Would you ever wear fur?

The programme i felt was a complete misrepresentation of what the fur industry stands for. Even though that Merilees Parker saw those awful images of animal neglect just for cosmetic and fashion gain and yet she was still looking for ways round killing animals so she can wear fur. She has know sympathy for these animals full stop otherwise she would not wear fur or not want to wear fur after realising how babrbaric the practice is. Also the fact that she wanted afterwards from seeing farmed fur to then think it is ethical to take animals out of the wild then kill them by drowning them just so she and other idiots like her can have a fur coat or fur whatever is completely and utterly daft and ridiculous. People like her need to stop looking up their arse and take a look at their own morality because a normal human being would not want to kill one of Gods creatures so they can have material gain.

I changed channels and this programme was on - what I witnessed was totally horrific and the images still remain in my mind - I would like to get the trapper and trap his finger in the trap for a day to see how he fared. Beautiful wild animals killed for their fur is a total, total unnecessary travesty in this day and age. Never, ever will I purchase anything from any of the companies that are promoting this evil trade - in fact the next time I need a new handbag I will get a synthetic one rather than a Gucci in fact my gucci is going in the bin because every time I look at it I am reminded of the evil trade Gucci is encouraging. Gucci, Jean Paul Guitier and any one else that promotes this evil trade feel very, very ashamed of yourselves. I hope that other people will boycott the companies that were mentioned on the programme and models will refuse to wear the fur trimmed garments.

I posted this message on the forum but maybe this is a better place for it. =============================================== I watched "Kill it, Skin it, Wear it" last night and would like to congratulate Merrilees on her efforts to make an informed judgment on the subject of fur. It seems the conclusion was that she would have no moral objection to wearing fur PROVIDING she could be sure it had been ethically sourced. The main problem is that the industry does not appear track the furs from producer to consumer so it cannot currently guarantee this. One thing that concerned me about the documentary was the contribution made by Mark Glover of "Respect for Animals". Merrilees was shown some seriously horrific footage of animal suffering which clearly had a profound effect on her but I'm forced to wonder about the origin and age of this material. Mark Glover was previously a director of the Lynx campaign which, if memory serves, was declared backrupt after loosing a libel case that had been brought against it by a fur farm. This makes me wonder if the claims made by his organisation would stand up to serious scrutiny. It was disappointing that Merrilees didn't seem to investiage these claims in detail and consider what was NOT said in addition to what was. For example, some of the footage was very grainy and saturated suggesting that it was taken quite some time ago. If it had been taken recently then it would be reasonable to expect to see image quality more in line with modern digital cameras. Furthermore, Mark Glover didn't seem to volunteer any information about WHEN the footage was taken. Presumably if it had been shot relatively recently he would have used that fact to strenghten his argument. He did say that some of it came from America but did he mean the USA, Canada or one of the South American countries? It would be interesting to hear the views of any experts in film and video technology who could date the footage with reasonable accuracy. Presumably Channel 4 has technicians who could do this. If it turns out to be old, that would make it much less relevent to fur farming as it is practiced today. To do so would be like boycotting the cotton industry because of a belief that it employs child labour. We know from our history this was true at one time but those days are long gone, at least in the devloped world. Could the same be said for the fur industry? Unless someone can produce solid verifyable evidence of animal cruelty taking place in the fur industry TODAY, we have no choice but to form an opinion based on the evidence we can be confident about, specifically the Danish fur farm featured in the documentary and the fur trapper in Idaho. If the fur industry wishes to improve its image then it will need to convince consumers about the etical origins of their products. Perhaps they should adopt the same practices used to track meat. This might be a costly thing to implement but for a luxury product like fur it should be possible to pass that cost on to the consumer without much difficulty. I'm sure the customer would appreciate the peace of mind it would bring.

ETHICALLY SOURCED FUR??? It is totally 100% UNETHICAL to torture & kill an animal because sad humans think the animal's fur would look better covering their ugly bodies. However much money you spend on fur, it will always remain STOLEN!

