has distroyed an entire eco system to wear that....

The point is, get a life and live it... Fur is natural and warm and degrades back into the eco system when it is used up (or converted into neat teddy bears), where a synthetic jacket will be out of style in a couple of years and take centuries to decompose and fill already overfull dumps... Think of that!


----------



## Melensdad

fogtender said:


> . . . where a synthetic jacket will be out of style in a couple of years and take centuries to decompose and fill already overfull dumps.


Fake furs are out of style as soon as they are made, they are not comfortable to the touch, they require extra bulk in the form of insulating material because they don't provide warmth, the require wind blocking materials because they are not wind resistant like natural hide, and they simple don't look or feel good.  Basically they are bad copies of the real thing, sort of like those VW "kit cars" that allow you to build a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce out of a VW Beetle by swapping out the body parts. . . they are still just bad copies.


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Well that was Sarcasum, based on the view from the other side, but to make my point I will play the Devil's advicate.
> 
> First: Petrochemicals are what most synthetics are made from, which is oil. Any of the Enviorwaco's will say that drilling for oil is distroying our enviorment (which it isn't) but that is their claim, so I will use that one... One only has to look here in Alaska at ANWR and see that oil is a bad name, because it is a "Wilderness" and can't be touched... That is a bunch of crap, but that is what they feed you guys in the Lower 48 states. The oil fields in Alaska are regulated so badly that if you spill a drop of oil, it could cost you your job. Anyway oil has had a bad name from the past which is not the present but they still beat that dead horse.... They claim Birds can't nest, Caribou can't have calves, wolves can't stalk the calves and other bunk...
> 
> Second: Cotton, peanuts, corn and other crops to farm where all the natural "Old Growth" had to be wiped out so they could be planted to make synthetic products that are made from those crops chemicals as well as food... Snakes and frogs can't live without the old Growth to hide in...
> 
> Third: Mining, hundreds of thousands of acres have been stripped mined to bring you the metals and chemicals to make a colored plastic zipper for your new Hitech coat zipper... Now the fuzzy rabbits have no place to hide and breed....
> 
> Fourth: Rubber trees are planted where jungle used to be, for the rubber and other products that are made from them... Again, the forest is stripped clean to plant the trees and so forth...
> 
> Fifth: You should get the point by now.
> 
> For every action there is an equal reaction, which is not paid attention to by the "Anti" crowds on either side of the isle.... They say cattle are "Farting" too much and distroying the air... well duh... the Buffalo were doing the same thing in as great of numbers until they got replaced by cows... Every issue has two sides and somewhere in the middle lies the common sense area that eludes most people.... (Dem's mostly... had to get that in there...)
> 
> Like I said, a lot of people don't look past their nose. The statement that I think you said it was "Acceptable" to go out and trap your fur, verses a fur from a farm is "bad", is equally nuts. Fur is good...period.
> 
> Jerks see someone in a fur, then assume that that person is "Rich" and a snob. That is equal to looking at someone with a synthetic jacket and saying that A$$ has distroyed an entire eco system to wear that....
> 
> The point is, get a life and live it... Fur is natural and warm and degrades back into the eco system when it is used up (or converted into neat teddy bears), where a synthetic jacket will be out of style in a couple of years and take centuries to decompose and fill already overfull dumps... Think of that!


 
Are you saying the primary purpose for oil in Alaska is for fake fur? 

Interesting, no speciffic information on area or manufacturer, just generals. 

No crap sherlock, for every action there is a reaction. Eco systems are in trouble all over the world, fake fur is the least of our problems.

What's acceptable to me is the reason why the animals are being killed and how they are killed, plain and simple.

As for snobs wearing fur, only a general observation. Take ten women in Alaska and take ten women in Chicago who wear fur coats. I'll bet you anything if we compare their lifestyles and views on life in general, you may come to the same conclusion I do

Bob, apologies, I didn't see where you answered my question about your wife being in a soriety. Was she?

Interesting that the mentally handicaped issue came up per PB's comment. Made me think of another observation of mine. When in college, I dontated time for the mid state litteracy council. This organization helped those adults who had mental "difficulties", but not serious enough to warrent placing them in a home. Our job was to go out in "the real world" with these people and help them with basic math skills, numbers used in life (such as street and apt numbers) and other things that are needed to "survive" on your own (something a lot of us take for granted).

Bear with me, I'm getting to the point

Well, I was with this organization working "on my own" and it happened a soriety was doing work there as well. Five of the girls, while working in the office with these people had a hard time "adjusting" to working with metally "challanged" people. Got so bad that one girl said she couldn't handle how some of "these people" lived. All these girls were your basic hot sority chicks that had mommy and daddy paying their way through college, and overal had a great lifestyle. Got to the point where I asked three of them why they were doing this job (not getting paid for it)if they hated it so much. The response from all of them was that they were doing it as a requirement for the soreity and that at the end of the year they would get their picture in the paper and make their soreirty look good. You want to guess how many had a fur coat bought by mommy and daddy? 

Just things in my life that helped me form my opinions.

Oh by the way fogtender, I used to work at an "outdoors" store. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from on the "geek" side of people and thier "high tech" outdoor equipment. My last day at the store was when I got into an argument with a guy who wanted to buy a "zipper compass". Bottom line, they look cool and they may tell you where north is, but they are absolutely worthless by themselves. I decided to ask him how he intended to use this "zipper compass" by itself (wrong on my end I know). I guess I just got sick of all the people who were inside a "outdoors" store on a beautiful day and bought stuff just to look cool. Won't go into all the guys and gals who wanted to buy high end leather boots for a LONG hike the following week (there is this thing called a "break in period" for stiff leather boots). Also worked with a couple of different guide services in my "younger years". Loved all those people who had the equipment for one trip but didn't know how to use it. 

Guess another point would be I have a life and I do live it. Probably lived more in 20 years than most do in a lifetime. Why would you mention "point is get a life and live it"? Like yourself, I now have time to waste on the computer.

PS the tri delts "club" is spelled horrbily wrong, I know, apologies.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Fake furs are out of style as soon as they are made


 
I know those eskimo chicks care about their style


----------



## Troy

I'm against fur coats for a number of reasons. 1) being there's no point in Females wearing fur coats, All it is designed to do is show her wealth. Who gives a crap!? Coats at wal-mart can look just as expensive as fur coats 

Beside I live in Las Vegas, Very seldom do I see Females wearing fur coats


----------



## JimR

Troy said:
			
		

> I'm against women wearing fur coats for a number of reasons.
> Beside I live in Las Vegas, Very seldom do I see Females wearing fur coats



In Vegas they wear their fur coats between their legs, not on their shoulders.    


Sorry,  I couldn't help myself on that one.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Are you saying the primary purpose for oil in Alaska is for fake fur?
> 
> Interesting, no speciffic information on area or manufacturer, just generals.


 
The response was generic in that you asked what systems were affected, you didn't ask where, time and date.  

The remark that "Rich" has become generic for use of furs shows people's stupidity, in fact there are parts of the world that it is still a basic clothing source.  That remark shows ingnorace and lack of ability of someone to grasp what/where they come from.  Fur farms are a small source of supply, but get the most negitive press and the rest is blanketed with that issue.  It would take a libary of books of what eco systems was taken out for suppling each product that man uses in his world, it is a balance we live with.  

Fur itself is a basic from of consumption that is replenishable, naturally.  It degrades just like we do when we pass on.  

My point that we wipe out eco systems in an effort to replace what is supplied naturally is how short sighted we are.  We wipe out a forest to plant crops, which is fine with me, but that was a specfic eco system that is gone reguardless.  It will grow back someday, but the critters that use to live there, no longer do, they have died off or moved.


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> The response was generic in that you asked what systems were affected, you didn't ask where, time and date.
> 
> The remark that "Rich" has become generic for use of furs shows people's stupidity, in fact there are parts of the world that it is still a basic clothing source. That remark shows ingnorace and lack of ability of someone to grasp what/where they come from. Fur farms are a small source of supply, but get the most negitive press and the rest is blanketed with that issue. It would take a libary of books of what eco systems was taken out for suppling each product that man uses in his world, it is a balance we live with.
> 
> Fur itself is a basic from of consumption that is replenishable, naturally. It degrades just like we do when we pass on.
> 
> My point that we wipe out eco systems in an effort to replace what is supplied naturally is how short sighted we are. We wipe out a forest to plant crops, which is fine with me, but that was a specfic eco system that is gone reguardless. It will grow back someday, but the critters that use to live there, no longer do, they have died off or moved.


