Fur and Wool Ban Not Popular

November 30, 2011

A Cool Reception to a Ban on Fur

By IAN LOVETT - NYTimes.com

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif.

FUR is everywhere on the high fashion row of Melrose Avenue. It lines jackets on the mannequins in John Varvatos, dangles from scarves in the windows of Kitson, and drapes from hangers at Maxfield. Even on a 75-degree day in November, fur remains very much in season here.

And in the last week, these swanky window displays have become something of a political statement, a symbol of resistance to an ordinance that was passed Nov. 21 making this city the first in the country to ban the sale of fur apparel.

While boutiques here prepare for the ban to take effect in September 2013, Melrose Avenue may offer an early reading on the future of fur in the fashion industry: Even as animal rights activists declare victory, designers and storeowners have reiterated their commitment to fur’s place in high fashion, warning that shoppers will simply take their business outside of West Hollywood.

At the boutiques along Melrose Avenue, sales clerks scoffed at the idea that fur was falling out of fashion. One called the ban “ridiculous,” another said it was “super annoying.” Far from beginning to clear fur from their shelves, store owners are instead talking about clearing out of the city.     Read More

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that believes West Hollywood, CA would represent the views of mainstream America.  This ban on fur and wool has gone so far though that even many of the people that live and work there feel that it's ridiculous.  Livestock and even wild animals provide us with many significant resources.  When it comes to the fur from wild animals, it's necessary for us to manage their populations appropriately anyhow so we might as well utilize the resources they provide us rather than waste them.  

Interestingly enough, these people even banned the sale of wool in this ordinance.  Giving a sheep a haircut once a year hardly matches the cruelty that PETA, HSUS and other anti-agriculture group would like you to believe.  -Troy

Animal Friends Advocate Violent Death For Deer

Group: Use coyotes, not hunters to cut deer population


Published: Tuesday, October 19, 2010
DailyLocal.com

VALLEY FORGE — An animal-rights group that opposes the use of hunters to cut the deer population in Valley Forge National Historical Park wants officials to consider using coyotes instead.

The Pennsylvania chapter of Friends of Animals opposes a plan to use sharpshooters to eliminate more than 80 percent of the park's deer in the next four years. Last year, the group filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the hunts.

Now, the group has started a campaign called the Coyote Coexistence Initiative. The group wants park officials to consider encouraging natural predators rather than shooting the deer.

Park officials say the proposal wouldn't work.

Friends of Animals says it will seek an injunction to stop a hunt planned for next month. According the Friends of Animals' Web site, attempts to control coyote populations through trapping and killing have been futile and "an ethically and scientifically sound strategy that focuses on empowering people to respect coyotes" is preferable.

"Education and outreach designed to inform the public about the role of feeding in coyote attacks is an integral part of coexistence programs already in place and those currently being developed," the group's Web site says. "Coyote education campaigns can demonstrate practical ways to avoid unwanted incidents — by, for example, making coyote deterrents using household items."     Read More

Let’s see if I can get this straight.  The Friends of Animals group would rather have predators chasing and harassing a deer until it finally dies a very slow and painful death than have sharpshooters quickly harvest the deer and use the meat to feed the homeless.  With friends like that who needs enemies??  Not only would this be a tremendous waste of resources, but it would also lead to an eventual problem with coyotes as well.  With their plan, what happens to the coyotes if and when they would lower the deer population?  They either start starving to death or die off from disease.  It’s another great example of people with no knowledge or experience dealing with managing natural resources trying to make recommendations that cause more harm than good. 

MT Looks To Reduce Wolf Numbers

Mont. aims to reduce wolf numbers for first time
By MATT VOLZ (AP) – 16 hours ago

HELENA, Mont. — Montana wildlife commissioners approved a plan Thursday that aims to reduce the gray wolf population for the first time since the once-endangered animal was reintroduced to the region 15 years ago.

The proposal approved by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission calls for at least doubling the number of wolves that hunters can kill and introducing an archery season to go with the rifle season.

The population of wolves in the northern Rockies has increased every year since they were reintroduced to the region in 1995 after being nearly wiped out in the last century due to conflicts with humans and loss of habitat.

There were at least 524 wolves in Montana at the end of last year, and 1,706 wolves in the combined northern Rockies region of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and parts of Washington and Oregon, wildlife officials estimate.