It was great to see a more balanced view of the fur industry. No one who eats meat could protest against the mink farm shown. It was clean and the animal cruelty involved far less than we see in many instances in the food industry. Yes fur is unnecessary, but so is meat, champagne, chocolate and a hundred and one other items we could do without. Fur is reusable, recyclable and long lasting, and probably less environmentally damaging than pesticide-soaked cottons, or nylons made using petrochemicals. I also agree with the other poster that the fox farm shown did look like very old film, and it wasn't specified which country it came from. At the end of the day, fur animals that are ill-treated will have poor fur. It is in the farmers interest to keep their animals as healthy as possible. I don't think anyone can defend what happens in China, so we must campaign for better tracking of fur so that consumers can make informed choices. I boycott ALL Chinese goods, not just Chinese fur. Many anti-fur people have only ever listened to one side of the argument so it was good to see such a balanced and honest programme.

Last night's show disturbed me deeply and reiterated to myself why I do not wear fur. I chose not to wear fur and I don't like to see fur on clothing, I will not purchase items from stores if I can see fur products on their shelves. However: Fur trading looks to be here to stay. I'm not saying this is wrong or right but it is fact. To suggest that a TOTAL BAN on fur trading could ever exist is pointless - I'm going to remind you all about whale hunting; people, companies or countries will find loosely based legal ways around the ban and will continue to do these horrific things to animals. Or they will create a black market for fur trading - which will remove the use of legal farms therefore more animals will suffer in cages and in the way they are killed. Focus should be REGULATING the fur trading industry, bringing the existence of these animals up to a better standard, making the industry responsible for the skins. The fur trading auction house in Denmark didn't consider what farm, trapper, country or how the animal lived or was therefore killed. Only the length/size, colour and quantity was important. We live in a society where humans are very different with morals, ideals and lifestyles - let's educate the industry rather than try to ban it, Make a difference rather than Demand a stop to the industry. Focus on improving the living standards to these animals and how they are killed is a step in the right direction. We cannot change this industry so let's improve it!

I agree with comment below, I am discusted by the way Merilees Parker kept looking for her 'middle ground' after witnessing the evil cruelty of the fur trade, there is no such thing as a 'middle ground' when it comes to innocent animals being killed for there fur. She thinks that trapping is ok? what about the fact that some animals resort to chewing off there own leg in order to escape them? The American she visited has no concience and seemed to take pleasure in the tourcher of the animals he was trapping and killing and she was quite happy to try on his fur coat and appeared to be 'grateful' for showing her his trade! how sickening. Its a shameful world we live in and I sincerley hope karma is waiting in store for the vile individuals who take part in this mindless cruelty.

I can not comprehend why anyone would want to wear an animal's fur. Last night's programme further emphasised the disgust I sometimes have in the human race. As far as I am concerned only arrogant and ignorant people would wear fur, whether 'ethically sourced' or not. I am also extremely shocked by the vast number of celebrities that have proudly been photographed in fur. Some humans seem to think that they have a right to kill animals so that they can be used for unecessary commodities. I find it astonishing that we are living in the 21st Century and animals remain to be treated and used in such horrific ways. The meat industry has far to go before it could be considered 100% compassionate, and the fur industry has even further. Unfortunately animals do not seem to have a chance, as one industry seem to be very slowly reformed, another becomes popular, and people are so self-obsessed with how it makes them look and feel that they turn away from the realities. I wonder how many designers, models, chefs etc would only eat organic meat but then put on a fur lined coat? These people are supposedly intelligent and successful, yet they do not want to see past the fickle nature of fashion to the realities behind it.

whoever voted that they would wear fur no matter were it came from need fucking shooting and treated like the poor animals were on the programme. how would they like 2 be skinned alive... not nice is it!!!

it is disgusting wot they do to those poor animals,people who buy fur need help and need to spend a day getting treated like one of those animals to see how they like it. we are all equal and no better than these animals.

Couldn't see too much wrong with the Mink farm on the program and trapping is not that bad. BUT how can someone where a garment that has come from an animal that was flayed alive? - disgusting and unnecessary. With 50% of fur coming from the Chinese market where such practices are common, is there an argument for an English market that is properly regulated with acceptable conditions? I hate fur, I hate people that wear it, but we should be realistic.