 
Ok, I'm asking for a time, date and manufacturing facility.

Have any statistics on people in the U.S that own fur clothing?  I'd be willing to bet that the majority that own fur do not collect food stamps.

We do agree 100% on the fact that we tend to be very short sighted.


----------



## JimR

dzalphakilo said:


> Ok, I'm asking for a time, date and manufacturing facility.
> 
> Have any statistics on people in the U.S that own fur clothing?  I'd be willing to bet that the majority that own fur do not collect food stamps.
> 
> We do agree 100% on the fact that we tend to be very short sighted.



My wife has a nice rabbit coat.  We are not on food stamps and we are not rich.  Of course a rabbit coat is cheap compared to a Mink coat.  I really don't consider her rabbit coat a fur coat because they do cost so little.


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> We just got back from a shopping trip to Chicago and one of the things the lovely Mrs_B got on this trip was a new casual fur coat. While in the fur vault......


 
Just curious, BS....how much did you pay for this fur that has created so much debate? 

And what kind of critter did the fur come from?

Must have been a pretty valuable fur to be kept in a vault?


----------



## Bobcat

Leaping lizards! They just found the Skurka vault!!

*Furs found after 30 years in storage*



> Thu Dec 27, 5:56 PM ET
> 
> BELLOWS FALLS, Vt. - Sam Haskins didn't ask for a fur coat for Christmas. But he got six of them.
> 
> Haskins, the new owner of a hardware store, made an unexpected discovery early this month when he started poking around the basement: a climate-controlled vault containing six fur coats, about a dozen suits and some dresses and hats, apparently untouched since the late 1970s.
> 
> "The fans were spinning and the furs were spotless," said Haskins. "Everything inside was very nice and clean. The fan was set on 65 degrees and that is exactly what the thermometer read. Everyone wants to know who has been paying the electricity bill."
> 
> Haskins, 56, bought J&H Hardware in May and the building — a three-story structure on the village square — in September. In surveying the basement, he figured there might be usable space hidden behind a wall that had hinges on it.
> 
> With son Jeremy Haskins, 27, he rented an electric hammer and then a jackhammer and eventually bored through 18 inches of brick and mortar, four inches of wallboard and then a cement wall to find the room once used by Royal Furriers, a business that closed in the late 1970s.
> 
> Haskins said he had no idea what the coats are worth, but planned to have them appraised.
> 
> It was unclear whether anyone could step forward to claim a long-lost coat — or whether anyone who did would be on the hook for 30 years of storage fees.


----------



## JimR

Someone must be Bellowing up there right about now about furs.


----------



## Bobcat

That's what I was thinking. Protesters marching outside the hardware store with anti-fur slogans on their signs, throwing paint ballons at the windows, and later someone will fire-bomb the building. Poor guy standing in the rubble the next morning saying "I just sell hardware, what did I do?".


----------



## JimR

bobpierce said:


> That's what I was thinking. Protesters marching outside the hardware store with anti-fur slogans on their signs, throwing paint ballons at the windows, and later someone will fire-bomb the building. Poor guy standing in the rubble the next morning saying "I just sell hardware, what did I do?".




The Anti's would all be out of staters that moved there for peace and tranquility.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Have any statistics on people in the U.S that own fur clothing?


Just looking for a definition here, are we including things like shearling jackets, boots, slippers?  Those are just fur turned with the pelt inside.  What about non-meat leathers like goatskin?  Most folks don't eat goat but they make nice coats and gloves.  Leather interiors in cars/trucks?  Leather boots, handbags, belts?  Rabbit lined gloves.  What about eelskin wallets and alligator watchbands _(real alligator, not leather stamped to look like it)_, as well as ostrich leather cowboy boots, briefcases, etc?  Anyone else really like sharkskin leather, it makes great watchbands for dive watches_ (it's waterproof you know!)_?

My point is where will we draw the line at who is a hypocrite when it comes to using animals for our benefit?

More I think about it, we have more dead animals in our house than living animals.  I think we have something or another from every animal I listed except the ostrich.

Cityboy . . . not overly expensive for fur.  Its a dual animal coat with a collar, cuffs and trim from one species and the body of the coat from another.  Not sure how many animal pelts are in the coat.  The way I see it, we grow Christmas trees for one purpose, to adorn the inside of your house for 2 or 3 weeks a year.  If the tree doesn't get sold it never reaches it full glory.  Ditto with pelts.  They exist for responsible use and if they are not utilized then their beauty is never fully explored, seen or appreciated.


----------



## JimR

B_Skurka said:


> Just looking for a definition here, are we including things like shearling jackets, boots, slippers?  Those are just fur turned with the pelt inside.  What about non-meat leathers like goatskin?  Most folks don't eat goat but they make nice coats and gloves.  Leather interiors in cars/trucks?  Leather boots, handbags, belts?  Rabbit lined gloves.  What about eelskin wallets and alligator watchbands _(real alligator, not leather stamped to look like it)_, as well as ostrich leather cowboy boots, briefcases, etc?  Anyone else really like sharkskin leather, it makes great watchbands for dive watches_ (it's waterproof you know!)_?
> 
> My point is where will we draw the line at who is a hypocrite when it comes to using animals for our benefit?
> 
> More I think about it, we have more dead animals in our house than living animals.  I think we have something or another from every animal I listed except the ostrich.
> 
> Cityboy . . . not overly expensive for fur.  Its a dual animal coat with a collar, cuffs and trim from one species and the body of the coat from another.  Not sure how many animal pelts are in the coat.  The way I see it, we grow Christmas trees for one purpose, to adorn the inside of your house for 2 or 3 weeks a year.  If the tree doesn't get sold it never reaches it full glory.  Ditto with pelts.  They exist for responsible use and if they are not utilized then their beauty is never fully explored, seen or appreciated.





Geez Bob,  I didn't even think about leather interiors.  My four BMW's (old) all have leather.  The wife and daughter's cars have leather too.


----------



## Melensdad

JimR said:


> Geez Bob,  I didn't even think about leather interiors.


Well isn't leather just fur that had been shaved? 

Granted, leather typically comes from a cow.  And cows edible.  But cows are not vermin like muskrats, raccoons, nutria, mink or sable, none of which are actually friendly little creatures we'd like to have interacting with the family cat.  But while a glorified rodent or other such vermin is usually mean and of a nasty disposition, it is also true that typical fur bearing animals make nice soft/fuzzy coats, gloves, and boots.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Just looking for a definition here, are we including things like shearling jackets, boots, slippers? Those are just fur turned with the pelt inside. What about non-meat leathers like goatskin? Most folks don't eat goat but they make nice coats and gloves. Leather interiors in cars/trucks? Leather boots, handbags, belts? Rabbit lined gloves. What about eelskin wallets and alligator watchbands _(real alligator, not leather stamped to look like it)_, as well as ostrich leather cowboy boots, briefcases, etc? Anyone else really like sharkskin leather, it makes great watchbands for dive watches_ (it's waterproof you know!)_?


 
Point taken Bob. I'll admit that I have leather car seats on the used car I bought. Shucks, I even have a milt sparks holster and belt in sharkskin. Please don't tell me you have a leather band for a divers watch though. Those were the kind of guys we made fun of on the boat  ( EDIT: come to think of it, never saw a guy with a leather band for a dive watch, thinking about it, how would it hold up in salt water?)

Since for some reason I can't keep up with posts in order once they get over 10 or so, I may of missed it, but did you ever answer my question per your wife being in a soreity (sp?)?

Just for curiosity sake at this point. I'm playing the odds and figuring I'm right. Just curious if my observations may be off.


----------



## mtntopper

My wife and I like to hunt. Here is a pic of the elk killed by my wife this year with the hide/fur still on the animal. We donated the hide to the local Elks club that has the elk hides tanned and made into fingerless elk skin gloves for handicapped wheel chair users. Utilizing the animal for the greatest benefit of humans is the proper usage of any animal. Wearing a fur coat if you want to stay warm or even for show is no different than the gal who shows extra leg or smiles coyly at strangers to be noticed. Look at the expense and craziness many people go to in their quest to be seen and noticed by others. We should not condemn before we know all of the facts. I believe that knowing BobS as he posts here, I would have accept that his wife is very deserving and not using the fur coat as a better than thou r-ch b-tch statement as some people might believe or suggest. Envy of others for what they have is just plain jealousy and is often expressed as a negative statement of and towards that person whether deserved or not. 