Ranchers and hunters say the wolf population has now grown too high, which has led to more attacks on livestock and game. Read More

Wildlife management is essential for the health of the wildlife involved. I’ve shared with you before about what happens if humans don’t manage these populations. When those numbers get too high, Mother Nature causes them to starve to death or unleashes devastating diseases that wipe out significant portions of them. That certainly doesn’t appear to be the humane option to me. Along with that, human safety and that of our domesticated animals needs to always be a priority in this equation. No wolf is worth a human life. Keeping a viable controlled population needs to be the goal.

Wolf Hunt Successful

Official: Wolf hunt was effective
MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press Posted: Wednesday, December 9, 2009 11:45 pm

An examination of Montana’s first public gray-wolf hunt showed at least nine of the animals were killed in an area prone to livestock attacks — a finding that could blunt criticism that the hunt was ineffective.

Confident state wildlife officials said they could increase the quota on the predators next year. They want to zero in on a number that would strike a balance between protecting the wolf population and stopping increasing attacks on livestock and big-game herds.

However, the hunt in Montana and a wolf season in neighboring Idaho must first pass muster with a federal judge in Missoula. About 1,350 gray wolves in the Northern Rockies were removed from the endangered list in the spring. About 300 wolves in Wyoming remain on the list.

At least nine of the 72 wolves killed were in the Big Hole Valley — site of frequent wolf attacks on livestock. Just two breeding female wolves were killed among an estimated 34 statewide.

There were about 500 wolves in Montana last year. Even with the 72 killed by hunters — and another 127 killed by wildlife control agents, poachers, ranchers and other causes — that figure was projected to grow during the last year. If that happens, it could defuse arguments that hunting is harming the broader population. Read More

While the hunt may have created quite a bit of controversy, it’s clear that the intended results were achieved. In order to have a healthy population of wolves, and to keep the livestock and human interactions to a minimum, a hunt was necessary. There seems to be too many people that think the best way to manage wildlife is to no manage them. They would rather see disease and starvation cause unnecessary suffering for these animals. It doesn’t matter if it’s wolves, mountain lions, feral horses or anything else, population management needs to occur.

Sen. Landrieu's Inconsistent Animal Management Policies

Landrieu pushes to control wild pigs in coastal La
Associated Press - October 29, 2009 5:34 AM ET

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu is pushing a bill to keep in check the wild pig population in coastal Louisiana.

The senator says wild pig populations are "eating away" the coast.

The Democrat sponsored the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act on Wednesday. Landrieu says the rising population of non-native feral swine poses a threat to Louisiana because they are competing with native wildlife for resources, preying on domestic animals, eating the wetlands and spreading harmful bacteria. Link

The hypocrite of the day award needs to go to Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. As you might recall, the Senator is one of the main sponsors of a bill that will make it illegal to transport horses to be processed for human consumption, including government owned feral horses. Yet when the non-native feral swine in her state become overpopulated she is very quick to introduce legislation to eradicate them. Both the swine and the horses in question are over-populated, non-native and feral. One species she wants to protect and one she wants to eradicate. It’s proof positive that she is using the “cute and cuddly factor” to make her animal management decisions in Congress rather than using any type of sound scientific data.

Wolf Management is Necessary, Not For Fun

September 8, 2009, 4:12 pm
Killing Wolves for Fun
By Randy Cohen

The Issue

The Interior Department has ruled that wolves have sufficiently increased in numbers in the Western continental United States to allow some wolf hunting there. The Idaho hunt began on September 1; Montana’s starts on the 15th. A case might be made for the right to hunt for food and to manage wildlife populations, but surely some of the more than 14,000 people who bought wolf-hunting licenses are interested in neither wolf sandwiches nor animal husbandry: they simply enjoy hunting. Is it morally acceptable to kill a wolf for the fun of it?

The Argument

Unsurprisingly, I believe it is wrong to inflict pain and death unnecessarily on a creature capable of suffering. (Peter Singer more broadly examines the moral standing of animals here.) While this belief might not compel us to be vegetarians, it does demand significant changes in the way we raise animals for food, and it forbids wolf hunting as a form of entertainment. To be clear, I concede all putatively practical justifications for hunting and repudiate only the idea that hunting is a legitimate recreation. It is the person who claims as much who bears the burden of proof — a wolf need not make a case for its not being shot in Montana. I’m not persuaded that hunters have made their case. Read More

The hunting of these wolves is a necessary thing. I’m sure from an office in New York it’s hard to imagine wolves being anything but warm and cuddly but in the real world they need to be managed. These wolves are an apex predator that can severely threaten a family rancher’s livelihood. The population level of these wolves has increased drastically and if they are not managed properly, disease and starvation will threaten them. If this reporter is worried about unnecessary suffering, he should be favoring this hunt.