Promoting fur decried
Promoting fur decried
To JoAnne Klimovich Harrop, in response to your Living story “Warm up your winter wardrobe with fur trim accents” (Jan. 18 and TribLIVE.com): If you knew the truth behind this industry, perhaps you would not be promoting the use of fur in one's wardrobe.
The bloody business of making a fur coat causes immense pain and suffering for millions of animals. They are caught in leg-hold traps to endure a slow and excruciating death, freezing or bleeding to death, or bludgeoned by the trapper. Alternatively, fur ranching is used, characterized by barren cages and isolation so severe that animals often go insane. The animals are killed by electrocution, poisoning or suffocation.
Targeting helpless animals that have no way to protect themselves, and painfully killing them in the name of vanity, should not even be an option when we have so many warm and fashionable alternatives. There are only two reasons for buying fur: ignorance or arrogance.
Perhaps educating readers on the truth of this inhumane practice would be of better service. After all, isn't it our responsibility as human beings to speak up for those that have no voice to protect themselves?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Blame misdirected
- Voters capable
- Progress not reflected
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- ‘Coyote Capitalism’
- Stop electing judges
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Reverse red-kettle ban I