I have always said that people don’t have to like fur if they don’t want to but they can’t go around letting their (negative) emotions cloud their thinking. People shouldn’t go through life hating others for what they believe and they can’t go around trying to ban one thing or another based on emotional grounds.

If I try to get something banned simply because I don’t like it I am, in effect, limiting other people’s lives for arbitrary reasons. Once we start down that slippery slope, there’s no way to stop it. There will come a day when those “fur haters” find themselves in a situation where somebody else will try to limit their freedom and their belief system based on some arbitrary emotional grounds.

Where will we be when that happens?

I believe in environmental *conservation* not “environmentalism.” The difference is that a conservationist uses natural resources to best advantage of society whereas an “environmentalist” is little more than a bunny hugger who spreads hate and half-truth to further a thinly disguised quasi-political agenda.

A conservationist does not want to squander natural resources. He does not cut down trees if it is not wise to do so. He will not destroy natural habitats or use wildlife resources that do not help people to live better. He will when necessary but not unless.

Simply, he thinks of the environment as a businessman thinks of his bank account. He spends money when necessary but saves his money for the future so that, in the end, everybody benefits. If he does not spend his “environmental money” wisely there will be nothing left for the future. If he is wise, it is quite possible that he will have MORE money and resources for EVERYBODY some time down the road.

That is not the way of the “environmentalist” bunny huggers. They simply say, “Do what I tell you or else you are scorned.” They don’t really seem to care about the future of everybody. They just seem to care about themselves. They are just the ploar opposite of those “greedy corporations” who squander the environment for their own short term gain.

We have pretty much shown that the fur haters do not pay attention to reason. They do not study the information given them. I have given them good information two or three times in this message thread. In no case, has that information been paid attention to or even read. They simply dismiss it, out of hand, and continue on with their agenda of hate and scorn.

If people would pay attention in history class, go to the library and read good books or even spend a little bit of time searching Wikipedia, they would have a better understanding of the world around them and they wouldn’t have to go around spreading hate.

I am not here telling people what to believe. I’m telling people to THINK. I don’t want people to change their beliefs based on what I or anybody else, here, says. I just want them to make up their own mind instead of regurgitating made-up facts and preaching half-truths born out of hate.

He is the man who donated the money to build the library in New York which later became the New York Public Library. Much of the real estate that NYC is built on was once owned by Astor. He was one of the “power players” who literally built the American economy from the ground up in the years following the Revolutionary War.

Without Astor’s influence, much of the world that we take for granted would not have been possible. At least, not in the way we know it now.

Just so you know, John Jacob Astor built much of his fortune from his first businesses; The American Fur Company and its subsidiaries, the Southwest Fur Company and the Pacific Fur Company. He controlled most of the fur trade in North America from the 1790′s until his death in 1848.

Astor’s business ventured supplied fur to much of the world; England, China and Europe for many years.

We all owe our ability to live, work and express ourselves to John Jacob Astor’s influence.

The irony: Here you stand, speaking out against the very thing that allowed you to exist in the lifestyle you are accustomed to, today.

The more toxic methods that use things like chromic acid aren’t used very much to tan pelts for furs. It doesn’t produce the soft texture needed for high quality fur garments. You can tell if something was tanned using such methods if you see a bluish green tint in the hide. You’ll see this mostly in leather goods like belts and saddlery.

Fur tanning often uses other chemicals like tannin. It produces a better quality product, plus it isn’t as toxic as chromic acid.

Regardless of the methods used, there are very strict laws governing tanneries. They limit the amounts and types of chemicals that are allowed to be released and they require that effluents be made non toxic before discharge.

Many tanneries recycle their tanning liquors to save money which, in turn, prevents them from generating pollution.

Tanning isn’t entirely without environmental cost but it’s no worse than the exhaust pumped out by the car you drive.

I buy beaver from the Cree. It is a totem animal of fertility. It is also eaten by them. So do you not consider such fur ethically acceptible? In urban areas of the US and Canada beaver are culled as a pest because they cause massive flooding to developed areas.

So as the saying goes…….”Elvis has left the building”
Once again..bye bye
Find someone else…in fact this discussion seems to be rather one sided…between you two–don’t see anyone else here do you?