After seeing the show i now have a perminant mental image of that poor animal that had been skinned alive it was the most barbaric thing ive ever seen. Whoever said they'd wear fur at all is in my eyes the most heartless people and amung the ranks of murderers and paedophiles. The cruelty shown is total and utterly disgusting. Even if it was taken years ago due to the varying regulations it could still be happening as i write this! Leather is a by-product of the meat industry so im happy to wear it but i would never wear a fur item. Fashion designers should be ashamed fake fur it just as good! Plus the fur always looks better on the animal. Funny how humans are supposed to have evolved yet we are wearing fur just like our simple minded ancestors but even then it was a by-product of the meat. All i know is the look of pain in that skinned animals eyes will haunt me for a very long time to come!

what got to me about the program last night was Mark Glover: After coming from the mink farm, he said that they are pros in showing you "public relations savvy people." well, isn't that exactly what he is? Didn't he pick out the worst image he could to shock her as much as he could? yes there are people who treat animals terribly, but that is the case with ANY animal, not just in the fur industry. And as was shown, there are people who have a very humane way of putting down the animals. Just because you saw an animal being skinned alive - as gross as that was - doesn't mean that happens in every place that manufactures fur. It is just another piece of anti-fur hype China has bad enough problem dealing with humans, never mind animals. Ditto with America I do wear fur. It is a fetish. I did have a problem with the auction house and finding out that all the pelts were just chucked together. There should be some type of rule that states on all coats where the origin of the fur is from. The furs that I own, I know where the fur comes from. If I buy a piece of fur from an online auction, I ask first if they know where the fur comes from, and I would never, ever buy a fur that comes from china - even though they are the cheapest. I thought that this program was going to be balanced, but thanks to mark glover and his unfair tactics, it seemed to be pro anti-fur, which is a shame because the programme makers had a really good chance at shedding some light on a topic that is hardly ever touched in this too _PC world

Bad program: Merilees goes to see a mink farm for herself, she goes to Idaho for herself and seems accepting of the practices shown. She then watches a video of questionable origin and age and takes it on face value as being potentially normal practice. This was not good journalism and reflects a lack of balance in the outcomes. I believe China had difficulty verifying the video, and is a party to improving fur-farm practices in line with the rest of the World's producers. Rising energy prices will create a market for warmer clothes in Winter and petrochemical cheap clothes are likely to become too expensive so expect more natural fibres like wool and yes fur. Fur has always been a cheap shot by animal activists. I don't see them lobbying leather shops and Harley Davidson shops. Why don't they protest outside Hells Angels dens? Reason seems obvious, as fur is worn mainly by women who are an easy target, likely to be affluent and in this class obscessed country easy to vilify. Perhaps fur has made a small comeback not because of the fur industry activities, but because the animal activists have potentially bored the younger generation with information that is wrong and has been proven wrong. Maybe common sense is prevailing over hysterical argument?

An excellent and balanced programme, though I would like to have seen more evidence of age of films. To say that people who wear fur support the barbaric practices of China is like saying that people who eat meat in this country support the practices of dog butchery in China. Those who wear fur should lobby for better marking so that we can avoid supporting the Chinese and other atrocious markets and spend money on those that treat the animals humanely. It was a very good point raised about the anti-fur lobby. Why aren't they protesting outside Hell's Angel's Clubs? These bullies go for the soft option all the time.

I am totally enraged and shocked that there are so many astonishingly selfish, stupid people out there who STILL have voted to wear fur no matter where it came from or how it was sourced. Did they not watch the CH4 program? If yes, their response can't be blamed on ignorance... so what can it be blamed on? Do they feel no empathy for animals who are cruelly treated? Supposing they saw their cat/dog badly treated? Would that not affect them? They surely can't own any animals! I used to own a rabbit gilet and scarf year ago that I bought in Canada... I had assumed the fur was an 'end product'. I have since found out otherwise and totally changed my view - I would never wear those items again. I want to sign some sort of petition and help to ban the Chinese companies in particular from ever being able to touch an animal again!

