Options

Helly Hanson Scum

Helly hanson have brought out a parka style coat using farmed racoon fur around the hood.

Please stop buying their products until they cease this barbaric use of animal products and use synthetic fur like every one else seems to manage with.
«134

Comments

  • Options
    Well, so what?

    If it's okay to eat produce from farmed animals, it's okay to wear products made from them.

    Shall we boycott leather shoes as well?
  • Options
    I think the point is that racoon isn't used for meat, so it is killed just for its skin.
  • Options
    Do you wear leather?
  • Options
    Oh sorry. Thought it was a thread about Man Utd. Thought helly hanson had bought them out and changed their name.

  • Options
    Oooh Wild Will! You beast! I do as it goes.

    Sharon Chimp
  • Options
    So what's the difference between farming animals for their meat, milk etc and for their skins?

    Fake fur is okay for fashion, but for real suz-zero conditions real fur is more commonly used, and for good reason.

    Do I detect another of those veggie-vegan agenda threads here?
  • Options
    In Mongolia they use real fur as its warmer (and they probably can't afford fake fur). However it does get to -40 in the winter. they also live mainly on meat because the summer is only 4 months and there isn't much time to grow enough to feed them for a year. I believe its also common practice to kill a sheep in the Autumn and put it out on the balcony of your flat, if you have one, where it freezes nicely and kepps you supplied for the whole of the winter. Problem if the weather warms up of course.

    Can't say I approve of people buying fancy running gear tho'. Seems to me its a modern capitalist conspiracy to make running too expensive for really fast runners like me. Can't understand why no-one has asked me to endorse their running shoes yet. Time is running out.

    OK Chimp, I'm off back to the thread where I belong. I was just geting lonely there.
  • Options
    Call me a hypocrite if you like, but I do not believe that an animal should be farmed purely suit the whims of fashion when perfectly good synthetics are available.

    No Will I do not wear leather, but I do eat meat, I fish and own a gun.

    Mutley, "so what" doesn't deserve a reply.

    But to your other point
    If there is no alternative then I guese there must be exceptions to every rule. But to kill a racoon just so some 15 year old kid can stand on the sreet corner and think they look good while shooting cats with a BB gun. Back to whale hunting for you is it?

  • Options
    Huh? What have kids shooting cats got to do with this? Or whale hunting? Have you been smoking something illegal?

    Read my posts again. I said that fur for fashion is a no, fur for warmth is a yes. If these parkas are foul-weather gear, then that's fine. If they're posing gear, then that's not fine.

    If you're happy to consume the flesh of an animal, then you can't condemn others for consuming the hide. And if you consume meat, you accept the principle of farming (unless of course you dine solely on game; well, you do have a gun ...).

    The real issue is the conditions in which the animals are farmed.

    The "so what" means just that - so what? So they make a parka with a bit of real fur in it? This is important? HH should be boycotted and deserve to be called "scum" for this?
  • Options
    PS

    I haven't stopped that dratted pigeon yet, let alone whales...
  • Options
    Why would anyone want to own a gun? Personally I think they should be completely banned.

    I don't have enough money to buy fur coats and I don't want to anyway. I buy leather shoes and bags.

  • Options
    (Pssst, Muttley, quieten down, haven't you heard? He's got a gun!)
  • Options
    It would make much more sense to boycott Nike products as they pay kids in Vietnam slave wages to make their products. Better still boycott McDonalds. Now they are real corporate scum and are making the world obese
  • Options
    As long as they are depatched humanely there's nothing wrong with it.
  • Options
    McDonalds will make me obese?? Aaggghhhh!!!

    (Throws down large fries in alarm!!!)

    --
    Wee Ironic Piglet

  • Options
    Pizza man - chalk me up on the list. Is there someone at HH we can e-mail?
  • Options
    It's very hard to be consistent about animal welfare isn't it? For example witness the huge uproar and debate about the banning of foxhunting legislation whereas intensive animal rearing practices are left virtually untouched. (commercial pressure from the farming and food industry is a bit more powerful than a few toffs in red jackets after all...)You should hear some battery farmers around here complaining about the proposed cost of converting to freerange.
    I think this is a worthwhile debate, and everybody's points of view are surely worth exploring. Perhaps most usefully of all, let's examine our own personal prejudices and inconsistencies and see whether we need to make some changes, or whether we are jumping on bandwagons before working through the implications.
  • Options
    PS Personally I find the word 'scum' too nasty and strong in this context, and as a title on a thread.
  • Options
    Stirred up a bit of a hornets nest did I?

