Sometimes it's fun to shoot holes in your own beliefs to challenge them. I've been doing that a lot lately in my head and figured I may as well get it out there for accountability.
Thinking about the 'ethics' of collecting animal remains and the like and my personal boundaries with it.
For this post I'll focus on fur farming.
I'm honestly rather indifferent with it. To me it's not all that different than farming for meat, wool, eggs, and the like. Animals are bred, raised, and slaughtered (whether it be for use, health, or age) for our benefit. We keep them in what are usually unnatural conditions and for consumers we hope the animals are raised with care. There are farms that go above and beyond, there's the bulk of average farms, and there's farms that are outright abusive. There's likely always improvements that we could make. I'll happily play devil's advocate with it for the sake of being argumentative.
Fur is a renewable textile. That said, most people don't need fur, and it's gone from a textile needed for survival to a status symbol of wealth, for the most part. Fur is associated with luxury. Yes, people still use fur for utility or culture, but it's indisputable that the bulk of the current fur market -especially in regards to fur farming- is for luxury fashion.
Personally, I'm generally against a lot of fashion as a concept given the current age of fast fashion and micro trends leading to immense amounts of waste. Fur isn't excluded from this, even though the high costs and durability tend to keep the fur in use.
The issue presented here isn't the material so much as it is the supply. The currently clothing supply can keep something like the next 5-6 generations clothed, if memory serves me right. We are currently producing literal mountains of waste via clothing. The primary purpose for fur farming is textile use.
So how can we justify the continuous supply and killing of animals for this end? While someone like me may be interested in a tail or skull or a pelt to be mounted and others may be interested in things like mink oil derived from fat for leather conditioning or cosmetics or maybe some choice stray hairs for fly tying we're not the primary consumer base or target audience for fur farming practices.
And the bones aren't usually reserved, it's hard to justify the effort for the farmer or people assisting with pelting, and these are unlikely to land in the second-hand market.
And given the current popularity of animal oddities and the market at large there's no way we could rely on existing stock to cover the market.
So when all is said and done how do we justify not just current fur farming practice, but current textile producing practices in general? Is it right to demonize one without criticizing others? Or is it simply harm reduction?
Next, what about the ends justifying the means?
Everyone who wasn't born yesterday knows that to get a fur pelt you need to skin a dead animal. Same generally goes for obtaining bones. The price of any animal oddity is a life no matter how it's sourced. I'm not going to factor that into this discussion since this is oddities based and not examining alternatives (though I'd like to do one of these breakdowns for faux oddities later). At the end of the day a fox is dead whether it died on a farm, on a road, in a trap, in a sanctuary, or in the wild.
When we examine not just the price of lives, but the resources that go into the product, does that change how we see it?
I've seen other friends mention the types of animals being farmed should be a consideration, like a predator versus a prey animal (think fox vs rabbit).
While it's hard if not impossible to scale up to compete with modern fur farm operations, rabbits can sustainably be raised on pastures like the above photo, even being used for things like invasive weed control (something I'm considering implementing seasonally in my own yard). They are a smaller animals who don't need immense amounts of space, and most importantly they can be raised on forage that's easily renewed.
Now compare that to raising foxes, who require meat so you're adding more food chain levels into the resource supply, should take up more space purely by nature of being larger animals (although cage standards are based off of older research examining cortisol levels which actually have led to reductions in cage sizing than what was offered in the past), and take substantially longer to grow (rabbits need to grow for about 4-5 months for a good pelt, while foxes need to grow for 9-12 months).
There's also questions about quality of life. A chinchilla will be happy if provided simple comforts like dirt baths, wheels to run in, or wood to chew on. A mink, on the other hand, is happiest when they can exist semi-aquatically, which many farms don't provide due to associated costs and the added complications and work that comes with maintaining an aquatic level of caging. Providing a new stick to chew on is easy. Providing a swimming area isn't. Even studies that have examined if this could be done without terrible increases in space and expense have to admit it adds to the amount of work that goes into it, as well as additional mortality risks (now the animal can drown, get a bacterial infection, the farmer has to consider how to control things like mosquito larvae, etc.).
When examining fur farmed animals as a whole versus other species we have to take into account not just things like food and water and space but also consider the human aspect. Electricity. Oil/gas. Caging materials and nest boxes and other supplies. Wild-obtained animals don't typically require these additional resources, or at least to the same extent.
Is a matter of the ethics of fur farming simply a matter of species choice?
Enclosure setup?
Resources needed?
Effort?
The biggest factor with fur that lets people rally against it is the need. In modern times most people don't need fur. There's a lot of alternatives, there's a global market, and it's especially hard to justify the use of farmed fur when so many animals are already killed for other purposes that we could take from instead. The only thing is the raccoon raiding a small farmer's chicken coop likely won't have the same quality of fur as a tanuki raised on a fur farm, and for all the hunting permits in the world you can't guarantee outcome. As well as wild fur auctions do it still doesn't fill the fur market's demand. While this may be fine for the oddities market this doesn't bode well for the primary fur market: textiles.
So what's my conclusion after all of this? Do I still feel rather indifferent to fur farming, something I've indirectly and somewhat directly financially supported in the past?
I think going forward I wouldn't go out of my way for any fur farmed item. In the past when soft mounts were a new craze I remember wanting different colored red fox morphs and had grand plans of seeking out a variety of mounts. I've still got a couple pelts in my possession that I would like to see mounted, and am waiting on things from a few people I paid darn-near if not a decade ago that were sourced from fur farms. But I'm not going to buy tails at stores or booths like I used to, save for a thrift store or other second-hand shop. I'm not comfortable doing that anymore the same way I'm not comfortable buying tchotchkes or t-shirts from stores like Walmart or Target. While I don't see an animal dying via anal electrocution or heart-stopping injections or suffocating from carbon monoxide poisoning as innately more cruel than dying by being bludgeoned by a vehicle or attacked by another animal or shot in the vitals I don't see a justifiable reason to create more product when so much currently exists.
I do also have a renewed desire to advocate for more welfare standards to exist for fur farming, especially with new research into enrichment and caging size and materials. While studies have been done in the past measuring physical aspects like cortisol I'd love to see modern studies done with behaviorists involved.