ANSWERS: 50
  • Yes- unless your name happens to be Cruella Devil
  • If you live somewhere like the antartic, then yes. If you live somewhere like New York, then NO.
  • When it was necessary, back when indians would use animal fur to simplely stay alive in winter. Now rich woman want to look fancy with there rare animal furs.
  • Guys if you wanna help out, i urge you to write to the Canadian govenment opposing seal hunting. IFAW are looking for more people to help put a stop to this madness. They brutally murder the little seals to make pretty pairs of gloves. So please, write and complain if you care.
  • No we all have a walmart close by we do not need the fur to stay warm any more
  • no i dont think its right just so someone can walk around in a fur coat but then again i eat meat so i cant really put up a fight on this one it would be hypocritical of me
  • I was saw a bunch of pictures of baby seals getting killed by red-necks hitting them on the head with bats. And it's considered a sport for some reason. But the picture was of two redneck guys in a running stance, holding bats above their heads, and then a baby seal wiggling away from them with his head turned back at them with it's mouth wide open. To be honest, the picture made me laugh before I started feeling bad about it.
  • depends on why you're wearing it. wearing one for fashion is not right. where as wearing one to survive in cold climates is okay.....i suppose. Also people who hunt animals for sport are just sick > = (
  • For the most part.. no I do not.. but if you live somewhere where to keep warm you must sacrifice an animal for its fur, then that is survival and I have no problem with that.. especially if you also eat the meat as not to waste the kill entirely on covering. If you live well enough to go to WalMart and buy yourself a cotton coat.. then I do not support the desire or choice to rather kill an animal for its coat.
  • Most certainly not. Hunting animals for fur is just plain stupid. I'd breed them on a fur farm, saves a whole lot of time.
  • I'm about as against that as you can get! It really make me sick to see all the se "fashionable" ladies swanning about drapped in the pain and unimaginable suffering of small defenseless animals!!
  • Hunt the Hunters
  • I don't support hunting animals for fur when we have viable alternatives.
  • no, especially when there are so many alternatives.
  • I believe in hunting, but not just for fur... That's a waste of meat. If someone goes hunting and have no personal use for the fur, I agree with selling or giving it away... I have friends who've made rugs out of their own bears and others who give it away. With our cattle we give it away, because we personally have no use for it. I do not agree with killing an animal only for its fur.
  • No, I don't believe in hunting animals for anything.
  • You shouldn't hunt animals just for their fur, but if you are going to kill an animal, then it is sensible and right to use everything you can from it. It's wrong to waste.
  • No iam against it,there are plenty of faux furs use those if you must but dont kill an animal for it!!
  • I'm fine with it as long as the animal is not endangered.
  • Only if you use the rest of the animal too, or turn it over to a food bank. I don't know if they have these everywhere, but where I'm from, you can take butchered meat from what you've killed and donate it to people who normally just get canned peas.
  • Yes I am completely for killing animals and wearing there fur or mounting there heads.
  • Not animals like tigers, but to hunt animals like cattle because we eat the meat, or, in places like Australia, animals like foxes because if we don't kill them, they kill our native endangered species
  • I am a vegetarian, but I admit I sometimes wear shoes of a jacket of cow leather. I would not like the idea that an animal would be killed only for their fur. I find that hunting as a so called "sport" is a barbaric way to kill animals.
  • Hunting is a way of life for a lot of people. The meat from a timber wolf for example will feed sled dogs and the fur can be used in several ways. There are a number of restaurants through the north that serve wild meet (elk, raccoon, deer, etc.). The fur is then tanned and used as bedding, clothing, etc. It is nothing more than the cultural values you were raised with. No matter how many of you think this is wrong I wonder how many of you are sitting on, sleeping on, walking on, or wear clothing from a variety of animals (sheep, cows, buffalo, goat, etc.). Still think it is wrong? How many of you have killed an animal with your car and thought nothing of it? Nevertheless, killing exotic, endangered or rear animals does not make sense in any culture because, once there gone: there gone for ever.
