I am upset that Treehugger would post this. Just because some humans eat fish, doesn't mean we should reuse the skin. It promotes cruelty to animals-even fish. I don't wear fur from animals that people eat like rabbit,pig, cow etc., because it promotes cruelty to animals. I believe one of the greatest things Treehuggers have done is provide alternatives to leather and vinyl(oil), like bicycle tubes, license plates, recycled soda bottles, hemp fabric,etc.

With the information provided, I can not tell if this should even be here. Leather was long ago traditionally tanned with vegi compounds. Now chromium is most commonly used chem to tan with. The purveyor should mos def clarify so I know whether to scoff or to pony up some dosh.

Author's note: it is my understanding that the process developed by Fitzgerald involves only vegetable based compounds, although the process is secret to protect the business. I would have considered the traditional chrome-containing process an "almost" at best. Can any reader confirm?

Agreed. I certainly hope nobody thinks this is any more tree-hugger than cow leather.

Whilst it may not be good to fish, in no way does the leather industry promote cruelty to animals. The animals are already dead, and it's not like they are flayed alive. If people eat salmon, then the skins are just going to waste anyway. People will eat salmon regardless of if the skin is used or not. Might as well make something of otherwise wasted skin.

I dont beleve that the this posting was in any way a stimulant to cruelty to fish, and as for it showing up on this site would be more powerfull then you would think mainly because it sends the message that their is alternative to real leather, a resourse that involves an extreme level of animal cruelty, something that we are all trying to find a solution for. Dont you think we should be made aware of better, even though its not perfect, alternatives?

In response to Dorrie Grace, not every treehugger is a vegan. I think it's great to use up the skins for some purpose. What about organic gardening products such as bone and blood meal? Is the use of these products comparable to cruelty to animals?

Hi there,

From my understanding, farmed salmon is ALWAYS bad for the environment and has destroyed native salmon areas up and down the northeastern Atlantic coast. It looks horrible and necessitates large amounts of antibiotics being released into the water.

Paul McEvoy

The process of turning what would typically become waste into a useful product IS what treehugger.com is about (in my opinion). What's more is that this product can be used an alternative to skins from animals that are typically killed solely for their skin. Reclaimed salmon leather could potentially lead to the reduction of this unnecessary killing of such animals while harnessing a pre-existing waste resource. Let's face it, people aren't going to stop eating animals any time soon and this product is making the best of the situation. It certainly isn't "animal friendly."

i disagree with dorrie.

human's are omnivore's. it is natural for us to eat meat. it is how we are designed. (that does not excuse gluttony) if some choose to not eat animal flesh that is their personal choice, but i don't see anything wrong with animal food sources. and the more of those animals we utilies the more treehugger it is.

i don't think there is anything wrong with using every possible part of an animal. it is not even close to the same thing as killing an animal only for it's hide.

I guess that based on a lot of the comments I've read on this site and others, most of you "true" treehuggers out there would never consider me one of your own (though many of my friends think of me as one) I actually think this is a great idea! As a veggie myself, I don't eat fish and would never kill one to make a wallet or a pair of shoes (or anything else for that matter), but I think this type of "reclamation project" is what we need more of in the world and what could really make an immediate impact on our planet. As terrible as it is, those "farmed salmon" are going to be slaughtered any how, so why not make use of every single part of them (their skins included)and maybe save an alligator or snake in the process? Sure, I wish everyone was a vegetarian, but the reality of the situation is that people aren't going to stop eating fish any time soon. Sure I wish that everyone would use an alternative to leather, but it isn't going to happen. There is a huge market for leather bags and people are going to get it one way or another(cow, snake, alligator, etc.), so why not utilize the skins of salmon that are going to be killed either way and provide this as an alternative to killing other animals that would not otherwise have to die. I don't disrespect anyone or anyone's viewpoints, this is just my opinion. I also believe that there would be a lot more people willing to accept and live by "treehugger" ideals if we could have a more balanced and reasonable message (in the eyes of non treehugger types) than what is promoted by many of the most sincere tree huggers out there. Yes, these people clearly understand the ideal situation, and I admire them for the sacrifice they make to live the way they do. I grow more tree huggerish the older I get (so there is hope for me...), but unfortunately, only a small percentage of humanity is willing to live this kind of life and I think we can do more for nature and future generations if we take a more reasonable stance on issues like these. I applaud Mr Fitzgerald for this project. Now be kind, I'm just giving my 2 cents.... :-)

Though I'm a pretty hard core vegetarian, I don't particularly mind buying/using leather, esp. when it would have otherwise just gone to waste because of some people's bad dietary choices. What I do mind is people calling this sort of thing good for the environment (in a treehugger sort of way). Do you know what kind of chemicals it takes to produce good tanned leather?

