Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PakkyT t1_itw290m wrote

"In the ordinance, the City Council outlined some concerns about fur including risks to public health, environmental threats related to its production, and the roughly 100 million animals that are killed annually as part of the fur trade."

In other news, there are still many places where you can go buy a hamburger, chicken nuggets, or a pulled pork sandwich.

7

bostondotcom OP t1_itw8608 wrote

About 85% of the fur used to produce garments comes from fur factory farms that exist specifically to raise animals like foxes, rabbits, raccoons, and mink for their fur. While the animal agriculture industry also hinges on killing animals, much of the fur trade relies on killing animals — not ordinarily used as food in the U.S. — solely for fur. The Cambridge ordinance targets these unique conditions of the fur trade!

3

NesquikKnight t1_ity280z wrote

If you call pest control in Massachusetts and they get an animal from your property they have to kill it due to the risk of disease among other factors. I got my fur trapping permit this year because I got tired of paying people to come grab various animals from ripping out the insulation in my office and chuck them in a back lot somewhere. At least now I'm able to harvest the fur and parts of value during the trapping season...and yes you can eat all of the fur bearers in Massachusetts with beaver on top of that list.

7

asoneth t1_itz8ugc wrote

I still don't understand what is "unique" about the fur trade compared to animal agriculture or how someone who eats meat on a regular basis could logically object to fur.

Similar to fur, the majority of animal meat consumed in the US comes from factory farms. Similar to fur, most factory farms exist specifically to raise animals and kill them solely for meat. Pigs and raccoons are both shockingly smart and rabbits and chickens perhaps less so so it's not like there's some qualitative difference in animal intelligence.

If anything, fur and leather seem less problematic to me because they last longer. A fur coat or leather upper on a good pair of boots can last ten years. In that same time-frame a diet that includes daily meat will result in substantially more animal death.

1

PakkyT t1_itzhwoy wrote

You are splitting hairs acting like the fur business is intrinsically bad while the meat business is not. Both have the same things, raising animals to then kill and harvest from them except the meat industry kills wayyyyyyyyy more animals.

I always find most of these "bans" illogical (not on fur per se, but anything towns and cities want to ban), because there is always some feel good reasoning behind whatever "bad thing" is the hot topic of the time that only makes sense if it was the only thing like it (rarely) or if you put on horse blinders and ignore all the other things that are just like it (the usual).

Take plastic water bottle bans or plastic bags in grocery stores. These are some of the current bad guys to be targeted and busy bodies like to pat themselves on the back for helping the environment because they made the local grocery store stop providing them. In the meantime there are rolls of plastic bags in the produce section for customers use and just about every item comes with so much plastic packaging, the bags or water bottles they banned is not even significant. Just one "Lunchable" probably has more plastic than all the plastic bags you get from one trip to the store.

I am all for bringing your own bags to the grocery store when you remember or have them in your car, I don't buy bottled water, and I don't wear fur. But these government feel good bans are stupid and don't really help anything with what they usually target and how they implement the ban.

1