What to do with leather, wool, etc. after becoming vegan

[CF#5]

Common problem - not really a simple answer. I know there are programs that exist that accept donations of fur coats to be given to animals to use instead of blankets. The dead animals can't be brought back to life, but their fur can be used to keep sick animals warm. Supposedly, it's more effective, comfortable, and soothing than ordinary blankets because it's more natural and reminds the living animals of their mothers.

But what about items that only have human uses? Like, I've had the same leather wallet for the last 7-8 years, and it's still holding up. I didn't even stop eating meat until this wallet was a few years old, and I didn't become vegan until less than a year ago. Obviously I'll never buy another leather wallet ever again. But what am I supposed to do with the one I have? I have the same problem with a leather belt. I don't always use it, but it's the only one I own.

What about my 5-6 wool sweaters? I didn't have reason to wear them this winter (irrespective of my new vegan status) so it wasn't an issue, but they're still sitting in the closet. What am I supposed to do with them? I think one of them is even cashmere [gasp].

What about my collection of baseball hats, many of which have tremendous sentimental value because of events that took place while I was wearing them? What about my baseball glove that I've had for over 20 years and fits my hand perfectly? What about all the signed baseballs that are worth hundreds of dollars? Hypocritical I know, but my sports-related items aren't going anywhere.

A separate but related issue is that somewhere in a closet, I know I have a brand new leather wallet that my mother bought for me a couple years ago to replace the one I have now, only it hasn't been necessary to replace it. I'm not going to start using the new one (I'll just buy a synthetic vegan wallet when it becomes necessary), and it's too late to return it to the store. If I give it away or sell it, I'm in effect flooding the market place, and lowering demand for new leather wallets by one. I'd simply have to make sure that whoever ends up with it is going to possess it INSTEAD OF a new wallet from a store as opposed to an extra wallet in addition to other wallets the new owner may possess. But I'll also be parting with it, knowing it will be used by a non-vegan for human use, which is still a form of animal exploitation that does not meet with my approval. If I throw it away, it's a waste and it's as if the animal died for nothing, and maybe more importantly, does nothing to reduce demand for new leather.

[i-love-nev]

Vets might take fur coats etc. But dont worry about getting rid of the leather wallets, if you dont buy anymore, whats the point? you cant change that an animal was killed for it, you cant bring it back to life so make use of it at least?

[Johnny]

...well, I for one would be happy to take your wallet, whatever is inside of it, and any baseballs that are worth hundreds of dollars. :

Johnny

[Cosmictadpole]

I thought the point was to not support the industry. I agree with i-love-nev. If you already have it, you might as well use it. Getting rid of it certainly isn't going to do anything to help the animal that died for it, or cause that you care about. I agree that if you throw it away, it's as though the animal died for nothing. If I were you, I would keep those things, and I would explain to people who ask that "this is my last leather wallet," or "I will never buy another baseball glove," or whatever item is being discussed.

[Biscuit]

I'm still amusing myself with the image of you in a cashmere sweater. I'd mock you but it would be vastly off-topic.

That said, I would spend the time worrying about the stuff you already have doing something positive for animals. Go visit some kitties at a shelter or something.

[Alusdra]

I agree with the above- you already have those items from before you stopped using animal products, so why get rid of them? You have to draw a line somewhere- humans have been using animals for thousands (tens of thousands?) of years- so even if you were to, say- but Mennonite organic grains- ox plowed the field. Or cow poo fertilized it...

But if it bothers you, sell/ give away the sweaters and jackets etc. Like you said, it would be taking away from the need for more animals to be used and you don't have to look hypocritical (even though you're not).

The baseball stuff, though- firstly- can you get a vegan glove? I think that would be your most logical exception. And the memorabilia- the value in that is the history, not the animal product. Unless you're going to start boycotting the sport unless they become vegan, then I think it might go the other way if you were to refuse to have anything to do with the memorabilia.

[Justin]

FYI. If you have inexpensive items that Johnny wouldn't take, I am open for those.