Yes, my wife shot it dead.... and we also eat the meat...and donate the hide to a worthy cause... Shame on us... We have no guilt feeling....it is life, learn to deal and live with it.


----------



## JimR

mtntopper said:


> My wife and I like to hunt. Here is a pic of the elk killed by my wife this year with the hide/fur still on the animal. We donated the hide to the local Elks club that has the elk hides tanned and made into fingerless elk skin gloves for handicapped wheel chair users. Utilizing the animal for the greatest benefit of humans is the proper usage of any animal. Wearing a fur coat if you want to stay warm or even for show is no different than the gal who shows extra leg or smiles coyly at strangers to be noticed. Look at the expense and craziness many people go to in their quest to be seen and noticed by others. We should not condemn before we know all of the facts. I believe that knowing BobS as he posts here, I would have accept that his wife is very deserving and not using the fur coat as a better than thou r-ch b-tch statement as some people might believe or suggest. Envy of others for what they have is just plain jealousy and is often expressed as a negative statement of and towards that person whether deserved or not.
> 
> Yes, my wife shot it dead.... and we also eat the meat...and donate the hide to a worthy cause... Shame on us... We have no guilt feeling....it is life, learn to deal and live with it.
> View attachment 19007



Wow,  I love your wife already and I don't even know here.  I wish my wife would do something like that.  I'm jealous as hell that you got your wife for a hunting partner.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> Please don't tell me you have a leather band for a divers watch though. . .  I may of missed it, but did you ever answer my question per your wife being in a soreity (sp?)?


I have several dive watches.  My Breitling has a sharkskin strap that has been on the watch for several years and has been underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean.  If tanned properly it holds up very well.  I also have dive watches with rubber straps, I don't like them as well as sharkskin.

As for my wife, she is hard to pigeon hole into a neat little package like you seem to want to do.  Yes, she was in the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in college.  She climbed mountains and has repelled down cliffs.  She was also a double major Political Science & History and went on to earn an MBA.  She also was R.O.T.C. trained on the M16 and she was a princess at the Indianapolis 500 and she and I sat on the "Winner's Circle" and took a few laps in the pace car too.  So she is a beautiful woman, with brains, who can field strip an assault weapon.  Any more questions?


----------



## JimR

B_Skurka said:


> I have several dive watches.  My Breitling has a sharkskin strap that has been on the watch for several years and has been underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean.  If tanned properly it holds up very well.  I also have dive watches with rubber straps, I don't like them as well as sharkskin.
> 
> As for my wife, she is hard to pigeon hole into a neat little package like you seem to want to do.  Yes, she was in the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in college.  She climbed mountains and has repelled down cliffs.  She was also a double major Political Science & History and went on to earn an MBA.  She also was R.O.T.C. trained on the M16 and she was a princess at the Indianapolis 500 and she and I sat on the "Winner's Circle" and took a few laps in the pace car too.  So she is a beautiful woman, with brains, who can field strip an assault weapon.  Any more questions?



Wow, A real American Lady.  More power to her Bob.  Would she be interested in running for President?


----------



## Cityboy

B_Skurka said:


> Cityboy . . . not overly expensive for fur. Its a dual animal coat with a collar, cuffs and trim from one species and the body of the coat from another. Not sure how many animal pelts are in the coat. The way I see it, we grow Christmas trees for one purpose, to adorn the inside of your house for 2 or 3 weeks a year. If the tree doesn't get sold it never reaches it full glory. Ditto with pelts. They exist for responsible use and if they are not utilized then their beauty is never fully explored, seen or appreciated.


 
What kind of critters was the coat made of? Goat? Sheep? Dog? Cat? Skunk? Coon? Rabbit? Squirrell? or possum? 

It wuz possum, wuddnt it?


----------



## daedong

Live in Australia and you don't need any sort of coat.

Now I don't know about the USA but if we shipped all the pelts from road kill to you, you would never need to kill again for warmth.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_sep2003/RoadKill.gif

Bob, In this day and age why would you want to wear fur, there are many cheaper options that are as good. Wearing fur is simply considered ostentatious.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Ok, I'm asking for a time, date and manufacturing facility.


 
Well then give me a product and what region it came from with the time, date and I will let you know what eco system was affected, most people could figure that out on their own, but I will help you out.



dzalphakilo said:


> Have any statistics on people in the U.S that own fur clothing? I'd be willing to bet that the majority that own fur do not collect food stamps.


 
I would have to assume that you have the statistics since you have bashed everyone with your offhanded statements, unless you have no clue and are going by a "Group Hug" mentality.  As far as the ones that collect food stamps, I am sure that if the Salvation Army had them for sale, they would buy one.

You say you have deer stand out behind your house you bow hunt from....  That makes you no different from someone who traps or farms fur for a living, you both kill, which by the way I have no problem with either.  

As far as the "Fur Farms", they don't raise Wolf, lynx, coyote, bear, seal, and a host of other critters that people wear.... they are taken in the wild.


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Well then give me a product and what region it came from with the time, date and I will let you know what eco system was affected, most people could figure that out on their own, but I will help you out.
> 
> I would have to assume that you have the statistics since you have bashed everyone with your offhanded statements, unless you have no clue and are going by a "Group Hug" mentality. As far as the ones that collect food stamps, I am sure that if the Salvation Army had them for sale, they would buy one.
> 
> You say you have deer stand out behind your house you bow hunt from.... That makes you no different from someone who traps or farms fur for a living, you both kill, which by the way I have no problem with either.
> 
> As far as the "Fur Farms", they don't raise Wolf, lynx, coyote, bear, seal, and a host of other critters that people wear.... they are taken in the wild.


 
Well if most people can figure that out, lets take a popular outdoor clothing brand manufacturer like Marmot. Don't own anything produced by that manufacturer, but since it seems so easy from your end, guess it wouldn't be a problem for you letting me in on what eco system that manufacturer has altered making their "fake fur". I still can't wait... 
Since it's so easy, you can just give me two examples on your own if you'd like.

READ DUDE!!! I said I came to form my opinions from my own observations. No, I don't have any statistics, but since you seem so convinced otherwise, figure it shouldn't be a problem on your end to provide me with something to show me that there wasn't a corrolation at all. Guess not, huh? I would guess your observations would differ from my observations due to our local enviroment.

I get a kick out of some of you people. Just as I mentioned, I also mentioned that I do work with a local animal organization here in my county. Some people fall over dead when they find out I hunt. For some reason people tend to think that if you actually care about animals or the enviroment, you're supposed to live in a treehouse or something. Cityboy mentioned that he gave up hunting for various reasons. I was almost there with a rifle, but bow hunting has made it more of a challange. I consider my hunting ethics strong. Hunters are like everyone else, you have some good and some bad. Fact is most hunters realize (particularly on the east coast) that wildlife management is a must, as well as land managment if they want their sport to survive.

You mentioned on another thread that *"The reason the State of Alaska has so many wolves is because of the control that the State has over them, not because the activist are "saving" them... Most of the control and preservation is from the hunters and the fees that they pay to keep the wildlife at healthy levels for them and the hunters."*
Well, not that it's worth anything, but I happen to agree with 110%. Smart hunters probably do more to save their "sport" than anti hunters who just don't want to see bambi killed. That said, as CB mentioned, there are a lot of idiots out there with guns who like to have an excuse to drink.

Talk about observations. Bob mentioned "tree hugger" here. Funny, I've been called a tree hugger one time in my life. When I moved into Winston, my first roomates were two girls. One girl who was pretty cool who also rented, and the other girl actually owned the house. The girl who owned the house was a former soreity chick (ok, little plump but still a little hot) who had daddy buy her the house. Her daddy also also helped her with the car. This girl was a total BITCH, believe me. I work hard, and here is this girl in here mid twenties going out with her friends coming home during the middle of the week late at night all drunk and crap keeping me up at night. I got so freaking sick of it I stayed up one night waiting for them. Sure enough, around 1:30 in the morning here come six of them in drunk. This time I was waiting at the kitchen table with my AR stripped doing a cleaning with the smell of clp in the air. You should of seen those people's faces, it was a hoot, scared the living shit of them. 

Man, I could tell you stories about that one spoiled girl who owned that house (like borrowing the neighbors garden house and never returning it, this after she just moved in).  One weekend when I was up in W.V she had a house party and all the neighbors called the cops on here, sorry I missed that one). Sorry, not much to do with the topic, but thought it was a funny story AND that same chick who used daddy's money, who rented out her new house, that seemed to care about no one other than herself, or if she showed an interest in you it was usually for her own personal gain....guess what? She owned a fur coat. Imagine that Did I mention she was a member of a soriety? 