This may help resolve the discussion. I have personally tanned leather the old fashioned way (no chromic acid). If hair must be removed lye is generally used. If not (as in fish skins) the inputs and chemical waste are less. The key ;difference is in the final step. Vegetable or "neatsfoot" oil (search TH for a lengthy story on it) is applied in a final step if done the old fashionedl, no-chrome method. From the non TreeHugger point of view, a disadvantage of skipping the chromic acid is that the leather produced is subject to biodegradation. Oil tanned leather is rapidloy biodegradeable once disposed in other words. Chrome tanned leather is polluting and hazardous for workers as well as non-biodegradeable. Salmon skin does not call for lye and results in no hair disposal problem. OIl tanned leathers of all types are more biodegradeable and less polluting to produce.

Its often useful to hold off judgement on good vs bad until one first attempts a look at the entire supply chain, including waste to food of course. In doing this it is important to examine what current practices will be interrupted or altered by the new practice: e.g. what will happen to the fish skins if not oil tanned and made into a consumer product? And how significant is the impact? Tentative answers follow.

Worst cas,e the fish skins and viscera (wether wild or farmed) are tossed into the water, promoting the growth of bacteria and loss of dissolved oxygen and engendering disease. In the past, fish processing waste was often made into supplements for pet food (cats mainly) and for farm animals. The latter more important now that mamalian protein is banned for Mad Cow prevention. Lately there is a huge after market for making fish food supplements for fish farming and also a growing market for "neutraceuticals" that are manufactured starting with the offal, fast, and skins. From this comes your omega-3 organic acid supplements that get added to chicken feed which results in the popular Omeg--3 Boosted Eggs. And for vitamin supplements. After processing, the waste from this industry goes back into other animal foods, etc.

The decision making is just not binary around one or two variables is my main point. The good-bad frame has to be applied to a global supply chain that networks into other chains. My suggestion, if you are really wanting to weigh in on it, is to get involved with WWF or EDF or other NGO to see if a properly scoped study can be done and distributed. There are no "experts" on it really..anyone's opinion is equally valid if properly informed. Hope this helps.

If you look at the least wasteful and nature-friendly societies in the world, you will find that they use every bit of the animals on which they feed. The American Plains Indians had great respect for the buffalo, which was the primary source for most things in their lives - food, hydes, cords, tools, medicines. They never took more than they needed - that was until Western trappers arrived with guns, horses and whiskey, which toppled the sustainable existence these societies had enjoyed for tens of thousands of years.

Start a poll!

"Disgusting or not?"

I'm vit the veganz. It shouldn't be here.

Excellent post! This generated great discussion on the tree-huggery. Personally, I'm with the sustainability folks. I think Salmon are tastey and provide great nutrition. I'm glad to see that we are using more of the fish instead of throwing the parts away.

JL wrote to get involved with the "WWF or EDF or other NGO to see if a properly scoped study can be done and distributed. There are no "experts" on it really.."
if you want some good studies, you can go here to the SeaWeb Aquaculture site, or the good 'ol david suzuki foundation which isn't as comprehenisve but still pretty rad....