We always have to be shown the worse case senario of fur farms; footage of animals being treated barbarically. Fur farmers raise animals as a business and are in it to make money so the better they treat their animals the better condition the animals are in and the more money they make from them. It is a fact that the condition of a mammal's fur reflects what physical and mental condition it is in so it would make sense to treat the animal well and then its fur would be in peak condition. The footage of animals being skinned alive is obviously rubbish, the farmer has to kill the animals so he needs to do it in the most efficient way possible and holding a live animal and removing its fur is a most ineffective way of doing it; time is money and skinning a live animal would take too much time and effort. It annoys me that that fur farmers are portrayed as sadists and people believe that they are; the only one i have ever met loved his animals as he told me that they were his living. I think it all comes down to the cuddly toy syndrome, people do not seem to worry about alligators, spiders and snakes being killed as they are not soft and fluffy. Perhaps we should not eat soya or beefburgers as the distruction of natural habitats to provide these products are killing animals; animals that are not farmed and so are not being replaced. There are so many horrendous things going on in this world but the fur trade always seem to be targeted; perhaps people could turn their attention to drug dealers and sweatshops in south east asia that produced the trainers that everyone seems to love. I once discussed the fur trade with someone who was very much anti fur and after putting over my constructive point of view, she commented that it was worn by wealthy people and it makes me wonder if it has a lot to do with it being a class issue. I do agree that maybe we should not wear fur as it is killing animals but there are so many other ways that animals are being killed that everyone seems to ignore, especially as they are not fluffy cuddly animals. I personally like fur, I do not wear it but i can see its appeal. I do think that people who are against it blindly believe what they are shown but like everyone else on this planet they only want to ban what they do not like.

I also boycott goods from China, due to their human- and animal rights record. The wearing of fur really is the height of arrogance and conceit and any intelligent, fair-minded person would agree with this. Unfortunately, during this looks obsessed culture, where celebrities are worshipped as idols, we have little chance of bringing any common sense to bear. I add the fur industry to the long list of capitalist ventures which constitutes corporate sin. If it takes a programme such as this to shock individuals into realising how unimportant their fashion image it, then please, channel four, show more of them. Bringing the horror into our homes is the only way of forcing people to contemplate the consequences of their purchasing power.

I am totally fed up with and disgusted by the anti-fur campaign. It's as if the whole world's problems will be solved in an instant if everybody stopped wearing fur, and that's nonsense. A few months ago, I saw an anti-fur protest in front of the Harrods store in London. Most people treated the protesters as a nuisance, and carried on their business without paying any attention (If nothing else, this should have convinced the anti-fur protesters the dumbness of their zealotry, but...). A protester was carrying a picture of a small furry animal and then an old man was passing by. He asked her the name of the animal and she said she did not know it. The old man said "You are protesting for the welfare of an animal, yet you don't know its name?" I think this provides a good insight into anti-fur mentality. I respect those people who oppose wearing fur, but then I expect them to respect my right to wear fur, because it is my choice. Sometimes I come across hate-inciting comments by militant anti-fur types against fur wearers, sometimes expressing their desire to skin alive the fur wearer, and I find such comments amusing and then add my comment below those, openly inviting them to do so whenever they see me wearing fur. Believe me, if things go on this way, one day we will read in the newspapers "Fur wearing lady skinned alive by anti-fur campaigners". The militant anti-fur types contest the dignity of human life, disrespect civil liberties and terrorize the public space.

The problem with this seems to stem from the fact that the reporter takes everything as given without asking questions. For instance most all of these anti fur videos are years old. You only have to look back through the internet to realize that. The same videos that she probably looked at are here time and time again. Yes, long ago there were problems in some areas. But that is long gone now. Would we ban cars because of the pollution that they created 20 years ago? It is the same thing exactly. Also, look at those videos closely. In one for instance the trappers supposedly skin the animal alive in the bush, yet they are wearing running shoes. Do you really think that a trapper would go out and walk through freezing water in a wet snowy bush in winter wearing running shoes? He would probably be dead in a few days if he tried it from a cold, etc. NO trapper would ever do that! Absolute proof that the video was staged. And do you think a trapper would stage it? No way. Only anti fur people would do that. Only one instance of many. Lastly, if you wear shoes, you are wearing leather that is processed in exactly the same way. If you use a leather purse it is the same. Eat meat? Use cosmetics? So you use an imitation purse or shoes instead? Those (plastic) use up badly needed oil, and stay in our dumps for probably centuries without breaking down. In short. The host allowed herself to be taken in by emotion. The trick of the animal rights folk. If she was working on abattoirs she would receive exactly the same responses. If she was asking if it were ok to own a pet she would get something a fair bit similar. If she would do this again, and do a lot more research and allow some facts to cloud her emotional judgment her response would be almost guaranteed to be totally different. W