[Susan9608]

Take a picture of the crap that has sentimental value to you (and quite frankly, I'm surprised that anything besides your pigs has sentimental value to you ...)

Then bury everything. They are dead bodies, after all.

[JarBax]

I too was going to suggest burying/composting your items, but actually think that handking them into a charity shop is the best thing you can do. If you chose a charity that supports animal rescue work - all the better!

[ArtisticRainey]

Originally Posted by CF#5

What about my collection of baseball hats, many of which have tremendous sentimental value because of events that took place while I was wearing them? What about my baseball glove that I've had for over 20 years and fits my hand perfectly? What about all the signed baseballs that are worth hundreds of dollars? Hypocritical I know, but my sports-related items aren't going anywhere.

If you ever decide to part with them, you could auction them off on eBay and give the money to an animal sanctuary/rescue.

[Weatherlight]

I hope this isn't topping a thread that's too old.

This is an interesting question and I've read all sorts of opinions on the peta2 forums years back. One was a twist on the "looking like a hypocrite" one. If someone sees you on the street in your leather shoes, they can notice it sub/unconsciously and it will reinforce their belief yet another time that it's fine, everyone uses leather. By that argument, you shouldn't use synthetic fur or leather where other people will see it, nor eat fake meats, even eat a cooked dish where it's not obvious whether there are animal products in it or not. They might mistake any of these as another "oh, yes, it's normal to use animal products" scene.

There is the "get someone to not buy in a way that increases demand" which is very valid in a utilitarian way. Feeling like a corpse peddler doesn't appeal to me but it could make a small difference. Personally if I knew someone who was looking to buy a leather product, I'd most try to talk them into a vegan alternative. Donating to a thrift store could be ok. If I were working closely with an animal rescue organization, I'd ask them to reconsider helping other animals by peddling animal corpses. It's one problem I have with many shelters, rescues, and sanctuaries. Places like Home At Last Animal Sanctuary have a lot of respect from me, and I know they'll never fundraise with corpse barbeques or auctioning animal products.

Touching any corpse doesn't appeal to me. That's my main reason for avoiding touching leather--just because I find it gross (the way I find bananas gross)--which is not relevant to morality. Giving non-vegan items to fellow vegans or freegans who are in need of them and don't have any problem with using them could be an idea.

I think you should just ask yourself, what if they came from human bodies instead, and you were in a world where it was widespread and accepted to capture, manufacture, raise, slaughter, and use humans this way? When I find myself slipping into automatic (old) mindsets, I ask myself this. It lets me get perspective on whether or not I am thinking in a speciesist way.

it's a waste and it's as if the animal died for nothing

I always found this argument interesting. If someone murdered me for money or some similar reason, and my body or part/s of my body was/were just there, and if someone else was trying to decide what to do with it, would I care if it was "wasted" and I "died for nothing"? Would I be any happier if someone came along and made "good use" of my body by, say, making a wig of my hair, preserving my eyeballs as a decoration for their desk, and using a patch of skin as a coaster? (The example I used to give in response to this sort of thought might not be appreciated here, heh.) It's not disrespecting me to not use my dead body.

Of course, being a being capable of abstract thought and reasoning about the future and my death, I wouldn't like my body to be wasted when I can't care about what happens to it ever again. So I approve of things like voluntarily deciding (now) to donate organs (when dead) to help other people live. (Even a nonvegan person! *gasp* ...Really, I knew people who were that utilitarian.) Not so much for someone to get entertainment value or similar out of it.

That said, I would spend the time worrying about the stuff you already have doing something positive for animals. Go visit some kitties at a shelter or something.

Is it not worthwhile to put some thought into the respect of animals? Cats are the animal species killed most in my country due to homelessness. Millions per year in the US. How many billions of animals in the US do you think are slaughtered for meat, fur, leather, etc? I can't judge which does more good for the world--mindlessly petting a few homeless cats for a few hours vs pondering personal decisions regarding one's animal-based property. The cats will be happier for a while (assuming, you know...). The decision may result in some less support for animal slaughter. I think whoever does which, it is spending time related to helping animals, and in amounts that can't accurately be measured, so I won't vote in a competition.