=================================================
....but this whole thread makes me wonder about something ..obviously for the vegan army this would be taboo, but I often see leather pants in 2nd hand/retro stores and keep thinking about it... sadly, the cuffs on all my pants fray-- and i look at the leather pants and think they would kick ass--- except for the flack from my vegan buds. so, would a nice pair of brown 2nd hand leatherpants be unTH and worthy of scorn? is it better to have them sit on the rack collecting dust, and buy something new (new but with no sweat and from organic/bamboos...). the new pants would be cleaner karma-- but what about ecological footprint? And if the leather pants outlive say, 3 pairs of my abused hemp/organic pants... does that get calculated into the life-cycle of the evil leather pants?? It took energy to turn the bamboo into fibre and then weave it, ship it, design it, dye/cut/sew it, reship it, ship it once (or twice) more... ((ok that is for something re-used, noty a new fish skin purse, because the fish-skins have to be processed.. which BTW, is sleek, but not as fine as something made with ubersmart materials))

Sounds like reclaiming waste is a good idea. The rubber in tyres may be a bad thing generally, but we love those recycled-rubber bags which reclaim what would otherwise be waste.

I've no idea, but is leather (cow or salmon) really any worse for the environment than, say, non-organic cotton, or PVC?

I think vegans and all manner of veggie life styles are admirable things. If I could, I would, but since I can't I won't. Those who can are leading by example and will, hopefully change the paradigm over time. Never a bad thing. Another thing to consider is how to make the best of a bad situation. If there are going to be bad things like salmon farming (more awful than anyone can really appreciate on a genetic level as well as waste, etc...) how do we lessen the blow? Since we live in a consumer society, and that won't change anytime soon, why not adopt the cradle to cradle attitude with this? I think it is an excellent option. An earlier comment was considering utilizing waste product from salmon as fertilizer. This is found in nature, specifically in the rainforests of the pacific north-west. Salmon is the keystone component to the nutritional life of most of that region. It feeds bears, other scavengers, etc... and the remains biodegrade and provide nitrogen for the soil which enables the ecosystem of the rainforests to be so lush. So, again, how can our consumerism fit into a cycle of life chain? Is our consumption of salmon that much different (catching methods aside) than that of bears (omnivores as well)? I say we can do what we want so long as it fits into the cycle and causes no imbalance or harm. This, of course is a gross generalization and/or assumption, but a fitting counter to a knee jerk reaction of some of the more passionate treehuggers out there.

how does it make sense to prefer waste over use? that's a double standard in itself. this product is renewable, all-natural, biodegradable and ultimately sustainable. compare that to vegan substitutes.

whatever your diet or religion, don't impose it on others by claiming some moral superiority. veganism and sustainability are not the same and are often at odds. vegan evangelism is one of those things that gives treehuggers image problems.

I agree with Carl in adopting a more Native American approach to using the entire animal. Dorrie's comment about non-leather alternatives raises some issues...vinyl and other petroleum-based products? Not sustainable, as we are currently finding out...Recycling soda bottles and tires requires a huge amount of energy and is a noxious process.
What I like about this project is that it points to "waste" as a potential source. "Waste" is only waste when we haven't figured out what to do with it yet.

Consuming Wild Caught Salmon is much worse for the environment than farm raised. I have read that it takes a gallon of diesel fuel for every pound of salmon captured in the wild.



There is no doubt that any sort of intensive food culture project is going to impact the local environment, however raising farmed salmon is a much lower impact than raising an equivalent amount of beef, pork, or chicken.



Not only that but eating farmed fish can be much healthier for you than the other products.



So given that you have lower impact to produce the animal, lower impact from producing the leather, and a beneficial health impact from consuming the fish, I think this is worthy of treehugger notice at a minimum.



I've always imagined Tilapia and Mussels as the staple foods of the future with products like Salmon and Perch and Trout staying in the "luxury food" market.

We are looking buyer for our leather fish.
We do not sell fresh and canned fish.We have tannery fish skin leather wet blue,crust and finished in stock.You can see
us on english version www.andrefish.ru
Best regards Andrey

Hello,
we have on Nova Scotia, Canada, on the Atlantic a House.
In the last 15 years we were only in the summer vacation there.
I am now pensioner and will always exist there.
Deep sea fishing and bow hunting are my hobbies.
Now my question:
I would like to tan fish skin, that I get leather.
Do you have an instruction or a prescription for tanning of fish skin for me?
Or can you me one person may mention, that busy it self with it?
Your answer is very important for me.
Thanks for your help.
Yours faithfully
Werner Busch
P.O.Box 2450
D - 89214 Neu-Ulm
Germany