IMO, leather really isn’t a big deal. It’s a by-product of the meat industry. Nobody is raising and butchering cows specifically for the leather. If nobody used the leather, then the skins would just be thrown away … or maybe ground up and used in dog food or something.
I mean, to be fair there aren’t many if any first world countries that eat fox, bear, or really anything with fur. I understand some people shoot bears and such, but in talking about actual farms.
Yeah my bad, I meant the fur industry is almost entirely barbaric for the purpose of fur, as opposed to leather being a byproduct.
Though I have found a shop that allegedly has ethically sourced fur that they buy from Alaskan natives that hunt for food, but I don’t think I have the means to confirm that.
I agree, as well with things like sauces from shellfish shells that would otherwise be tossed.
However, I recently heard the reasoning (of a buddhist who tries to avoid animal products, i.e. would not actively seek out a non vegan option, while accepting non vegan food if offered) - would the product in question still exist if the animal was seized to be killed? Even if it was for a different purpose and leather, seafish shells, gelatin etc were just byproducts, they would not exist if the animal it is derived from wasn’t killed for whatever reason.
I totally agree that it would be a shame to only use a part of an animal and let the other go to waste. Likewise, I get that “I’ll do X as long as everyone else does Y” is a way of reasoning that ends up counterproductive and keeps us locked in a status quo. So, if someone wants to stop using not just the primary products of the meat industry but also the secondary, I can understand.
IMO, leather really isn’t a big deal. It’s a by-product of the meat industry. Nobody is raising and butchering cows specifically for the leather. If nobody used the leather, then the skins would just be thrown away … or maybe ground up and used in dog food or something.
Leather is horrible for the environment plus you’re still supporting animal AG
I would argue polyester is worse than leather for the environment, but to each their own.
it subsidises the meat industry.
Valid, lowers the costs of the resulting meat and thus increases consumption
It’s also responsible for a not-insignificant portion of the meat industry’s carbon footprint.
Fur on the other hand…
I mean, to be fair there aren’t many if any first world countries that eat fox, bear, or really anything with fur. I understand some people shoot bears and such, but in talking about actual farms.
Yeah my bad, I meant the fur industry is almost entirely barbaric for the purpose of fur, as opposed to leather being a byproduct.
Though I have found a shop that allegedly has ethically sourced fur that they buy from Alaskan natives that hunt for food, but I don’t think I have the means to confirm that.
I agree, as well with things like sauces from shellfish shells that would otherwise be tossed.
However, I recently heard the reasoning (of a buddhist who tries to avoid animal products, i.e. would not actively seek out a non vegan option, while accepting non vegan food if offered) - would the product in question still exist if the animal was seized to be killed? Even if it was for a different purpose and leather, seafish shells, gelatin etc were just byproducts, they would not exist if the animal it is derived from wasn’t killed for whatever reason.
I totally agree that it would be a shame to only use a part of an animal and let the other go to waste. Likewise, I get that “I’ll do X as long as everyone else does Y” is a way of reasoning that ends up counterproductive and keeps us locked in a status quo. So, if someone wants to stop using not just the primary products of the meat industry but also the secondary, I can understand.