Like I said, no statistics, only observations in life. They help me to form my opinoins. Likewise, you have your enviroment that you "experience" to help you form your opinion.

Dude, you have no problem with fur farming, more power to you. I do.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> As for my wife, she is hard to pigeon hole into a neat little package like you seem to want to do. Yes, she was in the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in college.


 
Thats all I needed to know Bob, thank you for answering.

I asked because I was curious if there was a corrolation between those women who owned furs and if they belonged in a soriety in their past.  From my experience for some reason, their is a high corrolation. By the same token, I'd be willing to bet with fogtender living in his enviroment, he may have different observations of those women who wear fur that help him form his opinion.

Bob, I'm sure your wife is a great woman.  In life we all can be stereotyped, which I am as guilty of doing as well.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> I have several dive watches. My Breitling has a sharkskin strap that has been on the watch for several years and has been underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean. If tanned properly it holds up very well. I also have dive watches with rubber straps, I don't like them as well as sharkskin.


 
Just curious, do you have a dive computer?

If I remember correctly, I did come across one guy who had a leather dive watch years ago and it didn't hold up very well. Could just be the leather.

Anyone want to get into a discussion if divers should "interact" with marine life


----------



## XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

B_Skurka said:


> As for my wife, she is hard to pigeon hole into a neat little package


 
Bob, she sounds like a nice little package!    You're a lucky boy!


----------



## JimR

dzalphakilo said:


> Anyone want to get into a discussion if divers should "interact" with marine life



Ever get to play with a Great White?     


Only Kidding.


----------



## dzalphakilo

JimR said:


> Ever get to play with a Great White?
> 
> 
> Only Kidding.


 
Closest was thing was one time off the continental shelf, about 100' down.  Wasn't a Great White, only a 10' or so, but scared the living piss out me.  I never thought a 10 footer was that big until I got to see him in his habitat.  One thing that you never realize until you see them "live" is how fast they move.  Unbelievable how fast they go with one sweep of the tail fin.  Kind of ruined my dive.  Spent the whole time down with my back against the shelf wall and being that nervous, couldn't keep track of my down time so I just surfaced.

Personally, IMO anyone who wants to go and pay money to feed sharks underwater is just plain stupid 

Or were you talking about the band?


----------



## Bulldog1401

B_Skurka said:


> As for my wife, she is hard to pigeon hole into a neat little package like you seem to want to do.  Yes, she was in the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in college.  She climbed mountains and has repelled down cliffs.  She was also a double major Political Science & History and went on to earn an MBA.  She also was R.O.T.C. trained on the M16 and she was a princess at the Indianapolis 500 and she and I sat on the "Winner's Circle" and took a few laps in the pace car too.  So she is a beautiful woman, with brains, who can field strip an assault weapon.  Any more questions?




Cool. But no fair! Skurka has everything!!


----------



## dzalphakilo

Really, I wouldn't of mentioned taking R.O.T.C in college and training on the M16. Heck, even those who get commissioned don't even admit to that Kind of like inflating your resume by saying you were a petroleum distribution engineer, AKA pumping gas (I only know that one because I pumped gas in high school and came up with that one myself)

I would also be willing to bet that Bob's wife would have no clue where to begin if a HK93 or MP5 where put in front of her let alone a mac10. I could be wrong of course.

That's a problem I have when I go for a job interview, I don't know how to sell myself.


----------



## JimR

dzalphakilo said:


> Closest was thing was one time off the continental shelf, about 100' down.  Wasn't a Great White, only a 10' or so, but scared the living piss out me.  I never thought a 10 footer was that big until I got to see him in his habitat.  One thing that you never realize until you see them "live" is how fast they move.  Unbelievable how fast they go with one sweep of the tail fin.  Kind of ruined my dive.  Spent the whole time down with my back against the shelf wall and being that nervous, couldn't keep track of my down time so I just surfaced.
> 
> Personally, IMO anyone who wants to go and pay money to feed sharks underwater is just plain stupid
> 
> Or were you talking about the band?



Friends of mine own a 24 foot offshore fisherman center console.  They were fishing about 30 miles off the Ma. coast last year when they encountered a Great White.  They had just pulled up a couple of Haddock and saw this big grey thing swimming alongside the boat.  It scared the living hell out of them.  They said all they could think of was the Jaws movie and the fish chomping on the back of their boat. It ruined their day at that spot as they moved out of there quickly.  They said it was a good 15 feet long.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Well if most people can figure that out, lets take a popular outdoor clothing brand manufacturer like Marmot. Don't own anything produced by that manufacturer, but since it seems so easy from your end, guess it wouldn't be a problem for you letting me in on what eco system that manufacturer has altered making their "fake fur". I still can't wait...
> Since it's so easy, you can just give me two examples on your own if you'd like.
> 
> READ DUDE!!!


 
I already did...So I will reprint it to help you out with "Fake Fur" added to point out the highlights...

__________________________________

Well that was Sarcasum, based on the view from the other side, but to make my point I will play the Devil's advicate.

First: Petrochemicals are what most synthetics are made from (AKA, Fake Fur), which is oil. Any of the Enviorwaco's will say that drilling for oil is distroying our enviorment (In the past that was true, which it isn't now) but that is their claim, so I will use that one... One only has to look here in Alaska at ANWR and see that oil is a bad name, because it is a "Wilderness" and can't be touched... That is a bunch of crap, but that is what they feed you guys in the Lower 48 states. The oil fields in Alaska are regulated so badly that if you spill a drop of oil, it could cost you your job. Anyway oil has had a bad name from the past which is not the present but they still beat that dead horse.... They claim Birds can't nest, Caribou can't have calves, wolves can't stalk the calves and other bunk...

Second: Cotton, peanuts, corn and other crops to farm where all the natural "Old Growth" had to be wiped out so they could be planted to make synthetic products (AKA, Fake Fur can be made from the oils) that are made from those crop's chemicals as well as food... Snakes and frogs can't live without the old Growth to hide in...

Third: Mining, hundreds of thousands of acres have been stripped mined to bring you the metals and chemicals to make a colored plastic zipper for your new Hitech coat zipper (for the Fake Fur)... Now the fuzzy rabbits have no place to hide and breed....

Fourth: Rubber trees are planted where jungle used to be, for the rubber and other products that are made from them (Byproducts are used in making Fake Fur)... Again, the forest is stripped clean to plant the trees and so forth...

Fifth: You should get the point by now.


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> I already did...So I will reprint it to help you out...


 
uhm, no you didn't. 

I'm asking for speciffics. You gave me generalizations (sp?).

Know what the difference is?

You mentioned "cotten, peanuts and corn". Ok, where at and who?

Not that I don't doubt you (becuase I agree with you), but I don't know the spefciffics and I was wondering if you could help me out. So far, you're not doing a great job.

How about a nice flow chart?


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> I would also be willing to bet that Bob's wife would have no clue where to begin if a HK93 or MP5 where put in front of her let alone a mac10.


Well I couldn't either.  I have no experience with those.  Given time to study the guns I'm sure she could, not sure about me, however.  But she can take down her shotguns and her .45acp pistols.  Not sure what your attempted stereotyping has to do with FUR COATS.

BTW, I don't have a dive computer either.  Not sure what that has to do with fur.

But I do find it interesting that you ask for 'specifics' from Fogtender while you bandy about with general stereotypes regarding my wife.  Seems about as hypocritical as the Hollywood starlets who won't wear "fur" but slip on shearling boots while dangling a leather Dooney & Burke bag from their wrist while being interviewed about animal rights!


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> uhm, no you didn't.
> 
> I'm asking for speciffics. You gave me generalizations (sp?).
> 
> Know what the difference is?


 
Yeah, kinda like your statement refering women that wear furs as "Rich Bitches"

You clearly can't see the forest because the stupid trees are in the way....

Can't help you...


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Yeah, kinda like your statement refering women that wear furs as "Rich Bitches"
> 
> You clearly can't see the forest because the stupid trees are in the way....
> 
> Can't help you...


 
Would you like the names of the girls 

Still, my comment about "rich bitches" is an opinion. I thought I gave a couple of stories on how I formed my opinion. 

YOU on the other hand are making a comment about somthing factual (or aren't you?) Which is it?