All this uneducated anti-fur people make me laugh. Unless they are sat wearing nothing but undyed organic cotton with no modern chemicals in their houses then they have contributed unnecessarily to animal deaths. But those animals weren't cute and fluffy and didn't have a well-funded campaign in place to support them. How many marine animals died to make the plastics of your computer? How many tribes were displaced, how much forestry was cut down to make the gold and precious stones we wear as unecessary jewellery? Are you wearing gold??Do you know how many people die to get gold and that is unnecessary, so that gets rid of the 'fur is unnecessary' argument. Do you buy cheap goods made by slave labour? What about the dyes in your clothing? All of them have been tested on animals. Wearing fur does not mean that people support the treatment of animals in China. No part of a fur animal is wasted, and the fur farms use up all the bits of animals and fish that are left over from our terrible slaughterhouses. Fur is one of the most environmentally friendly products we have but PETA don't want you to know that. PETA want people to not keep pets, PETA put down 90% of the animals given to them to care for because of 'financial reasons'. All I can say to people is EDUCATE YOURSELF! Look at both sides, and see beyond the emotional string pulling of showing furry creatures with big brown eyes. The hypocrisy of people is sickening. And yes, it is mostly a class thing. People should look beyond the propoganda and make informed judgements. I have yet to meet any anti-fur person who was informed of both sides of the argument.

The usual "it's my right to do what I want" 'argument' has been trotted out again by the pro fur lobby, I see. A self justification for the morally bankrupt. I'm often reminded of the satanist doctrine "do as thou will shall be the whole of the law" when I hear them bleat this out. There, that will get the blood pressure of some of the more pompous of them up. Blonde64 - "Mark Glover was previously a director of the Lynx campaign which, if memory serves, was declared backrupt after loosing a libel case that had been brought against it by a fur farm. This makes me wonder if the claims made by his organisation would stand up to serious scrutiny." Rather muddled thinking there. The rich and powerful remain rich and powerful because they will ruthlessly guard their privilege. The libel law is a favourite weapon in their arsenal. Think Maxwell. Think McLibel. Think Northern Rock who it was recently reported are harassing a junior employee who they consider (rightly or wrongly) blew the whistle on £100,000 bonuses for the directors to the brink of suicide. Yes, big bonuses for the directors of the banking success of the century(not). These are just three of many instances. For those who have commented on the less than perfect technical quality of the Respect for Animals footage.....the documentary you saw was made by a major company, with lighting crew, sound crew, etc. It was stated in the documentary that they only got access to the fur farm after extensive negotiations and were accompanied at all times by 'minders'. So you got a very stage managed, sanitised, well lit, professionally produced sop. The Respect For Animals footage will have had to be shot covertly, probably at considerable risk, in less than ideal lighting and on easily concealed equipment. Sorry, then, if it doesn't win an Oscar for technical quality. Suki - all these uneducated pro-fur people make me laugh. Sure, there is much wrong in the world. The trouble is that yours is a well worn method to deflect attention - save the rainforests, regulate the mining industry, get rid of Mugabe, anything, just leave us alone to get our kicks torturing animals. "Do you know how many people die to get gold and that is unnecessary, so that gets rid of the 'fur is unnecessary' argument" - well, I'm totally lost on what you are trying to say here. My best bet would be to say that two wrongs don't make a right. Like it or not, some people decide to prioritise animal welfare over other concerns. When, one day, they achieve their goal, maybe they will move their attentions on to a cause you consider to be more worthy.

Two wrongs dont make a right! Get off your high horse with all this 'intelligence' bullshit (jamie wilcox and suki) and stop trying to insult people with a kinder heart that your own. people avoid protesters because of there own selfish ignorance. well said Trevor you have hit the nail on the head!

