Mothering Forum banner

Is setting animals free ok?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • Yes if weather conditions are good

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • no

    Votes: 17 77.3%
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
42,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<a href="http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/8/26/17389932.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/8/26/17389932.cfm</a><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">SULTAN -- Dozens of volunteers pitched in to recover thousands of minks that were released about 3 a.m. Monday from a farm on the outskirts of Sultan by a break-in, which investigators believe was likely an act of eco-terrorism.</td>
</tr></table></div>
I don't think raising animals for fur is ok but what would be an alternative way of getting the message across?<br><br>
I am not certain just setting animals free is a good idea but I find it hard to blame them for taking such measures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
How come none of the "no's" have spoke up???<br><br>
I don't think it is *right* because it is someone else's property, but it is a way to help make a statement............<br><br>
This quote got me tho,<br><br><br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Releasing domestic animals into the wild won't help them, but will likely kill them, said Dean Boyer, public relations director of the Washington Farm Bureau in Olympia.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Tell that to my friends who lost 60 chickens to 1 mink in 3 nightly raids.................they're vicious killers and I think they could survive by instinct fairly well.<br><br>
Given the choice of roughing it in the wild or getting an electric rod shoved up my ass I'd sure rather ---- be free.<br><br>
I voted yes.<br><a href="http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/WILD_Caged_Fur_The_Inside_Story.pdf" target="_blank">Caged Fur: The Inside Story</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
I voted no. While I do not wear fur, I feel that setting the animals free sets up a scenario in which one ends up with dead animals regardless. Captive-bred animals, although they may retain some instinctual behaviors, are not taught to hunt by their mothers, nor are they truly ready to fend for themselves in the wild.<br><br>
Wild mink, on the other hand, are tenacious predators: <a href="http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/mink.html" target="_blank">information about wild mink</a><br><br>
Food for thought though: when we lived off the land as a species, and every part of the animal was used, fur was necessary to keep us warm. Now that we've entered the world of synthetics and plastic-wrap, wearing fur is considered wrong by most of society. The question I have is: what about those who still live off the land, hunting and fishing to provide for themselves and their families? Is it wrong of them to wear the hide of the deer they hunt, or the pelts of the predators they trap?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
I voted no. Adding 3,000 animals of any species is going to have an envirnomental impact. While their actions were noble, nobility doesn't get you very far and can be very shortsighted.<br><br>
Yes, generally speaking I have problem with people wearing fur. No, I don't have a problem with people who truely live off the land and use all of the parts of the animal. I come from a long line of pioneer/homesteaders who survived off the land. However, the majority of the "homesteaders" and hunters I know now have the resources and means to survive in ways that impact the envornment less (most are not truely "living off the land" anymore...they simply use what is useful to them and throw out the rest). Most people I know also hunt because it is "fun", not because they need the meat to survive. IMO, that is barbaric. But don't get me started on that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,577 Posts
I voted no. I don't wear fur.<br><br>
I grew up on a dairy farm, across a river from a mink farm. From time to time, a mink would escape, and we could tell a wild mink from a domesticated one...and for one thing, a wild one wwould never hole up in our haybarn. We'd call the mink farmers, because they were the only ones who could safely capture the animals--they would kill our cats, and the threat of their getting rabies and then passing it to some pet of ours, or God forbid, our cattle (or a younger brother/sister playing in the haymow), was real.<br><br>
The fur farm is gone now. Markets changed and they could not make a living. THAT is the way to fix the problem, IMO--pressure people. I mean, look at all the "big stars" who are back to wearing fur. Who do they answer to?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
No. Absolutely not, for reasons already mentioned.<br><br>
I don't have a problem with fur itself. The manufacture of synthetic fabrics for warmth has its negative impacts on the environment as well. Around here due to human intervention and land use patterns, populations of certain furbearing species are way out of balance and trapping them responsibly is one way to manage the ecosystem. The problem is getting anyone willing to trap, which is a lot of work and there are much easier ways to make a buck. Prices are depressed because of the fur farms. I don't believe in factory farming of any kind.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top