I agree with the above- you already have those items from before you stopped using animal products, so why get rid of them? You have to draw a line somewhere- humans have been using animals for thousands (tens of thousands?) of years- so even if you were to, say- but Mennonite organic grains- ox plowed the field. Or cow poo fertilized it...

I don't think the two (what to do about animal products in one's possesision vs how much one decides to help animals) have anything to do with each other.

Then bury everything. They are dead bodies, after all.

In this case I'd prefer an enclosed landfill, because...

I too was going to suggest burying/composting your items

...this leather will be very well-preserved with toxic chemicals.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

Is it not worthwhile to put some thought into the respect of animals? Cats are the animal species killed most in my country due to homelessness. Millions per year in the US. How many billions of animals in the US do you think are slaughtered for meat, fur, leather, etc? I can't judge which does more good for the world--mindlessly petting a few homeless cats for a few hours vs pondering personal decisions regarding one's animal-based property. The cats will be happier for a while (assuming, you know...). The decision may result in some less support for animal slaughter. I think whoever does which, it is spending time related to helping animals, and in amounts that can't accurately be measured, so I won't vote in a competition.

I totally agree with this. I've been aching to link this quote ever since I stumbled across it a few weeks ago, so it might not be totally applicable, but I think this goes back to the whole AR vs AW debate and the issue of people who are concerned for animals fighting with each other instead of trying to accomplish something.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."
-- Henry David Thoreau

It shouldn't be a competition, because philosophical analysis and soap-box pontification have tremendous value and can potentially help change individual or collective thinking. In this sense, it's more important to write books, give speeches, and promote ideas than it is to visit cats in a shelter. People who choose to be vegan and aren't ashamed to talk about it at any given moment, but who aren't particularly active in hands-on activities like rescuing animals and volunteering at shelters still have a lot to contribute. At the same time, people who choose to visit those cats shouldn't be judged negatively for it, because they're still doing something positive and not doing anything detrimental to the cause.

[Biscuit]

Oh, I agree about the promotion of ideas and such. An idea, particularly with the state of communication via technology, is in a way more powerful than ever.

I'm not ready to write a book or give a speech, so I'm reading and interpreting and learning how I can best apply that to change. Which will likely land on speeches, as it's not exactly a shortcoming, rather the opposite.

I will sum up my overall understanding with an admission I truly am embarrassed by for some reason. Possibly because I do not like admitting another mere mortal could influence me in any way, since you know, I am immune to external stimulus (heh...), generally distrusting, and loathe the chance of promoting ego in another human being. I've volunteered in shelters, educated on pet overpopulation, given speeches on it, and yes, reached people who were not reached by the more conventional approaches or personalities. However, it took a particular sort of blunt logic to reach me with regard to true animal rights, and begin a process of change. It undoubtedly will seem crazy to some, but that blunt logic was none other than your posts, CF, a fact which is certain to be met with scorn and judgment from some here. ; ) But a fact nonetheless! My point is that I would be the most silly to deny that that contribution.

So yes, I agree with you, Weatherlight. And you should post more!

(mods: Sorry if I broke the size thing. It came up with visible size tags all over it, I removed them, and last time this resulted in my font size being broken. I cannot fix it as it is the same in every way to the default/other posts from my view)

[Weatherlight]

CF#5, many people judge the actions of others based on their effectiveness. Some people judge others for arguing with a stubborn idiot over IM for hours when they could be leafletting to more open people instead with their time, putting in the same amount of effort to get people to eat thousands of less animals instead of making one person angry. Some people judge others for raising money for a larger animal pound building when that could go towards free spay/neuter instead, causing such a decrease in the overpopulation of animals in that area that half of the current building would be empty. *shrug*

The issue of whether welfarists detract from the efforts of rightsists is a pretty big issue in itself -_-

Biscuit, you're not alone with superstitious/relgious/irrational beliefs and--even after the beliefs change--feelings of that sort. If you're interested in naturalism and determinism, you might want to read up on it. It got me to be a lot more accepting of physical reality when I became a naturalist at 14 years of age. I mean "naturalism" as opposed to supernaturalism, not worshipping "nature."

