trashing trappers

[hoosieryote]

I seen this in my local paper. This writer is from jeffersonville indiana. So not sure how many newspapers he has sent this to? What can we do about it Tim? Do we respond or just be quiet and let it blow over? I am for showing our side of the matter but feel the state trappers should respond as a whole.

Wearing animal skins no longer necessary

Jeffersonville, Ind.

At one time, the wearing of animal skins was necessary for our survival, but that was phased out with the invention of weaving plant fibers into cloth. The wearing of animal skins simply means making a fashion statement. It began in the 18th and 19th centuries when beavers were almost made extinct so that people could wear a nice hat, and we all know what happened to the buffalo.

Although some trapping is still done, the fur industry today has degenerated into one of raising animals in cages for their fur. The animals are killed, skinned, then the bodies thrown away. The hats and coats made from those skins are so that someone can look good. People who raise these animals are despicable, but people who continue to trap are not much better because of the indiscriminate nature of their traps.

The people involved in this industry are not only cruel, they are barbaric, and the people who wear these furs are condoning the animal cruelty from which it comes.

William Wilson
February 13, 2008

[Tim Rose]

We could write a response......and maybe you could submit it?

[hoosieryote]

I can Tim or we can online either way? Whatever you guys want to do. I would also check other papers hes not from around here.

[Tim Rose]

Will keep check on other Newspapers......

Any one want to shoot some ifdeas out on how to respond in writing?

[Tim Rose]

Hoosieryote..........copy this and send in to the Newspapers editor in response to the ANTI Fur Nut.

Tell them you had a resent convesation with a Indiana Fur Takers of America Rep. about this issue.

The animal rights movement continues to target the fur industry. Haven't they been responsible for the previous declines in fur sales?
According to research done by Responsive Management, a public opinion research firm specializing in environmental conservation and wildlife issues, 88% of all Americans say that the animal rights movement had no influence on their decision to buy (or not buy) fur. In fact, 92% said they disapprove of the tactics used by animal activists. The recession of 1987 through the early 90's was the primary reason for the decline in fur sales.

How do you respond to those who say wearing fur is wrong?
What one chooses to wear is a matter of personal choice. We respect the decision of those who choose not to wear fur just as we respect the decision of those who choose not to eat meat. But if a person chooses to wear fur, or eat meat, they should be able to do so free of harassment. When consumers consider the truth about the fur industry they will recognize that the fur is a natural, responsible choice.

Various animal rights groups routinely distribute graphic videos of animals being tortured or living in horrifying conditions. Have you seen these videos?
Yes, we've seen them. In many cases members of our industry have asked for verification of authenticity on these tapes and never received it. And, in fact, in some cases it has been proven that the footage was staged in order to create these films.

The production of farmed and wild furs in the US is regulated by state and federal government authorities, and by industry codes of practice in conjunction with scientific advice from a panel of highly respected veterinary scientists.

In common with all livestock, domesticated furbearers such as farm-raised mink and fox come under the jurisdiction of state departments of agriculture. Meanwhile, any furbearing animals taken from the wild, for any reason, come under the jurisdiction of state departments of natural resources or state fish and wildlife agencies.

In the animal welfare department, state statutes cover everything from mistreatment and neglect, to intentional cruelty, and reports are investigated by the appropriate local and/or state agency, oftentimes both. Under current anti-cruelty statutes, anyone who mistreats an animal faces investigation, prosecution, fines, jail time and even the loss of his animals.

With so many good fake furs out there why should the consumer choose real fur?
Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. The proliferation of fake fur only proves the point that fur is in! But, no matter how good the fake it will never have the warmth, the feel or the durability of real fur. There is also a strong point to be made from an environmental point-of-view as most fake fur is made from natural resources (such as oil) that are limited in availability, while fur is a renewable resource. The manufacture of fake fur also releases harmful chemicals into the atmosphere.