I understand if you can't help me, but at least try to help yourself, or do you need help even doing that?


----------



## Tractors4u

Rep points for you Bob for bagging such a high quality wife and having a Breitling watch.  I bought a fake Breitling watch from a Turkish guy while I was in Iraq.  I still want a real Breitling Rescue.  



B_Skurka said:


> I have several dive watches. My Breitling has a sharkskin strap that has been on the watch for several years and has been underwater in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean. If tanned properly it holds up very well. I also have dive watches with rubber straps, I don't like them as well as sharkskin.
> 
> As for my wife, she is hard to pigeon hole into a neat little package like you seem to want to do. Yes, she was in the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority in college. She climbed mountains and has repelled down cliffs. She was also a double major Political Science & History and went on to earn an MBA. She also was R.O.T.C. trained on the M16 and she was a princess at the Indianapolis 500 and she and I sat on the "Winner's Circle" and took a few laps in the pace car too. So she is a beautiful woman, with brains, who can field strip an assault weapon. Any more questions?


----------



## Tractors4u

So is that a jab at officers in general or just ROTC commisions?

Just curious.





dzalphakilo said:


> Really, I wouldn't of mentioned taking R.O.T.C in college and training on the M16. Heck, even those who get commissioned don't even admit to that Kind of like inflating your resume by saying you were a petroleum distribution engineer, AKA pumping gas (I only know that one because I pumped gas in high school and came up with that one myself)
> 
> I would also be willing to bet that Bob's wife would have no clue where to begin if a HK93 or MP5 where put in front of her let alone a mac10. I could be wrong of course.
> 
> That's a problem I have when I go for a job interview, I don't know how to sell myself.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> So is that a jab at officers in general or just ROTC commisions?
> 
> Just curious.


 
Neither


----------



## Cityboy

Tractors4u said:


> Rep points for you Bob for bagging such a high quality wife and having a Breitling watch.


 
Gawd! What a smacky-butt post.  You are now an official member of the Bob Skurka Butt-kissin' club.   :rollingla

Stole Troy's avatar and attached for emphasis.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> Well I couldn't either. I have no experience with those. Given time to study the guns I'm sure she could, not sure about me, however. But she can take down her shotguns and her .45acp pistols. Not sure what your attempted stereotyping has to do with FUR COATS.
> 
> BTW, I don't have a dive computer either. Not sure what that has to do with fur.
> 
> But I do find it interesting that you ask for 'specifics' from Fogtender while you bandy about with general stereotypes regarding my wife. Seems about as hypocritical as the Hollywood starlets who won't wear "fur" but slip on shearling boots while dangling a leather Dooney & Burke bag from their wrist while being interviewed about animal rights!


 
Sorry Bob, didn't know a shotgun or .45 was considered an "assault weapon".

Not general sterotypes Bob, just what I have dealt with personally, nothing more. Looking to verify if my hunch was right due to my personal experiences, nothing more.  You verified what I thought.

I found it interesting that you needed to "brag" on your wife when all I asked was a simple yes or no question. 

Reason why I ask about the dive computer is because since you have all of these dive watches I thought you were a diver (I'd find it hard to believe you'd have all those dive watches, but no computer if you dived).

Could you please explain to me again how I'm a hypocrite?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> Rep points for you Bob for bagging such a high quality wife and having a Breitling watch.


 
Sorry, find it amazing that you'd give rep points out for "bragging" and having material possesions (sp?).

Do you require a list of objects owned for rep points, or is there a certain dollar amount? I think I need some here

Do you sincerely think anyone here will tell you that they don't have a "high quality wife" here on this forum?

Come on, anyone here married to a two timing skank?


----------



## Deadly Sushi

Nothing wrong with wearing fur. Personally I dont like the look of it fashion-wise. It looks a little 70's-ish to me.


----------



## JimR

I'd like to nuzzle up with a woman in a fur, naked underneath of course.


----------



## JimR

I'd like to nuzzle up with a woman in a fur, naked underneath of course.  

I'd also brag about my wife if she could field strip a M-16, hunted with me and was a ROTC Gal and so on.  

I will say that mine has a bachelors degree in business, owns her own business and is one hell of a cook and a sweetheart.


----------



## Tractors4u

dzalphakilo said:


> Neither


 
Then what was the point of;   

"Really, I wouldn't of mentioned taking R.O.T.C in college and training on the M16. Heck, even those who get commissioned don't even admit to that "  ?


----------



## Tractors4u

dzalphakilo said:


> Sorry, find it amazing that you'd give rep points out for "bragging" and having material possesions (sp?).
> 
> Do you require a list of objects owned for rep points, or is there a certain dollar amount? I think I need some here
> 
> Do you sincerely think anyone here will tell you that they don't have a "high quality wife" here on this forum?
> 
> Come on, anyone here married to a two timing skank?


 

I don't think Bob was bragging. You have hounded him about his wife with the sororiety question and generally wanting to know what type of person she was. He gave you in great detail what kind of person his wife is and now then you were still able to find things to bash her over, ROTC. You cannot be satisfied. 

I think I may go buy my wife a fur. 

As for the Breitling watch. I am a gadget nut. When I first learned of the Breitling Rescue watch, I was amazed. I became a fan of Breitling watches. Do I own one? No, my regular everyday watch is a Casio Pathfinder Titanium. It's no Breitling, but it does give the temp, barometric pressure, and is a digital compass. Oh yea, it tells time. Told you I was a gadget nut. A friend of mine has a Rolex Submariner and when I know that I will be seeing him I wear my fake Rolex Submariner just as a jab. he knows it is all in fun.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> I don't think Bob was bragging. You have hounded him about his wife with the sororiety question and generally wanting to know what type of person she was. He gave you in great detail what kind of person his wife is and now then you were still able to find things to bash her over, ROTC. You cannot be satisfied.
> 
> I think I may go buy my wife a fur.
> 
> As for the Breitling watch. I am a gadget nut. When I first learned of the Breitling Rescue watch, I was amazed. I became a fan of Breitling watches. Do I own one? No, my regular everyday watch is a Casio Pathfinder Titanium. It's no Breitling, but it does give the temp, barometric pressure, and is a digital compass. Oh yea, it tells time. Told you I was a gadget nut. A friend of mine has a Rolex Submariner and when I know that I will be seeing him I wear my fake Rolex Submariner just as a jab. he knows it is all in fun.


 
First off, I don't care what type of person Bob's wife is, I only wanted to know if she was a member in a soriety.  Is there anything else I asked him of her?  Do I really care what type of person she is?  Bob's married to her, I'm not.

After asking two times or so, I got an answer.

Do I get any rep points for anything I own?


----------



## Tractors4u

dzalphakilo said:


> Do I get any rep points for anything I own?


 

Depends, do you have anything cool?


----------



## Tractors4u

Cityboy said:


> Gawd! What a smacky-butt post.  You are now an official member of the Bob Skurka Butt-kissin' club.   :rollingla
> 
> Stole Troy's avatar and attached for emphasis.


 
Bob took care of me and my buddies in Iraq by sending care packages when I was in Iraq.  I will help him out whenever I can.


----------



## Cityboy

Tractors4u said:


> Bob took care of me and my buddies in Iraq by sending care packages when I was in Iraq. I will help him out whenever I can.


 
That's nice. Hope he doesn't spend all those points in one place.  

Seriously, glad you made it back safe, hopefully with all your appendages attached.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> Depends, do you have anything cool?


 
My wife tells me my penis is pretty cool.

Guess that's about it


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> Then what was the point of;
> 
> "Really, I wouldn't of mentioned taking R.O.T.C in college and training on the M16. Heck, even those who get commissioned don't even admit to that " ?


 
I never heard a officer bragging about taking R.O.T.C anywhere. 

Perhaps West Point, but that's it.  

Chances are good that Bob's wife only took R.O.T.C as an elective. Since Bob didn't go into details (such as where she took her actual military training) I really don't know.


----------



## RedRocker

dzalphakilo said:


> My wife tells me my penis is pretty cool.
> 
> Guess that's about it


 

TMI


----------



## dzalphakilo

RedRocker said:


> TMI


 
Hey, I need the rep points!

Don't you win something?


----------



## fogtender

Tractors4u said:


> Bob took care of me and my buddies in Iraq by sending care packages when I was in Iraq. I will help him out whenever I can.