I guess CF was to you what I was to some people on peta2. My God, the stupid, speciesist posers there...I admit I have feelings of "irrational" hostility and anger, and that I'm human :P And oh yes it inflated my ego big time when people would PM me after a long thread, complete with personal attacks, and say "I was so pissed at you at first. I thought you were a mean, stupid extremist and that I was right. But I thought about it more logically and my stance was incorrect. I'll do x from now on." Mwahaha.

It's a fact that people make emotional decisions. Even if it's not conscious, most people's reasoning is a rationalization of what they are already set on believing; they usually think their beliefs arise from their logical reasoning, hah. You can be logically correct and their ideas can be full of fallacies, you can prove each of their arguments wrong, yet they won't change their minds. Read some Haidt. I'm very bad at manipulating people emotionally so the only way I got through to people was through reason; few people listened to me that way. If there was any strong emotion from them, it was usually defensiveness and anger towards me, and you don't get a lot of flies with vinegar!

Even in my circle of friends, not many are Haidt's logical "philosophy students" to any significant degree. One of the exceptions actually is a philosophy student

I should post less. I'm a forum junkie. Once I get started it's hard to stop. It takes up time I can't afford to spend >.<

[Susan9608]

I should post less.

No, you should post more. We need more people like you.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

However, it took a particular sort of blunt logic to reach me with regard to true animal rights, and begin a process of change. It undoubtedly will seem crazy to some, but that blunt logic was none other than your posts, CF, a fact which is certain to be met with scorn and judgment from some here. ; ) But a fact nonetheless! My point is that I would be the most silly to deny that that contribution.

I'm flattered, and reading this post meant a lot to me. I'm glad I could help. I'll stop short of saying I had a "positive" impact on you, because us red pill people have a hard time seeing the glass as half full, but I won't hesitate to say I'm happy that you were able to use the arguments I presented in a way that helped you free your mind from the constraints of society's pliers.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

So yes, I agree with you, Weatherlight. And you should post more!

I agree! Weatherlight should definitely post more!!!

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

CF#5, many people judge the actions of others based on their effectiveness. Some people judge others for arguing with a stubborn idiot over IM for hours when they could be leafletting to more open people instead with their time, putting in the same amount of effort to get people to eat thousands of less animals instead of making one person angry. Some people judge others for raising money for a larger animal pound building when that could go towards free spay/neuter instead, causing such a decrease in the overpopulation of animals in that area that half of the current building would be empty. *shrug*

The issue of whether welfarists detract from the efforts of rightsists is a pretty big issue in itself -_-

As I think about this more, and I apply Thoreau's idea that one's only true individual responsibility is to not cause or condone any type of injustice, I think the judgment that animal advocates pass on each other is very detrimental and has no place in the world. I'm talking specifically on people judging each other on how they choose to spend their time. That being said, the issue of welfarists vs. rightists is very real and legitimate, because the arguments are theoretical and philosophical, NOT practical (such as the question of whether to pass out leaflets to 500 people as opposed to fighting with one over the internet) in nature, and the rightists have some valid gripes with welfarists, because it can be argued the welfarists, as well-intentioned as they may be, are actually committing a form of injustice through their speciesism.

At the same time, the accomplishments of welfarists, in certain instances at least, should be respected and commended, because whether they realize it or not, much of what they do is actually incremental rights, not welfarism.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Weatherlight

If someone murdered me for money or some similar reason, and my body or part/s of my body was/were just there, and if someone else was trying to decide what to do with it, would I care if it was "wasted" and I "died for nothing"?

If I was the killed person, my feeling would be meaningless. Apparently, a dead being is not capable of generating feelings.

On the other hand, I am hoping my wife, if she has survived above mentioned tragedy, would be obliged to see my head buried rather than displayed as a taxidermic art. Worse, quality of the art could increase demand for such killings.