  • im a hunter and i think that is wrong. I hunt for food not for sport or furs. THey take the fur and waste the rest, IT IS A SIN!!!
  • No. I don't eat meat, or wear fur.
  • Sure - Fur or Sport is fine - but i think it should be strickly regulated based on population
  • I believe that if you hunt an animal for food, you have an obligation not to waste any of it. As much of it as can be used, should be used. As for hunting simply for a trophy or fur, I do not agree with that.
  • Nope! I do not believe in the fur trade or sport hunting strictly for racks or heads. I think it is just another way that man plays 'God'. Hunting for the thrill of the 'kill' is abhorrent to me. It violates all my sensibilities. I think that people who kill just for the sake of killing have something 'missing' inside them. My opinion.
  • its totally ok without fur apparel there wouldn't be warm jackets in alaska plus it looks cool but if your for hunting for food then the animals dead it doesn't matter what you do with the body right if a guy kills a bar he better as hell wear it.
  • No, and I don't believe in raising animals just to kill them for their fur.
  • If the only thing you will use from the fur then yes it is wrong. It is also wrong if that animal is endangered. But if it is a nonendangered animal that you plan to use all of its parts then it is perfectly fine.
  • As long as you are using the rest of it too. Hunting solely for fur isn't cool in my book. ;-)
  • As far as hunting and fishing are concerned, these are the “good old days,” and I know, because I’m old. I’ve been hunting and fishing since the 1950s, and I can assure you that fishing opportunities for every species, especially bass, has increased by amounts we wouldn’t even have dreamed of back then. The bass may be a little harder to catch these days, because along with a tremendous increase in the acres of water, and the general increase of quality fish per acre, a far greater number of knowledgeable anglers are out there educating them. But there is so much water and so many good fish. We never had it so good. The change in hunting for species such as deer and turkey are even more dramatic. We don’t really know for sure, because we never even thought to count them way back when, but most biologists suspect that we have more of these species today than at any time in our history–more, in fact, than during colonial times. I don’t know about that, but I can tell you that when I was a kid, there simply weren’t any. Once when I was nine years old, I was squirrel hunting in a river bottoms and spotted a deer, and no one would believe me. We’ve come a long way, and we have professional fish and wildlife biologists to thank for that. Of course, these biologists and the departments for which they work, have hunters and fishermen to thank for the financial and political support that has made it all possible. Walt Disney and overly emotional animal lovers had absolutely nothing to do with it. It all started with Aldo Leopold during the early 1900s. Aldo is considered to be the father of wildlife management, and I wish he’d come back to straighten out our upland game problem. The good old days for these species was when I was a kid. Rabbits and quail were so plentiful back then, that even a little wipper-snapper like me, with no dogs and just a single-shot .410 could walk up a limit. Now I ask you: how could this be? How can we be so amazingly proficient at managing so many species of fish and wildlife and fail so miserably with upland species? The pat answer is loss of habitat, and while that was true for the period between the Soil Bank Program of the 1950s and the introduction of the Crop Reserve Program of the 1980s, it’s not the whole answer. During the past 30 years or so, millions of acres of marginal crop lands have been taken out of production each year. In addition, many other federal and state habitat programs have been introduced, such as the Bobwhite Quail Habitat Initiative, to add to and improve upon habitat in ways that directly benefit upland game. Almost every state has additional programs, such as the Wildlife Habitat Initiative Program in Kentucky to increase upland habitat beyond federal incentives. Today, we have well over 40 million acres devoted to wildlife habitat. That’s far more well-managed habitat than we ever had at any time. Still, it is very difficult to find a rabbit or a quail anywhere. In most places, it is extremely rare to even see one along the rural roads. What’s the real problem here? I think old Aldo would tell you if he was still alive. And I’m going to tell you because I’m old enough that I don’t care about being politically correct. The overriding difference between now and the upland utopia I enjoyed as a kid is the natural predator-prey relationship. It doesn’t matter how much habitat you set aside, how well you manage it, or even how many rabbits are produced if they are all gobbled up by coyotes and foxes before they are half grown. Aldo Leopold began his career with a strong belief in controlling predators. When I was a kid, the fur trade was in its heyday and predators were disdained. As a result, coyotes, bobcats and foxes were scarce. In fact, there was a bounty on foxes, and I never saw or heard a single coyote until well into adulthood. Then along came a generation who’s entire education about wildlife came from Walt Disney, and they started protesting in front of shops and throwing buckets of paint upon people who wore fur coats. Even fake fur became unfashionable. With no checks upon predators, the primary, though unintentional, affect of CRP and all the other habitat programs has been to swell the ranks of predators to unprecedented levels, especially coyotes. A rabbit just doesn’t have a chance. During the first half of the 1900's we may have overemphasized Leopold’s lead, but at the beginning of the 2000's we are erring in the opposite direction. In the final analysis, the problem is one of political opinion, and when it comes right down to it, the modern, cartoon-educated citizen must think that Wiley Coyote is more important than Thumper. We all like the idea of setting aside land for wildlife, but I believe the very best thing any of us can do for upland wildlife is buy a beautiful and luxurious fur coat made of coyotes or foxes for the person, and the critters, we value most.
