Fake Fur Vs. Real Fur - In Any Case, It's Flying

The campaign against actual fur has been underway for years.  Locally, "protestors" finally succeeded in shutting down a 112 year-old business in Portland - with help from the City of Portland.  After putting up with the "eco-warriors" for all this time, our neighbors to the north have launched a long-overdue counter-campaign:

One ad criticizes synthetically made fake fur as containing petrochemicals, "non-renewable resources that cause environmental problems."

"Fur, by contrast, is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource," it says.

It's an excellent tactic, and has understandably got under the skin of the environmeddlist/animal "rights" crowd already.  Animal rights groups are outraged.  "It's completely ridiculous," said Rice.

No, it's not - they've hit you right back, and where it hurts:  your anti-fur campaigns promote using fake alternatives, and the fur industry is correct in noting that the fake alternatives aren't natural.

Save the planet by using petrochemicals?  No wonder you're spluttering.

Comments

[Colleen Meyer]

First of all, the majority of informed animal rights people don't particularly care for fake fur much less real fur. We see it
as a less cruel alternative. The
notion that petro chemical "fabric"
is less environmentally friendly
than a real fur is a joke. Why not
go back and ask your "friends" north of the border about how many chemicals and non earth friendly toxins are used to "prepare" dead carcus hides for the fur industry. Neither of these products do much for the earth or the animals and are strictly produced for flaming
fashion weirdo's who put themselves in the center of the "me me" universe. Real people don't
need to kill and torture animals for fashion or to pretend they are
someone that should be in a movie and isn't. The tactics are part of an ongoing fur war that will not end until animals have to quit dying for fashion.

[Max]

Actually, the animals aren't dying for fashion. They're being raised and killed for use in a variety of purposes: some for food, some for clothing. Heck, Indians used to kill fish just to use them as fertilizer, in the eastern US.

Why not
go back and ask your "friends" north of the border about how many chemicals and non earth friendly toxins are used to "prepare" dead carcus hides for the fur industry.

It's worth noting that I've never claimed to have "friends" north of the border, so I am unsure as to how you reached such a conclusion. In any case, tannins are most often used to prepare hides for leather and other uses, and these are in fact naturally occurring substances. As to your point about "dead carcus", I am again forced to confess my ignorance: Are you referring to a carcass? If so, is there a "live carcass"?

Animal Rights adherents are among the most peculiar species of Leftists, in my view - precisely because they so often seem inarticulate, yet so religious. It's a unique, and curious, mindset that at once overlooks basic biology while claiming some form of advanced enlightenment.

[Gritter]

Nothing is as warm as REAL DEAD ANIMAL SKIN. Eskimos don't wear North Face Parkas. They use the real thing, because if they don't, they will freeze to death and die. If you eat meat, you are the SAME as those that wear fur or leather. Do you wear a leather belt? How about SHOES?! It sure is hard to boycott leather shoes, especially if you have to wear a suit. Well, it is the same as fur.

Real fur is stronger, it is warmer, it is softer, it is heavier, it is gross. It is murder and a carcass on your body. It WORKS.

On a motorcycle, nothing protects you like leather. Cordura will melt to your skin and it's sippery so you'll slide three times the distance of leather's braking attributes against asphalt. Leather and fur are REAL and have valid uses. Faux is fake and for fashion.