I think it depends how much "you" are attached to the killed cow, not what the cow would appreciate.

If you have decided that you are not so attached to the cow after all, then you can donated all the valuable items to someone else, such as myself, to decrease the demand. I encourage such noble decision.

[Biscuit]

No one should gain ego from influencing me, as what reaches me is likely simply strange and a reflection of my geekly perceptions. Warm fuzzies and shocking videos have their place, but bluntness and an overall attitude similar to mine catch my attention first. Horrible human ego or vanity I suppose, taking notice of an idea because its presentation resembles my own attitudes! Oh well.

If you're interested in naturalism and determinism, you might want to read up on it. It got me to be a lot more accepting of physical reality when I became a naturalist at 14 years of age. I mean "naturalism" as opposed to supernaturalism, not worshipping "nature."

I am interested! Although I have a hard time reading lately due to all the time spent...you know, chopping at the branches... I don't suppose you have some links to stuff I can read at work? It makes me feel better about working for the man to read things the man would hate while he pays me (teehee). Yes, that's petty. =D I'd appreciate it!

I guess CF was to you what I was to some people on peta2. My God, the stupid, speciesist posers there...I admit I have feelings of "irrational" hostility and anger, and that I'm human :P And oh yes it inflated my ego big time when people would PM me after a long thread, complete with personal attacks, and say "I was so pissed at you at first. I thought you were a mean, stupid extremist and that I was right.

Nah, not like that! My smoofness never thinks people like him mean in the slightest. My definition of mean is different than most. I'm not some drone brought to the light by a crass savior, I've never been a total pod. =P It's just this one thing. It's a huge thing, but not one I had even heard about until recently.

The animal welfare people I know are just under educated, haven't heard certain ideas presented yet, or it is a gateway thing on the path to animal rights. They aren't ready to be seen as extremist. Naturally, that isn't a problem for me.

As I think about this more, and I apply Thoreau's idea that one's only true individual responsibility is to not cause or condone any type of injustice, I think the judgment that animal advocates pass on each other is very detrimental and has no place in the world.

Interesting. And perhaps in doing so you advocate in ways you don't realize. Like my big mouth is sure to advocate for years to come.

One of my areas of oddness where I had a similar experience to Weather's as far as influence was in the area of women breaking away from the ways they are taught. When I logged in to play computer games since 1994ish starting in text only games, I never expected to do anything but have a little relaxing fun. To this day, I still hear from people who said they found my ideas odd, harsh, mean, and horrible at the time, but have found that they were influenced to begin to change their perspective. A few even said I directly targetted their plans for codependent marriages, idiotic dating ideas, materialism, vanity, shallowness, and so on. A few I never even met, but they frequented gaming community news sites that often featured a section of my often goofy ramblings (not posted by me) and discussions with people. A few women said that reading that really helped them be more free in a variety of ways (some of which are not appropriate for this forum =P). I've always taken little flattery in it, but now that I think back, it was an enormous amount of people over the years. Via forums, now-ancient voice chat software, and so on. And this wasn't me constantly on a soap box, this was just me living my life in front of people on the internet. I'm not bragging on myself, so much as thinking of how it relates to Thoreau's idea; in that simply living your life without shame can influence.

[CF#5]

Originally Posted by Justin

I think it depends how much "you" are attached to the killed cow, not what the cow would appreciate.

By putting the focus on ME, it's like saying my feelings about the injustice are more important than the injustice itself. This is a very egotistical approach that leads people down the slippery slope of rationalization.

I realize the cow can't be brought back to life, and chances are the now-dead cow doesn't give a crap what I do with the wallet that's made from his or her skin, especially since it has been altered to be almost unrecognizable.

Generally speaking, I think utilitarianism is bad, because every individual is important and has value, and never should one individual be prioritized over another. But in the case of an animal that has already been killed while others are still alive, it only makes sense to do whatever helps the living.

In that sense, you're right that what the dead cow would appreciate is no longer as important as other issues, such as doing whatever is possible to help cows that are still alive. But it has absolutely nothing to do with my attachment to the dead cow.