Trevor. You've accused me of "muddled thinking" over the libel case against Lynx. This is unfair, and I'd like to explain why. The Wiki definition of libel is concise but accurate. It says it is "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressively stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image". To be found guilty of libel therefore means that the accused has been deliberately distributing lies and has, as a result, inflicted damage on their victim. When considering any subsequent statements from a party who has been convicted of libel, most reasonable people would apply more scrutiny than usual simply because of they have a track record for providing deliberately misleading information. Once bitten, twice shy in other words. You also seem to be suggesting that the defamation laws give some kind of advantage to the wealthy. I’m sure you must appreciate that these laws, like all others, apply to everyone in equal measure. It’s the old "one law for all" principle. If, for example, somebody who disliked you were to publish lies intended to ruin your reputation or inflict some other kind of damage, you would expect the right to defend yourself and to obtain compensation for the damage they have caused. Why should a wealthy individual or organisation not benefit from the same rights? There's one other thing I'd like you to consider. It's a response to a posting from someone known as "1235". I've not had a reply from them and I'd be interested to hear your opinion. The posting is as as follows: =============================================================== I think that like every other business, it ultimately comes down to what the customers think. If the mainstream fur trade can consistently demonstrate to the market that their products are produced in a humane manner, then it would ultimately starve the unscrupulous producers of their customers. Without customers, the bad guys will have no choice but to reform the way they work or go out of business. This has to be a more effective way of eliminating any cruelty than simply asserting that all fur is cruel. It's highly unlikely that the anti-fur movement could ever convince 100% of consumers of that, especially in the face of good evidence that humane fur production does take place. Surely it would be better for all concerned to concentrate on eliminating the bad producers by guiding the market towards the products that are known to have good animal welfare standards.

I do not understand how a human being would tolerate animals to suffer in such a way. Many many years ago our anchestors HAD to rely on animal fur to keep warm throughout harsh winters but nowdays we have man made fibres that are equally or more warmer than fur. Couldnt we easily just wear them instead of fur? Abnd in my opinion looks much nicer than fur. I do believe that animal skins should just stay on the animal. It would cause much outradge if a human was skinned and animals are the same as humans, they feel hurt and love, however some mindless people do not think this as they do not talk! Lets give these animals a voice and stop fur trading all together! However i do believe there is a sad side, people who buy fur must be so insecure in their own skins that they have to wear and hide in someone elses!

fur is wrong humans are evil nothing else to say on that part and blondie STFU no1 cares about child labour - humans are worthless creatures who do nothing except destroy. maybe you should concider that befor trying to make people feel guilty about human rights. ANIMAL RIGHTS are THE ONLY RIGHTS

I am an active campaigner against the oil drilling proposals in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), an animal lover (as Aurora, my lovely Siberian Husky will surely testify to that) and have in the past done volunteer work in the Native American communities. I also happen to love fur. There is no contradiction in that; it's just my personal choice. My great grandfather All the fur in all my closet originated from the fur industry in North America and Scandinavia, carrying such labels as Blackglama mink or SAGA fox and I would not wear fur obtained through cruel treatment of the animals. If there are people who have decided that they will not wear fur, I respect their choices. Thankfully, where I live gets very cold in winters so the few anti-fur protesters on the streets have never been succesful to "convert" people to their cause.

It would never be possible to ethically source fur as there is no reason behind it. Fashion is not a valid reason to kill an animal. Whenever I see someone draped in fur all I can see is a villain with no wits about them, covered for some reason with great pride in an array of corpses scattered over their body. The fact that this woman tore up the fur at the end of the programme only further proves how little respect she has for these animals. If she truly felt bad, she could have buried the fur - it would have been much more respectful than tearing it up and dumping it in a black bin bag ready to collect as rubbish! To me it is obvious that this should be banned, the amount of suffering the animals go through for something to feed peoples' ever growing vanity. And, really - do any of these people really think they look so glamorous? What is posh or sexy about being covered in another animal’s skin and fur. I agree alot of the world's animals have beautiful coats. And you know what? They only ever look good on the creature that nature intended it for. Learn to be happy in your own skin... you don't have to deprive others of theirs!

For more on fur farming and the natural fiber fur clothing business, visit www.furcommission.com