Further, in a study titled "Environmental Consequences of Textile Marketing" undertaken at Oregon State University in 1997 a broad range of textiles including wool, leather, fur, cotton, silk, linen, rayon, polyester, nylon and acrylic were evaluated across a number of environmental variables. For a textile to be considered compatible with the environment it had to be non-polluting to obtain, process, fabricate, maintain and dispose; 100% biodegradable; long-lasting; renewable; reusable; natural/non-toxic; energy efficient to obtain and produce and producing minimal waste in it's production. In composite scoring across all environmental criteria, the farmed and wild fur outperformed all other textiles. So, one must ask, is fake fur really preferable?

Animal rights supporters suggest that fur is just a vanity item. Don't most people wear fur just to show off?
No. The number one reason given by consumers when asked why they purchased their fur is warmth.

There seems to be a growing trend within the animal rights community to use such tactics as mink releases and vandalism at fur salons in order to get their point across. Supporters say this is the only way the public will listen, and besides, they take great measures to make sure no person is ever hurt. Aren't these just noble warriors standing by their moral convictions?
We must remember that these animal activists are criminals, not heroes. Their actions destroy personal property, threaten individuals, and cost taxpayers unnecessary dollars for police activity and court costs. Their acts are criminal and must be recognized as such. Quite simply, a fire set in a furniture store would result in the perpetrator being arrested and punished to the extent of the law. Why should it be any different in the case of a fur store? With their threats, their intimidation and their malicious, destructive acts, government and law enforcement are now recognizing animal activists as "domestic terrorists".

How can you justify the horrible conditions that exist for animals on farms?
Do not be misled by the false propaganda and fabricated materials presented by animal rights activists. The respect the farmer has for his animals and land is well documented and today's farm-raised furbearers are among the best cared-for livestock. Good nutrition, comfortable housing and prompt veterinary care have resulted in domestic animals very well suited to the farm environment. Only the healthiest and best cared for animals produce the finest pelts, and it is precise attention to animal care and strict adherence to animal husbandry guidelines and recommendations that enable farmers to produce the quality fur that is demanded in today's marketplace.


What about trapping? Isn't it unnecessary and cruel?
Wildlife biologists and wildlife management officials agree that fur bearers are so abundant in the U.S. today that overpopulation poses a threat to their own welfare. Failure to properly manage these populations will result in disaster for the animals, their habitats and the people who must share space with them. Trapping is the most efficient method of controlling overpopulation and is a highly regulated practice that uses state-of-the-art methodology developed through years of research at the international level. Further, wildlife professionals need trapping to monitor and curb the incidences of wildlife diseases such as rabies, lyme disease and distemper. The potential for sale of pelts only adds to the incentive for trappers to perform this vital function.

Does the fur industry use endangered species?
The international fur trade does not handle endangered species and all furs used by the trade are abundant.

[wayne]

I might add to Tim's post that the fakery has been "proven in court" as the film of the live seal being skinned was so proven.

[Brad Collings]

william wilson? just another bunny huggin duck head.

[firemanphob]

I also saw this article and it angered me but I could not get the words together to answer him. He is always putting letters to the editor about KFC or his gripe of the week. I have considered calling the paper and threatening to stop subscribing if they continue to print this propaganda from someone that does not even live in the area.
Mike

[yoteskinner]

Don't forget the fact that the good LORD himself put these animals on this earth for the use of man. Food, hides, etc.

[0trapper]

heres on to add to Tim's post,

Faux Fur, when burned puts off toxic fumes,

I love going to sportsmans shows or the county fair and working in the OSTA booth, when we get an anti, I simply ask, where did that leather purse, leather belt, shoes, coat and anything else leather they have on comes from, then I say and you say I am cruel. that poor cow died less humanely then this beaver did. they usuallly shut up and go on their way because they know I am right and they are a hipocrit.

[hoosieryote]

Okay done deal forgot to tell you that when i seen you saturday at tractor supply tim. It will be in the paper next week being as i missed the friday deadline.