Fur is merde. . . .are you for real. In this day and age fur when less bloodthirsty clothing choices are available is an abomination. Put your old furs in a landfill and move on.

Wow - you're begging for some angry words. The Vegan Self-Righteousness Patrol is going to come out in force for this post.

The thing is, most re-purposed materials come with an ugly past. Silk: little children burning hands in scalding water. Cotton: pesticides that also kill animals and harm people. Poly: it's a petroleum derivative, for heaven's sake. I say, since we can't do anything about the historical/economic forces that led to all of the meanness around fur, we might as well use those left-over carcasses. Also, it wouldn't be a bad thing to convince those who insist on new fur that vintage fur is chic.

The thing is, most re-purposed materials come with an ugly past. Silk: little children burning hands in scalding water. Cotton: pesticides that also kill animals and harm people. Poly: it's a petroleum derivative, for heaven's sake. I say, since we can't do anything about the historical/economic forces that led to all of the meanness around fur, we might as well use those left-over carcasses. Also, it wouldn't be a bad thing to convince those who insist on new fur that vintage fur is chic.

I agree with you 100%. I was just pointing out that posting about fur on this website will bring you the wrath of hell from vegans -- as evidenced by the first comment on this thread (of many sure to come).

I had a boss who went into the lunch room grabbed packages 100's of unopened styrafoam cups and stomped on them and threw them in the garbage because they were bad for the environment.
This is much worse than using them, reusing them then throwing them away.

Repurposing old furs into something functional is a much better than throwing them away. I would rather see that than something being made from petroleum products!

I hear you, Anonymous -- I can see our vegan pals not being down -- I was replying to Jonathan D.

Larry, your boss sounds a little nutty! I agree that it's better to re-use.

I understand your point, Kyeann. I acknowledge that most industrial produced materials come at a cost and that re-using them does not create any further suffering.

However, I'd like to point out that metamessage being sent by this company is that fur is fashionable regardless of where it comes. Most people simply will not buy a used fur piece but will instead purchase some animal skin that came from an industrial mink "farm" etc. Personally, I do not believe there is any "ethical" way at the present time to produce commercial fur products without manifesting cruelty and animal suffering.

Re: Anonymous. It is a blatant stereotype to think of vegans as self-righteous. Maybe you haven't actually met enough to really understand why most are vegans. I'm sure the "environmental skeptics" think the same of all us TreeHuggers.

Fur can't die twice. I suppose you can argue that whether or not fur is "new" or "used", it still creates a demand and demand must be met with supply, but of all the things to prioritize, pre-dead beasties aren't something I'm going to pick up a protest sign for.

If anything, it seems certainly more dignified to honor an already dead beastie this way. I'd rather not be dead myself, but if I were going to be made into a jacket, I'd rather be a jacket, then a hat, then some gloves, then maybe a pillow... than to get worn once and thrown away. Downcycle me!

The only fur women should wear is their natural fur that they grow themselves.

Adam, I don't agree that Rachel F.'s meta message is that fur is fashionable regardless. Re-use is the most obvious overarching theme, indicated through graphics and descriptions, and partially through the pieces themselves. Not all of the re-use is to do with fur -- it's just another of the materials.

The fact that Rachel's fur-incorporating designs are inventive and attractive does confront the "fur is ugly" rhetorical strategy. Should we not wear organic cotton because conventional is so harmful and dirty? Or ethical silk because we're sending the message that conventional silk is a-ok?

There is no source of renewable non-cruel fur. Especially not if we turn all the old coats into disposable junk accessories to the latest tends. It is not like cotton or silk.

There are better options for old coats. I know a number of people who have donated fur coats to groups of refugees.

These fur accessories do nothing but play into the interests of the industries that want $10000 mink coats back.

It is a blatant stereotype to think of vegans as self-righteous.

cf.

I'd like to point out that metamessage being sent by this company is that fur is fashionable regardless of where it comes.... Personally, I do not believe there is any "ethical" way at the present time to produce commercial fur products without manifesting cruelty and animal suffering.

also:
Maybe you haven't actually met enough to really understand why most are vegans.

Know plenty of vegans. Been a vegan myself. Who's stereotyping now?

You're making my point for me. It's reuse of something already long done. From a Treehugger perspective (you know, the point of this website), that's a good thing. The fact that you are vegan or have vegan sympathies is clouding your ability to see this from a Treehugger perspective, thus demonstrating that vegan self-righteousness overrides the common sense that comes from recognizing it's better to not waste the hide/fur entirely by finding no use for it after the original owner is done with it. Seems to me it honors the animal more than having some sort of personal disgust at hide.