----------



## JimR

I think this is enough about picking on Bob's wife or as a matter of fact anyone's wife.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> I never heard a officer bragging about taking R.O.T.C anywhere.
> 
> Perhaps West Point, but that's it.
> 
> Chances are good that Bob's wife only took R.O.T.C as an elective. Since Bob didn't go into details (such as where she took her actual military training) I really don't know.


Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas.  It was while she was in graduate school working on a masters degree in history, and you don't need 'electives' in graduate school.  And I was not bragging, simply pointing out that she is a far more diverse individual than your stereotyping would have suggested.


----------



## Tractors4u

dzalphakilo said:


> My wife tells me my penis is pretty cool.
> 
> Guess that's about it


 
Cool = Shrinkage


----------



## Cityboy

Tractors4u said:


> Cool = Shrinkage


 
Get some sheep skin drawers and warm your winkie up, DZ.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> simply pointing out that she is a far more diverse individual than your stereotyping would have suggested.


 
That's exactly what sterotyping is Bob, looking past a persons unique life experiences that help create them as an individual.

It is interesting however that I guessed she may of been a soriety chick (again, a sterotype).


----------



## dzalphakilo

Tractors4u said:


> Cool = Shrinkage


 
Perhaps in your household.

Thinking about it, I do have a Timex watch, would that be cool enough for you


----------



## dzalphakilo

Cityboy said:


> Get some sheep skin drawers and warm your winkie up, DZ.


 
Nude all the way dude.  

I live in nice warm N.C now


----------



## dzalphakilo

JimR said:


> I think this is enough about picking on Bob's wife or as a matter of fact anyone's wife.


 
I never picked on Bobs wife at all. Asked one closed ended question.

You could say it has been about streotyping, that's about it.

Funny, if I remember correctly, this subject was started by Bob when he bought his wife something.


----------



## OhioTC18 RIP

Damn, I guess my wife is really deprived. She doesn't have a fur coat, never belonged to a sorority, isn't a Rich Bitch and I don't have any sheep skin drawers to keep my winkie warm.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> if I remember correctly, this subject was started by Bob


Yup, to discuss fur coats and what constitutes good use of pelts, and to discuss other types of pelts (shearling/leather/etc) that for some reason are not considered 'fur' but are really the same thing.





B_Skurka said:


> simply pointing out that she is a far more diverse individual than your stereotyping would have suggested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dzalphakilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what sterotyping is Bob, looking past a persons unique life experiences that help create them as an individual.
> 
> It is interesting however that I guessed she may of been a soriety chick (again, a sterotype).
Click to expand...

Most definitions of Stereotyping suggest it is insulting and the person doing the stereotyping is over simplifying the person to make himself feel superior.
*STEREOTYPING*: Stereotype: A fixed, commonly held notion or image of a person or group, based on an oversimplification of some observed or imagined trait of behaviour or appearance. But most stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to the person or group being stereotyped. Stereotypes ignore the uniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group with the same brush.  They reflect ideas that groups of people hold about others who are different from them.  The image evoked is easily recognized and understood by others who share the same views.​Now, can all of us get back to fur coats and stop insulting each other?

I still don't understand how people can suggest that fur is bad but have leather seats in their cars, or own a shearling coats/boots, etc.  Sure, most fur comes from hunted or farm raised pelts that never end up on the menu at the local diner, but so what.  If the coyote was not shot, it would have never made it to the collar of a nice parka, but the fact of the matter is that coyotes are a pest in many areas and need to be shot/trapped to be controlled, so why not use the pelts instead of letting them go to waste?  Ditto raccoon, muskrat, etc.  As for mink, which is commonly raised, why is it so different than anything else that is raised for a purpose?


----------



## JimR

Damn, I wear leather boots too and I love them.  We also have an old Buffalo throw that dates back to the 1800's.  I only wish the hair would stop falling out of it.  I would like to try it out in the cold weather sometime.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Could you please explain to me again how I'm a hypocrite?


 
Here, this may help you out a bit...

*hypocrite*

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite 

 Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\ Function: _noun_ Etymology: Middle English _ypocrite,_ from Anglo-French, from Late Latin _hypocrita,_ from Greek _hypokritēs_ actor, hypocrite, from _hypokrinesthai_ Date: 13th century 1 *:* a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 *:* a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings 
— hypocrite _adjective_ 

Taken from:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite


You refered to someone's wife that wears a fur as a "Rich Bitch" as if you were against people wearing fur, and you hunt, killing animals. 

Pretty much sums up your question...You are a hypocrite by definition... 

By the way, most of us don't have objections to hunting or wearing furs nor make off handed statements that would normally come from someone who has no clue about hunting or trapping fur bearing animals...


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Here, this may help you out a bit...
> 
> *hypocrite*
> 
> Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
> 
> Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\ Function: _noun_ Etymology: Middle English _ypocrite,_ from Anglo-French, from Late Latin _hypocrita,_ from Greek _hypokritēs_ actor, hypocrite, from _hypokrinesthai_ Date: 13th century 1 *:* a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 *:* a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
> — hypocrite _adjective_
> 
> Taken from:
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
> 
> 
> You refered to someone's wife that wears a fur as a "Rich Bitch" as if you were against people wearing fur, and you hunt, killing animals.
> 
> Pretty much sums up your question...You are a hypocrite by definition...
> 
> By the way, most of us don't have objections to hunting or wearing furs nor make off handed statements that would normally come from someone who has no clue about hunting or trapping fur bearing animals...


 

Being up in the boonies you don't get much reading done other than a computer, do you?

I refered to most women I know who own fur coats as bitches, not Bobs wife. Apologies if I don't sugar coat it for you. Like candy?

Got news for you dude, I admitted I agree with you to an extent. 

I hunt. I don't like fur farms. I think animals that pelts are used for commercial sales should not be raised on a farm for the primary purpose of using their skin.

What's it like with all those stupid trees hiding your place


----------



## Doc

I do not understand your position DZ.
Cattle farms are okay.  We eat the steaks and use the leather for all kinds of things.

Fish farms ...haven't been mentioned but guessing they are okay.
Same with sheep, goats etc. all okay to be rasied on a farm and used as we see fit.

But mink farms are not okay.  What is so special about the mink or other animals that we only use for fur?  

How about worm farms.  Are they okay?  We only raise them to use in catching fish (as far as I know).  Do you have a problem with those farms?


----------



## Doc

I do not understand your position DZ.
Cattle farms are okay.  We eat the steaks and use the leather for all kinds of things.

Fish farms ...haven't been mentioned but guessing they are okay.
Same with sheep, goats etc.  all okay.

But mink farms are not okay.  What is so special about the mink or other animals that we only use for fur?


----------



## dzalphakilo

Doc said:


> I do not understand your position DZ.
> Cattle farms are okay. We eat the steaks and use the leather for all kinds of things.
> 
> Fish farms ...haven't been mentioned but guessing they are okay.
> Same with sheep, goats etc. all okay to be rasied on a farm and used as we see fit.
> 
> But mink farms are not okay. What is so special about the mink or other animals that we only use for fur?
> 
> How about worm farms. Are they okay? We only raise them to use in catching fish (as far as I know). Do you have a problem with those farms?


 
We are carnivores (sp?).  Heck, I like my steak Pittsburgh black.  Using a animal for meat, then utilizing the carcass (sp?) for other products I can live with.  A "fur farms" primary purpose is fur.  As mentioned, it only makes good business practice to utilize the rest of the carcass (sp?) afterwards.  

This whole discussion is based on personal opinion.

Personally, I think most people in the U.S don't really need fur, but hey, it's "nice".  Personally, I don't think fur bearing animals raised on a farm should die for the personal "whims" because someone wants to buy it.

I can assure you, I've never thrown paint on someone wearing fur or done anything illegal, not that it matters.  Actually, the only time I've discussed my feelings with anyone per this subject is here on this forum.  People are going to do what they want to do, that's a fact.  

Never considered worms, but guess it could be argued that the primary reason for being raised in for bait.  Then again, REAL fishermen use a fly rod 

I guess part of my opinion is formed by that one video I posted here in the pet section about how unwanted animals were killed via the gas box in my own county.  When you see former unwanted "pets" thrown into a box 10 or more animals at a time to save on cost, fighting for their lives, well it may give you a different perspective on why animals should die.  Particularly when it's at the hands of our own ignorance.

We even haven't even discussed about the largest fur producing country in the world, China.  How well regulated do you think China is when it comes to business practices?  Unless if they get to the point where they litterally hang a CEO to make a point, probably not that very well.  Then again, it all comes down to the consumer and what is accepted.  

