Comments on: Would You Consider This Sustainable Clothing?

By: Eco Links to Green Your Weekend | Going Green

Eco Links to Green Your Weekend | Going Green — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:48:29 +0000

[...] The self-styled eco fur debate rages on. Is it right to support the fur trade in creatures that are becoming a modern ecological menace? Meanwhile, sales in bushtail possum or “paihamu” furs continue to thrive. Ecopreneurist takes a closer look. [...]

By: Wanda

Wanda — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:23:35 +0000

Sheep too are not native to NZ but most people believe that the postives of what they give us outweigh the negatives of creating pasture from the original habitat. The paihamu is a creature that lost its market long ago after the invention of synthetic (oil-based) clothing took over that market sector. If the paihamu management can be supported by useful products (not just taxpayer dollars), it’s a good thing. And remember, every sheep also meets its maker! Here’s a really good article on the subject at http://www.perc.org/articles/article1099.php

By: Paul Smith

Paul Smith — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:55:15 +0000

Ah, yes now I get it. Wow, sometimes you have no idea how different it is in other places, being immersed in a certain arena (ie sustainable business) Well then, I see places like that as an opportunity, to have learned what did/didn’t work in other places previously, and do it better there.

By: Affan Laghari

Affan Laghari — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:31:54 +0000

Paul, I meant worldwide. I agree that in the academia and even in the US, there must have been several environmentalists in the 1980s. But I in Pakistan saw the first ever Advertisement of a solar water heater sometime in the last 2 years only (just a hint). Even now, the average guy in our country and in many more is unaware of what an offset is. And I used to be a frequent internet user during 1999-2002 but rarely saw much green stuff.

So I guess you are with me on everything now!

By: Lucy

Lucy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:48:01 +0000

To amend what I wrote in my first paragraph. I meant to say that the animal “never sees the inside of a CAGE”.
Apologies for any confusion.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:45:59 +0000

Wild animal hunting and trapping, when done in a managed way (sometimes ensuring sustainability, sometimes not) is one of the most humane ways of using animals that I can think of. Being wild, the animal never knows the inside of a trap. And when it dies, it is as quick as possible. (Nature certainly isn’t as humane since it uses injury, disease, and starvation as it’s three main methods of killing.)

I’ve noticed a lot of people reject the idea that man can help restore ecological balances through killing wild animals. Even when human activity is the cause of the imbalance in the first place this is no reason why we can’t figure out how to solve the problem we created. Further, if there is science used in establishing where that balance lies (using research from veterinarians, biologists, parks and game wardens, wildlife officers etc) then hunting and trapping as a form of ecosystem re-balance is sound.

So as long as animals are being trapped and hunted by licensed hunters and trappers, in a managed hunt (where quotas are set by scientists), and using quickest possible methods of killing, then I support the activity as humane and ecologically sound.

By: John

John — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:35:19 +0000

Hello Paul,
You ask should we live with the consequences?
Absolutely NOT! We humans made the error in judgement in introducing these animals in the first place.
It is up to us to correct the problem. In a humane way to control the population. Why not use the pelts rather than throwing them away. I belive in Holland they have a huge problem with muskrats destroying their dikes and waterways. They trap the muskrats and because there is a law in Holland prohibiting any sale of fur pelts they are incinerated.
Does this make sense? What a waste of a perfect natural, renewable, and sustainable RESOURCE.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:34:51 +0000

OK, I’m probably a bit naïve about this, but why wouldn’t this be a sustainable product? They don’t breed the animals for it but just harvest excesses from nature, don’t they? I know that for some people the word fur is like a red flag for a raging bull. But that doesn’t really matter. Veganism and animal rights have very little in common with sustainability. Their purposes are totally different.
Full disclosure: I’m active in the leather and fur business myself, but that doesn’t matter. It’s about opinions and arguments, and not about one’s profession.

By: Paul Smith

Paul Smith — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 05:18:28 +0000

Thanks Affan. I’m with you on everything except the part where you say there wasn’t much environmentalists around when they crafted the definition of sustainable development. There was, and is a lot of them around! But yes, they can at times be a little one aspect focused, not seeing the whole picture. And seeing business and the environment as being in opposition. Not always the case.

By: Affan Laghari

Affan Laghari — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:54:07 +0000

Paul, I appreciate your neutral stance on this and feel some of the previous commenters have been unjust to call you names as you asked for opinion only. IMO, many of us easily forget what sustainability is as defined by Brundtland Commission in 1987, a time when I don’t think there were any significant number of environmentalists. Here’s their definition:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

And academic literature tells us there is more to it than environmental sustainability. We also have economic sustainability and societal sustainability. The crux: sustainability doesn’t stop us or make us sacrifice our needs to save trees and habitat; it asks us to avoid harming them if we can fulfill our needs without that.

If you take these views into account, then I don’t think this company is unsustainable. They are working for economic sustainability (promoting economy, giving jobs, taxes), societal sustainability (eliminating a creature that can harm the society) and of course the environmental sustainability that you mention.

Now what you have touched upon is actually an issue of bodies like PETA and vegans. The thing is that many environmentalists also love animals and are vegans. So we sometimes promote both views simultaneously though they aren’t one.

(OK, I am non-vegan and admit I’m biased, but who isn’t)