K, the point is that you can't tell by looking at a person whether or not her textiles were created ethically, just like you generally can't tell whether fur has come from an already killed animal, or a recently killed-for-profit animal. If we follow the "fur is ugly" logic, you think we shouldn't follow it with cotton because there's more potentially available organic cotton?

This post is one of many showing that we're all about donating textiles to those who need them. In terms of what goes where, it's better for an anonymous, desperate refugee to wear donated fur rather than Gortex, say? Because she'll languish in frumpy obscurity? Whereas it's unethical for a non-desperate consumer who wants to lighten her footprint to wear re-purposed fur because she will supposedly drive fur industry demand through her fashionable-ness? There's something about the human element of this premise that makes me uneasy.

This is the post I tried to link to in the last comment: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/clothing_reuse.php

Thing is, wearing fur does encourage the industry. Just look at the google ads that automatically pop up on the left side of this page--they're not all for fake fur.

i have worn vintage fur before, but i've given it up.

there are degrees of everything. some people think it's ok to wear fur if a: the animal was also eaten (leather, shearling--hasenpfeffer, anyone?), and b: if it was killed somewhat humanely.

The only fur women should wear is the natural fur that they grow themselves.

As a vegan who agrees K, I would agree that its impossible to convey the message that you are wearing a re-used item- thus perpetuating a fashion statement that inherently causes cruelty...

What I think the Anonymous poster is getting at though, is that this is not a site about animal rights, and we must approach these discussions from a purely sustainability viewpoint. Looking at this... we can then ask whether fur industries can ever be sustainable... which would be a more objective, and context appropriate discussion.

It is simple and compelling to show how the meat industry is unsustainable for feeding humans, but I'm not certain whether or not it can be translated to its distant cousin, the fur industry- as an unsustainable way to keep humans warm. There is definately a case to be made against the trapping of animals for fur as being disruptive to natural animal communities, and often causing bycatch of unintended targets.

Andy, perhaps this site is about sustainability and not "animal rights," but I would hope most Treehugger's would be concerned with not only the environmental costs of certain lifestyles/tactics, but also the costs to human and nonhuman animal well-being.

If the most sustainable fuel came from grinding up pigs or human children alive I would oppose it because of the cruelty involved. Just as economists shouldn't promote economic growth at huge ecological costs, environmentalists shouldn't sustain the world at the cost of other sentient beings.

That being so, I don't see anything ethically wrong with reusing fur, but I do foresee it as a potential risk of encouraging the idea that "fur is fashionable." For now let's agree to disagree. We should focus on creating alternative clothing that comes at the lowest expenses to humans and animals, not promoting fur. I think the same controversy can be made with environmentalists now concentrating on hybrid cars rather than building/transforming communities that rely on public transport.

In other words, if we really want to make this world sustainable and ethical we ought to approach issues in a holistic way. Reducing the institutional destructiveness of our society to one or two issues isn't going to make the problem go away.

Andy, perhaps this site is about sustainability and not "animal rights," but I would hope most Treehugger's would be concerned with not only the environmental costs of certain lifestyles/tactics, but also the costs to human and nonhuman animal well-being.

If the most sustainable fuel came from grinding up pigs or human children alive I would oppose it because of the cruelty involved. Just as economists shouldn't promote economic growth at huge ecological costs, environmentalists shouldn't sustain the world at the cost of other sentient beings.

That being so, I don't see anything ethically wrong with reusing fur, but I do foresee it as a potential risk of encouraging the idea that "fur is fashionable." For now let's agree to disagree. We should focus on creating alternative clothing that comes at the lowest expenses to humans and animals, not promoting fur. I think the same controversy can be made with environmentalists now concentrating on hybrid cars rather than building/transforming communities that rely on public transport.

In other words, if we really want to make this world sustainable and ethical we ought to approach issues in a holistic way. Reducing the institutional destructiveness of our society to one or two issues isn't going to make the problem go away.

When are vegans going to stop trashing the environment by wearing petroleum-based faux leather?

This is the point -- vegans are more than happy to have "anti-cruelty" practices that are environmentally offensive, but when someone eats animal flesh (even if the animal has been raised in a non-cruel way) or someone reuses clothing that has animal products (which is good for the environment AND for animals since that's one less hide that's going to be skinned), all of a sudden we get an earful.

I absolutely agree that there are more holistic ways of approaching things, and to me, the most holistic way of dealing with the world is acknowledging that it will never conform to an extreme persepctive, whether it be veganism, environmental fanaticism, anti-abortionism, etc. People are going to eat meat. People are going to wear leather. People are going to get pregnant when they don't want to. And people are going to act wastefully and selfishly with respect to the natural world.