  • I do believe in it but I don't agree with it.
  • It's barbaric and totally unecessary, so no.
  • there is something so inherently wrong with someone who is able to inflict such god awful pain on anything, for their own vanity, i dont even know a word for it.
  • No. I'd prefer to trap them.
  • uhm, if the animal isn't wasted, and it's killed in a way that the animal feels as little pain as possible, then yes - but generally that's not the case hence i stay away from fur coats of any sort, i think it's sort of morbid in the fashion trend. (most indigenous tribes that do use fur coats also use the rest of the animal so they're completely ok in my book)
  • just for fur. NO. but i think if your hunting for food then using the fur or bones or what ever for anything you can is fine
  • Many animals that are hunted for fur are animals that are generally considered to be pests or varmints.
  • sure. alot of families supplement their income with furs.
  • Only if I lived in the wild.
  • I believe that if you are going to hunt you have to do it with the sole intention of 100% use of the animal and there can be nothing left out. I have been a hunter for many years and I don't do it to be cruel to the animal, nor do I do it for "fun" though I do enjoy the hunt. I hunt to supply my family and 3 other families with food. We could go to the store and buy storebought sure, but $4/pound of lean beef, or $.09 for 150 pounds of venison while not supporting Wal-Mart seems a great solution. Since I make my own bullets, the over-all cost of food for my family is next to nothing. My grandma has a vegetable garden that we get fresh veg from and I hunt the meat. I would guess that for all 4 families that are working together for this, we spend ~1000 per year on food. That breaks down to ~3 dollars per week pre family. Before anyone wants to make claims that we are backhills and redneckish people, know that I work in a hospital, my dad at a nuclear power plant, my brother is a corporate officer for one of the largest cell phone companies in the world. We just like to take care of the food the simple way. We hunt for it. We use the furs as well as the meat and bones, nothing is wasted.
  • What, you expect me to wear synthetic fur? Bump that! Look, it's not a big deal. An animal does not realize when it has been killed for fur....no one cares, expect for "us." We shouldn't even be caring in the first place.
  • Fur, meat, fun... and anything else that floats your boat.
  • No. I don't like the idea of killing animals to use parts of them as ornaments, like fur coats, or transforming their tusks into piano. Actually I wouldn't have a problem with it if the rest of the animal was used, like the Indians and Inuits did. They wasted nothing, and only killed animals out of necessity. These days though, we don't need any of that stuff to live, aside from meat. I don't mind killing an animal solely for the meat, I mean we do need it, but what I do mind is how excessive all this killing is. We don't need THAT much meat. But food is a necessity, a fur coat isn't.
  • no i dont. wearing anything that used to be part a living thing doesnt appeal to me. i find it barbaric. we have advanced so much, why is it still an issue?
  • hunting for fur is okay. as long as you stay within your states regulations, you should be fine.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy