• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on furs

Would you support such legislation in your own country?


  • Total voters
    46

Shayah

יותר מקו
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
865
Reaction score
388
Location
תל אביב
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Israel Fur Trade Ban Wins Support : Humane Society International

Update, September 1, 2010

Humane Society International is applauding moves by politicians in Israel who have put forward proposals to ban the fur trade throughout the country. The bill, introduced by Knesset Member Ronit Tirosh, seeks to outlaw the production, processing, import, export and sale of fur from all animal species not already part of the meat industry. A ban on all fur throughout the country would be a world first—a major stand against the animal cruelty inherent in the worldwide fur trade—and it would set an example that other countries would look to and follow. It has attracted widespread support in Israel and from the public, politicians and celebrities from around the world.

Would you support anti-fur legislation in your own country?
 
A ban on the fur trade should only apply to endangered animals,so I would not support an outright ban on the fur trade.
 
I would in my country with a caveat to allow the trade in furs of feral animals.
 
Nope. Never in a free society, however I can respect those who do not believe in it for whatever purposes to abstain from wearing it.
 
Would you support anti-fur legislation in your own country?

Not a question of supporting it or not. I thought UK Parliament banned/restricted it already. But otherwise no, unless it's endangered. Then I don't care about individuals right to wear fur, ban it.
 
Last edited:
I say people can wear what they want but we should tax the hell out of luxury items.
 
I would not support a ban on the fur trade for any reason.
 
I don't know enough about which 'furs' would be banned. . . I have to learn more in that area.

But in general I'm like this:

I'm against Killing an animal *just* for it's fur or skin.
If any animal is to be killed it should be primarily for food / safety - and then selling of that fur/skin so that no part of the animal goes to waste.
Fur shouldn't really be glamorized - it actually serves a very practical function. I don't get the 'fashion' behind it.
 
Seriously, what's the difference between killing an animal for it's fur and killing it for it's skin? Are we proposing to ban all forms of leather as well? If someone wants to farm a particular species of animal humanely, go for it. I don't even care if it's endangered, so long as it's all farmed and never taken out of the wild. If you can figure out how to breed millions of whatever animal you want, more power to you. Heck, breed some extras for release back into the wild while you're at it.
 
I say people can wear what they want but we should tax the hell out of luxury items.

why do libs spend so much time supporting the government taking away private wealth?
 
I would be concerned about animal suffering etc. If it was done properly and humanely I wouldn't be against raising animals for fur. I hear its the case that it is not so on alot of occasions and I would support such a ban in that case.
 
I would be concerned about animal suffering etc. If it was done properly and humanely I wouldn't be against raising animals for fur. I hear its the case that it is not so on alot of occasions and I would support such a ban in that case.

do you support a ban on meat if the conditions under which meat livestock is raised is not pristine?

the problem with "animal rights" is that groups that want government control over private property as a means to an end almost always are taken over by those who see government control of private property as their ultimate goal
 
do you support a ban on meat if the conditions under which meat livestock is raised is not pristine?

the problem with "animal rights" is that groups that want government control over private property as a means to an end almost always are taken over by those who see government control of private property as their ultimate goal

Since when do animal rights groups advocate communism and are you just lumping them together ideologically to make the other side easier to hate?
 
Since when do animal rights groups advocate communism and are you just lumping them together ideologically to make the other side easier to hate?

I've been studying these movements for over 10 years now. Unlike the animal welfare movement, the animal rights movement is as a whole much more radicalized.
 
Since when do animal rights groups advocate communism and are you just lumping them together ideologically to make the other side easier to hate?

you obviously are ignorant of the politics of the animal rights movement in europe. and I never mentioned communist

I was an olympic class shooter at one time. One of the events in the olympics involved the use of a small bore rifle (22) shooting at a running boar target. While my discipline was in another event, I was approached by the NRA (which was the NGB then) to shoot this event due to certain talents I had. Fortunately I did not because the event was dropped from the games--in europe, venues for that event were vandalized by animal rights whackos who were mad about a sport where athletes shot at PICTURES of a boar.

My father used to travel to England for "shooting" partridge. He was on one estate which was owned by a Lord who happened to be a high ranking officer of the SAS. During one of the shoots, the "antis" as they are called trespassed and attempted to attack the shooters (a smart move to attack people who are packing shotguns) and the game keeper etc. Sadly for them, a regiment of the SAS were on the grounds training as well. My late father said it was amusing to watch these special forces soldiers practice hand to hand techniques on the radical antis.

When the wall came down, lots of information about the KGB was obtained. Guess what movement was being funded by the KGB?
 
I see no real need anymore for animal fur. 200 years ago when it was used to keep us warm, then of course. Now a days though we have fabrics and such to keep us warm, it is only used to make a fashion statement. I would support a ban on the fur trade, I just don't think we can justify slaughtering animals for their fur.
 
I don't know enough about which 'furs' would be banned. . . I have to learn more in that area.

But in general I'm like this:

I'm against Killing an animal *just* for it's fur or skin.
If any animal is to be killed it should be primarily for food / safety - and then selling of that fur/skin so that no part of the animal goes to waste.
Fur shouldn't really be glamorized - it actually serves a very practical function. I don't get the 'fashion' behind it.

Thanks, you said a lot that I was going to.
I hate seeing things like mink raised solely for fur.
I also think we should use everything possible from an animal once we kill it.
Many people depend on fur for warmth, not glamour.
I think the stigma these days of wearing fur for fashion is enough to make most people stop it.
I wouldn't be caught dead in fur for glamour.
However I wouldn't want to take that right away with a law, just because I find it distasteful.
 
Seriously, what's the difference between killing an animal for it's fur and killing it for it's skin? Are we proposing to ban all forms of leather as well? If someone wants to farm a particular species of animal humanely, go for it. I don't even care if it's endangered, so long as it's all farmed and never taken out of the wild. If you can figure out how to breed millions of whatever animal you want, more power to you. Heck, breed some extras for release back into the wild while you're at it.

Leather comes from food animals. They are not killed for there skin. If they were I wouldn't buy leather.
 
Since when do animal rights groups advocate communism and are you just lumping them together ideologically to make the other side easier to hate?

Real animal rights people like PETA ( not to be confused with animal welfare advocates) would like to ban all fur, leather, meat,hunting, fishing, animals in entertainment, medical research, working animals, guide and rescue dogs, show dogs, zoos and believe it or not, they would like to ban pets some day. Nuts like Ingrid Newkirk (PETA founder) would just love to see fur banned. It would be one step closer to their true goals of only viewing animals from a distance and in their natural environment.
 
I see no real need anymore for animal fur. 200 years ago when it was used to keep us warm, then of course. Now a days though we have fabrics and such to keep us warm, it is only used to make a fashion statement. I would support a ban on the fur trade, I just don't think we can justify slaughtering animals for their fur.
This is how I see it also. Modern textile science has the ability to artificially replicate animal fur. Many modern fabrics are also excellent insulators and retain heat much better than animal fur. They are also waterproof.

Considering the technical advances that have been made, I just no longer see a viable reason to cultivate and slaughter certain animals exclusively for their fur.
 
Back
Top Bottom