As I mentioned before, I not against fur in general, only fur farms.  Like jewlery (sp?), on average personally I can't see spending the money on fur when you can buy something on average for less expense.  Then again, supply and demand.  People have the money to buy something, the product will be made.


----------



## Melensdad

dzalphakilo said:


> We are carnivores (sp?).  Heck, I like my steak Pittsburgh black.  Using a animal for meat, then utilizing the carcass (sp?) for other products I can live with.  A "fur farms" primary purpose is fur.  As mentioned, it only makes good business practice to utilize the rest of the carcass (sp?) afterwards.


My sister is a vegetarian, bordering on vegan.  She eats a strict diet for health reasons.  She does, however wear leather (and fur).

So she would be happy enough to skin the cow and not use the meat.  

Seems to me that using your logic then 'vegetarians' should be outlawed from having leather/shearling/etc because in your mindset the animals used to produce those products are 'primarily' eaten and those products are the 'by products' of food production?  To her mindset, it is the meat that is the by product, and the leather/shearling/etc that is her primary interest.

Heck, using your logic, meat eaters should be required to wear leather/shearling/etc.  And vegetarians should, therefore, not be allowed to use any animal products (like medicines, leathers, fertilizers, or even feed their pets animal based products).  So who is going to enforce your code of conduct?  Another government agency!?!


----------



## Doc

I can't get a grasp on your logic DZ.
If our country was run that way then those who didn't like ham would want to outlaw pig farming, simply because they don't eat it.

Focusing on minks but it should apply to other animals raised for their fur.  These minks would not be born & many would not have any life if it weren't for the farm.  The ones born in the wild have a lessor chance of ever growing to adulthood.  And lets say, parts of the animal besides the fur are used for dog chow, horse meal or whatever.  I see no difference to this than raising cattle or pigs or worms.  They are serving us in the form of fur lined gloves, panties, underwear & or coats.  All the same in the grand scheme of things to my way of thinking.


----------



## dzalphakilo

Doc said:


> I can't get a grasp on your logic DZ.
> If our country was run that way then those who didn't like ham would want to outlaw pig farming, simply because they don't eat it.


 
Is belief in ones God logical?

Using logic, could you explain to me how God exists?

People eat ham, just like steak.


----------



## dzalphakilo

B_Skurka said:


> My sister is a vegetarian, bordering on vegan. She eats a strict diet for health reasons. She does, however wear leather (and fur).
> 
> So she would be happy enough to skin the cow and not use the meat.
> 
> Seems to me that using your logic then 'vegetarians' should be outlawed from having leather/shearling/etc because in your mindset the animals used to produce those products are 'primarily' eaten and those products are the 'by products' of food production? To her mindset, it is the meat that is the by product, and the leather/shearling/etc that is her primary interest.
> 
> Heck, using your logic, meat eaters should be required to wear leather/shearling/etc. And vegetarians should, therefore, not be allowed to use any animal products (like medicines, leathers, fertilizers, or even feed their pets animal based products). So who is going to enforce your code of conduct? Another government agency!?!


 
Interesting, I hiked with a vegan (ok, I'll bragg a little, she was the topic in a article of Israel's version "National Geographic" for being the first Israili women to accomplish some "feats" in the U.S, and of course she served in the Israili Army, which was madatory) and she had a different philosophy than your sister Bob.

Guess it all comes down to the individual.


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> As I mentioned before, I not against fur in general, only fur farms. Like jewlery (sp?), on average personally I can't see spending the money on fur when you can buy something on average for less expense. Then again, supply and demand. People have the money to buy something, the product will be made.


 
That is kinda like saying you are a KKK member only on Thursdays and Monday afternoon. The rest of the week you aren't ok with it...

If you don't like fur, fine, but don't make enflamitory remarks and then say sometimes it is ok to wear and make statements that generalize people that wear fur. 

I personnally have no problems in someone wearing fur, I don't however like fur farms, same as veal becase of the way it is raised, but I eat beef. If someone else eats an expensive cut of beef, and someone else eats a hamburger, what is the difference.....not much to the cow and I don't generalize the two people eating on what they can afford.

What I do have a real grudge against is killing any animal for fun or sport in that nothing is used but Photos for bragging rights, that is an extreme waste. 

As far as you thinking I am up in the "Boonies", yep you are right about that, but I have prob been more places in the world than you have read about and I like the "Boonies" just fine, but again you are making statements that generalize and you are again off base.

In response to your question of... "What's it like with all those stupid trees hiding your place?" They would be pretty much be blocking your view of the forest here too, and it is really nice with Mt. McKinley as a backdrop!


----------



## RedRocker

What exactly is a stupid tree? How can I tell how intelligent my trees are?


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> That is kinda like saying you are a KKK member only on Thursdays and Monday afternoon. The rest of the week you aren't ok with it...
> 
> If you don't like fur, fine, but don't make enflamitory remarks and then say sometimes it is ok to wear and make statements that generalize people that wear fur.
> 
> I personnally have no problems in someone wearing fur, I don't however like fur farms, same as veal becase of the way it is raised, but I eat beef. If someone else eats an expensive cut of beef, and someone else eats a hamburger, what is the difference.....not much to the cow and I don't generalize the two people eating on what they can afford.
> 
> What I do have a real grudge against is killing any animal for fun or sport in that nothing is used but Photos for bragging rights, that is an extreme waste.
> 
> As far as you thinking I am up in the "Boonies", yep you are right about that, but I have prob been more places in the world than you have read about and I like the "Boonies" just fine, but again you are making statements that generalize and you are again off base.
> 
> In response to your question of... "What's it like with all those stupid trees hiding your place?" They would be pretty much be blocking your view of the forest here too, and it is really nice with Mt. McKinley as a backdrop!


 
First off, KKK meetings here in good ol' Yadkin County, North Carolina are held only the first Tuesday of each new month.

Apologies about the "inflamatory" remarks. Being politically correct or having a "social grace" was never a strong point of mine (although I'm a lot nicer than some of my good friends).

Your next two paragraphs show we probably have more in common than you may realize. I agree 120% with your opinions.

You may of been in more places in the world than myself, but don't bet on it. So what? Learned a long time ago that home is where the heart is.

As far as the "boonies", I sort of like them too.

The "stupid tree" comment was a direct quote that I took from you. 

Funny, when I camped with a guy who came down from Mt. McKinley the day before, guess what? He didn't wear any fur to the summit (not that I didn't believe him, but the pictures he took at the summit was a wonderful view).


----------



## dzalphakilo

RedRocker said:


> What exactly is a stupid tree? How can I tell how intelligent my trees are?


 
Have to ask fogtender, I took the term from him.


----------



## fogtender

RedRocker said:


> What exactly is a stupid tree? How can I tell how intelligent my trees are?


 
A "Stupid" tree is what blocks someone's view who can't see the forest....  

That person makes the statement that the "Stupid" trees are in the way, is a medifore of blank statements about something they have no clue about that everyone else sees clearly....  

I guess that was way too much for dzalphakilo to figure out... maybe we can get him a compass


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Funny, when I camped with a guy who came down from Mt. McKinley the day before, guess what? He didn't wear any fur to the summit (not that I didn't believe him, but the pictures he took at the summit was a wonderful view).


 

The clothes that the guys climbing the mountain far exceed the price of furs in most cases, they will spend thousands of dollars for getting outfitted for a few day's trip. It has it's own weather system up on the mountain.  But guess what, the earlier climbers all wore furs...

I have been able to fly over it a bunch of times, and still enjoy the aerial view. Even with all the safety precautions, at least one person gets killed each year on the average. Your friend had to be in 110% shape!


----------



## JimR

Beautiful pictures "Holy Shit"  Wish I lived up there to play on those grounds.


----------



## fogtender

JimR said:


> Beautiful pictures "Holy Shit" Wish I lived up there to play on those grounds.


 
This is the view from the front of the cabin, looking South accross the lake.  "Roughwoods" has an even better view from his homestead on the Upper Kantisna River...  Beats this one hands down....


----------



## RedRocker

Holy Crap!! You sure have a nice view through those stupid trees!!


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> A "Stupid" tree is what blocks someone's view who can't see the forest....
> 
> That person makes the statement that the "Stupid" trees are in the way, is a medifore of blank statements about something they have no clue about that everyone else sees clearly....
> 
> I guess that was way too much for dzalphakilo to figure out... maybe we can get him a compass


 
Guess it was too much for you to figure out that I wasn't the one who asked the question about "stupid trees".