The key is to accept all that and work with it the best way possible, not just jump all over people with one's extreme mentality -- especially when those people are your natural sympathizers and allies (like greens and vegans). Let's focus on common ground.

Vegans wear whatever they can find that seems to be the least destructive. You give them a sustainable product at an affordable price, and we'll use it.

Perosonally, I'd rather use a petroleum based product than one that was made by abusing another being. Your priorities may be different.

Ideally, we'd have products that are made with the least amount of harm to everyone. So how about we all quit bickering and start working on making and promoting sustainable products that really meet a need for a healthy life?

I agree with Anonymous on the extremism point. It's a shades of gray thing. Petroleum products DO "abuse" other beings. Anyone have stats on how many animals are harmed in the production of petroleum-based accessories through accidents, pollution, etc? If creatures are not harmed by Rachel F.'s stuff, and she's using minimal new resources, can we just be glad?

OK, so all of you making an objection based on the "promotion of abuse" argument, can you please explain how faux leather doesn't promote leather itself? At a glance, people will see it as leather.

"Put your old furs in a landfill and move on."

This is just a waste, as if our landfills aren't overflowing already.

For vegans (or anyone else, really) the most pro-animal and pro-environment thing you can do is BUY USED. Buy used cotton, buy used fur, it doesn't matter. Recycling benefits LIVING animals (including humans) much more than purchasing all these expensive "cruelty-free" products aimed at vegans.

And believe me, NO ONE who buys new furs looks at my thrift store gear and thinks, "Gee, that looks so glamorous."

I agree with the commenter who said that petroleum products do hurt other beings... like, *AHEM* certain beings in a certain country in the Middle East, where bombs are being dropped to protect a certain country's access to ...
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS!

Used fur is far less bloody, IMHO.

GREAT USE FOR OLD FURS IDEA. Check out the Humane Societies program called "Coats for Cubs" where the recycled furs are used as bedding and surragate moms for the injured animals.

Nice site actually. Gone to my favourites. Thanks for creation.

Wearinf ru only promotes the companies to keep killing animals and therefore produce more fur products. I can udnerstand not letting them go to waste. Donate the fur to a non-profit organization like, I believe, PETA, who send the furs over to nomadic folk who NEED them.

Wearing leather does the same wearing fur does. You're telling companies, and people, that it's ok to kill animals for products that aren't even as fashionable or warm as synthetic materials. That is why we Vegans have a fit about it. No vegan would wear animal products, thats what MAKES you a vegan. If you wear leather or wool or fur, you're not a vegan, because you are promoting the killing of animals for...fashion.

I also wanted to point out that there IS controversery surrounding the use of faux furs and fake leathers, because it, has some have said, promote the use of leather. There are vegans who will not wear them (including myself) because faux or not, furs are NOT beautiful on human beings, they're ugly and trashy. But then, I prefer to see an animal living than dead.

So when it comes down to it, wearing faux or real leather and furs is promoting the killing of animals, so why do it? In all honesty, people shouldn't. You don't NEED fur to stay warm. There are plenty of synthetic fibers that cna keep you warm. And if all else fails, wear hemp. Hemp not only keeps you warmer in the winter but also keeps you cooler in the summer. It's versatile, being used for food, clothing and there has been a study showing it's also a better building material than wood. ^_^ So instead of using fur for fashion, give it to nomadic tribes who live off it (it will save an existing animals life) or for as one said, an organization that gives it to cubs. Don't wear it. You're doing harm to the environment and it's animals, though indirectly.

As it was once said...

You must be teh change you wish to see in the world. If you want people to stop killing animals for fashion, then don't wear them. Otherwise you're jsut being hypocritical.

Killing Animals For People's Pleasure.

I am writing this because I don't think it's right to kill or beat animals like dogs, cats, foxes, rabbits, and any other poor defenseless creatures. These animals haven't done anything to you and yet every company that creates coats and boots and anything else should either not use fur at all, or use FAKE fur. You and your companies have no right to murder these things because they are a part of God's creations and they should not be killed for that reason or any other reasoning. So, if you would sir, please consider my wish as not using animals for their fur. You people make many families upset because of what you do to their pets and other people's friendly visitors. These animals have no right to die and you just take their lives away when they deserve to live because that's why they were made in the first place. I think that is a sin and should be against the law to do that. It is very, very wrong to make their life so short because of people's pleasures. So, as I stated before, please do not use authentic fur to make fabric. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Alyson
an 11 year-old
that is upset on your
behalf of causing
death for animals
unnessicarily.

that is so not right. how could you use poor little animals for peoples pleasures? screw you people that use animal fur and skin for your needs.

sorry for my language=]