    Mutley, yes I feel they should be called be scum for using real fur on a piece of clothing when imitation fur would do the job just as well.
    Obviously if you're off to the frozen wastes somewhere and it's either you or the racoon, thats a differnt story.
    As for smoking something ilegal, not any more. I just read the article and it compounded a bad day. It is something that I can not abide. killing for the sake of fashion.

    Laura I agree with you post and apolagise if you think the word too strong. I don't, and believe it quite fitting for a company killing an animal when it's not neccesary.

  • Options
    I too see no difference between killing an animal for its skin, and killing it to eat it (I'm speaking about western society here)as both are totally unnecessary. And although, ed, I take the point about slave labour etc, we can each only take a stand about (a) the things we know about (b) the things that move us as individuals (c) the number of things we have time and energy for.

    Sassie (vegetarian for twenty years, avoider of any animal-tested products, wearer of leather (cowhide only as it's a by-product).
  • Options
    Hmm,

    I'm in the camp of seeing little difference between cows and raccoons in this case. I guess if I started a business selling Raccoon Kebabs then everyone would be happy as the whole animal is then being used.

    The key bit for me is animal welfare and environmental balance. Restricting Cod fishing to save potential extinction in the North Sea is far more important in my little mind !

    Agree though that alternates should be used where-ever possible.

    Meanwhile, I'll continue to buy HH products as they do some of the best thermals around.
  • Options
    All this praise for my posting? What the hell's going on? The last time I dipped into here and gave a bit of advice on that nutter Gordon Pirrie and his forefront running on your toes hogwash, I got slaughtered.
    Then I got accused of being gay for a posting about treadmills.
    Things are looking up
  • Options
    Don't hold your breath, Ed: it's just that the small furry animals have everyone's attention for the time being. ;)

    Rickster: if you think a modern slaughterhouse is humane, it's quite obvious you've never been in one. And whether there's 'no wrong' in forcing a living creature to face the greatest of all terrors just so you can enjoy a tasty supper when there are perfectly good alternatives available, is a questionable point.

    Jane M--since the banning of handguns, gun crime has increased. The only reason pistols were banned was because our illustrious government was seeking support from the masses, who are of course anti-gun (whilst avid to watch the latest Bond movie or buy the latest shoot'em-up). It was people like me and Pizza Man who were affected by the pistol ban, because only us legal and legitimate gun licence holders had our weapons confiscated: the crooks still have theirs. If you're in North Wales anytime, I'll take you down the range and you can find out about guns, because my guess is you've never been near one. If you still don't like guns, fine: but don't try to destroy my sport. Incidentally, how do you think the cow became a leather handbag? I don't think it fell off a cliff! :)

    Ahem. On the fur front: I've been vegetarian for twenty years, and I'm vegan most of the time. I'm not exactly a cuddly nice veggie, either. I agree: if it's the racoon or you, pull the trigger. BUT--it's rare that we're in that situation in the west, and there are plenty of synthetic alternatives available to us that probably work better than fur. The same goes for food. As far as I can see, killing for meat here in Britain is akin to killing for pleasure, with no regard or respect for another creature's existence.
  • Options
    I'm a vegetarian once removed, I only eat herbivores.
  • Options
    I can't explain why, but the fur thing bothers me but the food thing doesn't. Logically they're exactly the same as far as I can see, but somehow one bothers me and the other doesn't. I've been aware of the inherent contradiction since I was in my teens, but have never been able to resolve it.

    If I was being strictly logical I'd go veggie, I guess, but I can't see it happening.

    Iain
  • Options
    Mim - I accept that for many the guns were a legitimate hobby. But Thomas Hamilton owned his guns legally at the time of Dunblane. I think it's fair to say Guns were banned because of the deaths of the kids at Dunblane. Not a bad thing really the thought that maybe those kids may have been alive if the guns were banned earlier.

    If that means you missing out on your sport so be it.


Sign In or Register to comment.