We go back to that reading issue you may have.

By the way, unless you have a topo with you, a compass is going to be very limited on what you can do.

Nice view, remember it well. You can have the winters though.


----------



## fogtender

RedRocker said:


> Holy Crap!! You sure have a nice view through those stupid trees!!


 

Yeah, I just cut the stupid ones down, makes for a great view...


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> By the way, unless you have a topo with you, a compass is going to be very limited on what you can do.


 
I use a compass all the time and it works great...East, West, North and South and all the points between...  

A topo is good if you have a basic idea where you are at in the first place, and someone was already there and drew it out...  A compass can take you around the World...

The GPS just spoils everyone...


----------



## JimR

Wow on that mountain view.  How many miles are you from the mountain?


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Nice view, remember it well. You can have the winters though. Hope the sheep don't too scared when you come around
> 
> P.S I can throw barbs back as long as you would like.


 
Remember? Cold winters?  Sheep!!???

Now you are going to tell me you have "Pet" names for the sheep????

I don't think you want to throw too many barbs....


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> A topo is good if you have a basic idea where you are at in the first place, and someone was already there and drew it out... A compass can take you around the World...


 
You don't have to have a clue where you're at if you have a topo and compass.  Just need to make sure you have some vantage points of the surrounding area to make sense of it quicker.  Would take time, but you'd be able to locate you position in due time and take if from there.


----------



## JimR

fogtender said:


> The GPS just spoils everyone...



Amen to that but they are nice to have.  I have one in my boat along with a compass for backup.  A GPS is like a calculator.  If you can't do math or read a compass your screwed if the battery goes dead.  Where in the world are we now, lost.


----------



## fogtender

JimR said:


> Wow on that mountain view. How many miles are you from the mountain?


 
About 80 miles +- or so.  At almost four miles high, you can see it from different areas of the State as far as 250 miles away on good days....


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Remember? Cold winters? Sheep!!???
> 
> Now you are going to tell me you have "Pet" names for the sheep????
> 
> I don't think you want to throw too many barbs....


 
Yeah, why not?

And I'm sure when you told that statie that you were only helping those sheep over the fence, he believed you


----------



## fogtender

JimR said:


> Amen to that but they are nice to have. I have one in my boat along with a compass for backup. A GPS is like a calculator. If you can't do math or read a compass your screwed if the battery goes dead. Where in the world are we now, lost.


 

I use the GPS in the plane when I see something that is of interest, I can mark it and go back in the winter on snowmachine and check it out, takes any of the old map marking out of the loop.  

The GPS makes my flying a lot easier when you don't have to do as much navigation on longer trips, just click and go...  But if the batteries/electrial goes out, you have a compass to go by for backup and the charts for backup (topo's).

In most aviation circles, the term IFR means Instrument Flight Rules, here in Alaska, alot of times it means IFR, I Follow Rivers, they all lead to a bigger one...


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Yeah, why not?
> 
> And I'm sure when you told that statie that you were only helping those sheep over the fence, he believed you


 
Geezzzeee, you sure got Sheep on the mind...  and what would you use the fence for?  Most people open the gate....


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Geezzzeee, you sure got Sheep on the mind... and what would you use the fence for? Most people open the gate....


 
Well the question is why didn't you open the gate.  I'm not the one who got written up for acts against nature

Don't blame me that I don't need to go to the family reunions to meet a chick


----------



## fogtender

dzalphakilo said:


> Well the question is why didn't you open the gate. I'm not the one who got written up for acts against nature
> 
> Don't blame me that I don't need to go to the family reunions to meet a chick


 

Well to get a sheep here, you would prob. have to bring it with you, is that how you met them? .... totally out of my league of expertice.

We have Mountain Goats and Dall Sheep, but they hang out in higher places than I care to visit....

Why would you think you don't need to go to family reunion anymore to meet chicks?  Not a concept I ever even thought about to meet women, too many would be related to me...strange one that is.... is that a normal custom from where you are at?


----------



## JimR

fogtender said:


> In most aviation circles, the term IFR means Instrument Flight Rules, here in Alaska, alot of times it means IFR, I Follow Rivers, they all lead to a bigger one...



I've heard that saying before.  Especially if you are lost. Follow the river downstream to civilization.


----------



## dzalphakilo

fogtender said:


> Why would you think you don't need to go to family reunion anymore to meet chicks? Not a concept I ever even thought about to meet women, too many would be related to me...strange one that is.... is that a normal custom from where you are at?


 
I just figured being out in the sticks in West Virginia wouldn't be any different that being in the sticks in Alaska.

Online from Thailand?


----------



## fogtender

JimR said:


> I've heard that saying before. Especially if you are lost. Follow the river downstream to civilization.


 

Well it applies here, just not a lot of civilization at the end of the rivers in a lot of cases, just a place to land if all goes well....

When flyiing, you can get caught in some bad weather and have everything close in on you before you can get out of it. Sometimes if you see a ridge, you know that "Most" have a creek bed running down the valley so if you follow the ridge, and you can drop down to see it. That is only as a last ditch effort, in my experiance, "most ridges" have way too much "Cumlious Granite" (rocks in the clouds) lining them that needs to be avoided at all costs, and they are directly in your flight path in direct proportion to how badly you need to get out of the weather....

North of the Alaska Range, where Denali National Park is at, and all the rivers South of the Brooks Range, flow into the Yukon and most of the towns (of a few hundred people at best) along there, you will miss if you blink too long...


----------



## JimR

fogtender said:


> Well it applies here, just not a lot of civilization at the end of the rivers in a lot of cases, just a place to land if all goes well....
> 
> When flyiing, you can get caught in some bad weather and have everything close in on you before you can get out of it. Sometimes if you see a ridge, you know that "Most" have a creek bed running down the valley so if you follow the ridge, and you can drop down to see it. That is only as a last ditch effort, in my experiance, "most ridges" have way too much "Cumlious Granite" (rocks in the clouds) lining them that needs to be avoided at all costs, and they are directly in your flight path in direct proportion to how badly you need to get out of the weather....
> 
> North of the Alaska Range, where Denali National Park is at, and all the rivers South of the Brooks Range, flow into the Yukon and most of the towns (of a few hundred people at best) along there, you will miss if you blink too long...





I've looked at maps of Alaska before.  You are very sparesly populated up there inland.


----------



## fogtender

JimR said:


> I've looked at maps of Alaska before. You are very sparesly populated up there inland.


 
Well there is about 12 families that live in the general area that I am at, if you go East or West, you can be a few hundred miles before you reach a town of more than a few dozen.... no roads,  you either use the river system, walk, dogsled, snowmachine or you fly....

Going North, Fairbanks is North about eighty miles and Anchorage is about three hundred to the South, with not a lot in between once you leave the Highway...


----------



## JimR

fogtender said:


> Well there is about 12 families that live in the general area that I am at, if you go East or West, you can be a few hundred miles before you reach a town of more than a few dozen.... no roads,  you either use the river system, walk, dogsled, snowmachine or you fly....
> 
> Going North, Fairbanks is North about eighty miles and Anchorage is about three hundred to the South, with not a lot in between once you leave the Highway...



It must be awful quiet up there.


----------



## REDDOGTWO

This thread has sort of died down, so I thought I might add this little tidbit of information that I received today. It was the 2007 United States census of Agriculture.

It lists cattle and calves, sheep and lambs, poultry which includes chickens, turkeys, ducks, emus, geese, ostriches, pheasants, pigeons, quail and other poultry which would include bantams, chukkas, guineas, rheas and peacocks, bees, horses and ponies, mules, burros and donkeys, milk goats, angora goats, alpacas, llamas, bison, deer, elk, rabbits, and mink.

It just shows you what a variety of animals that are raised and used in this country.  I have tasted some of the above varieties.  At one point in time I even had a pair of wildebeest boots.  I do not believe that they were farm raised.


----------



## JimR

There is an Alpaca farm about 10 miles from me that I paid a visit to about two months ago.  I wanted to see what was involved in raising them and wanted to see what they were like.  What an impressive place to visit.  The guy had about 15 animals.  They were free to roam around the fenced in fields.  I hope to buy a pair of them some day for the old farm I'm wokring on for my daughter.


----------



## fogtender

JimR said:


> It must be awful quiet up there.


 
Nope, every time the dog goes out, he growls at something in the woods...  could be he is just scared of the woods...


----------

