Would you rather wear an exploited animal or plastic that released incredibly toxic chemicals? It’s a debate that challenges morality and environmental care. Those in favor of real fur rely on the argument that the process of creating faux fur is incredibly damaging to the environment, while those against argue that real fur promotes animal brutality. Without a doubt, faux fur is the better option as it leads to the least amount of harm to the environment and its species. Acknowledging what type of fur is better for the environment and most moral will help us evolve and create policies and ways to help preserve our environment in a moral way.

Weighing our options.

Real fur supporters argue that the creation of faux fur leads to the production of harmful chemicals, harming the environment. Most, present-day, faux is made from synthetic fibres… including polyester (Bustle). Furthermore, the process of the creation of polyester uses an abundant amount of petroleum. Polyester alone “uses almost 70 million barrels of oil a year” (Green Living Detective). But what exactly does this mean for the environment? The creation of faux fur is harmful to the environment because all the emitted toxins contribute to the amount of greenhouse gases and pollution affecting our planet. This contributes to global warming, affecting the cycles of earth’s atmosphere. Furthermore, people also argue that Faux fur is non biodegradable, and therefore, detrimental to our environment. Essentially, this means that the plastic used to create this fur is unable to break down and be recycled or reused through the process of decomposition. Due to this, faux fur will ultimately end up in landfills (unlike real fur which will decompose and be used again through soils). Although faux fur seems to be the worst option because it harms the environment, real fur also harms the environment and promotes animal brutality. 

Real fur’s foundation is built upon animal exploitation. Morality is a concern when it comes to the usage of fur. On PETA’s website, there’s an opening statement describing that, “animals endure a life of misery, pain, frustration, and fear and many are skinned alive.” Killing an animal in such a way is both disturbing and immoral. Wanting real animal fur as a coat does not justify the pain that animals are forced to endure. In addition, the production of real fur also has negative impacts on the environment. “Emissions of nitrous oxide and ammonia from mink manure are a serious issue” (Faunalytics). Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that is “300 times more harmful than carbon dioxide” (CBCNews). The farms and overbreeding of animals release many toxic chemicals into the air, creating a negative environment, just like plastic fur. Real fur is worse, as it has multiple ways to harm our environments.

Rabbit fur explored during FYS class on October 30, 2021.

Morality and the environment are both at stake. I have decided that real fur is not the option I will be choosing because, not only are animals brutally murdered, but the process also involves toxins going into the atmosphere.

Bibliography

Cutler, Lauren. The Boar, 18 Oct. 2020, https://theboar.org/2020/10/fur-fashion-morally-wrong-sustainable-alternative/. 

“Faux Fur Ruched Throws.” Pottery Barn, https://www.potterybarn.com/products/faux-fur-ruched-throw-collection/. 

Mortillaro, Nicole. “Nitrous Oxide, More Harmful to the Climate than CO2, Increasing in Atmosphere, Study Finds | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 8 Oct. 2020, https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/nitrous-oxide-climate-1.5753907. 

The Green Living Detective One day. “How Green Is It… to Wear Synthetic Fabrics?” Green Living Detective, Green Living Detective, 10 Apr. 2019, https://www.greenlivingdetective.com/how-green-is-it-to-wear-synthetic-fabrics/. 

Schneider, Desiree. “Fur Kills Animals, Faux Fur Kills the Environment. What Is Better?” Medium, The Overtake, 26 June 2019, https://medium.com/@overtake/fur-kills-animals-faux-fur-kills-the-environment-what-is-better-6580a1b7ef47. 

Sharkey, Lauren. “Is Faux Fur Bad for the Environment?” Bustle, Bustle, 10 Feb. 2020, https://www.bustle.com/p/is-faux-fur-bad-for-the-environment-21784082. 

Complete deforestation for the purpose of helping ecosystems? Conducted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, approximately 8,300 acres of forest were striped for research purposes. The Hubbard Brook Experiment has generated crucial data about ecosystem responses to global change.

The purpose of this study was to better understand “the response of northern hardwood forest ecosystems to large-scale disturbances such as deforestation or acidic deposition” (TIEE). In other words, scientists wanted to explore how land would be affected when trees are gone within the area. They also wanted to determine the amount of time it would take for an affected forest to recuperate.  

This study was carried out by comparing two different watersheds, or two forests. One being The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and the other being a nearby forest that was left to reflourish for 60 years. 

Different factors considered included: precipitation, stream flow, evapotranspiration, calcium, potassium, among a few others. Final results concluded that taking away trees from a forest heavy area allows more sunlight to  help flourish light-dependent species. Since there will be a higher photosynthesis and respiration rate, then there will also be an increase in plant reproductivity (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment). More rain will also reach the floor’s surface resulting in an increase of temperature and moisture, also contributing to the rapid growth of species. 

Although different plant species were quickly growing, a lingering question remained – will “nutrient and organic matter lost from the forest floor would be regained before the next cutting rotation” (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).

However, this would not be the case. “Organic matter on the forest floor would accumulate to a depth equivalent to pre-cutting levels in more than 65 years and biogeochemical flux and storage of nutrients would return to that of a normal hardwood forest (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment). Essentially, regardless of plant species growing back at faster rates, there were more long term losses and nutrients would take much longer to become surplus again. 

Forest ecosystems must be given time to regenerate the nutrients they once had since they have been proven to take much longer to regenerate than the actual plant species. As a result, it has been legally established that forests must be provided with “enough time before the next cutting rotation,” (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).  These are legal periods of 110-120 years in which forests are given a break to allow them to nourish themselves and recuperate the lost nutrients.

Bibliography 

Adam Welman, Cynthia Berger. “Overview of the Ecological Background.” Hubbard Brook Streamflow Response to Deforestation (Overview), https://tiee.esa.org/vol/v1/data_sets/hubbard/hubbard_overview.html.  

“An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment.” YouTube, uploaded by Sophie Izzo, 18 October 2020, https://youtu.be/isFi5qxWzsE “Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Overview and Organization.” Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Overview and Organization | Hubbard Brook, https://hubbardbrook.org/about. 

Taxidermy – conserved animal remains hung on walls because they are pleasing to the eye? Let me reword. Hunted animals, killed and gutted to be hung and used as a decoration. Many find taxidermy weird and unsettling. I would agree. As a Mexican, I am obviously biased. Mexican taxidermy is a beautiful aspect to Mexican culture that reflects a new beginning.

When it comes to cow skulls, meanings and decorations vary from different cultures, backgrounds, and even families. My family specifically, has a very moral way of preserving and celebrating animals. In Mexico, my family owns a great plot of land, una parcela, where we have a wide variety of animals ranging from cows to chickens to horses. Our form of taxidermy is controversial in the aspect that some, mainly Americans, wouldn’t consider it under the American term and meaning of taxidermy. Our process differs in many ways.

First and foremost, we do not hunt or kill these animals. We wait for the animals to peacefully pass on their own. We allow for the cycle of life to continue by bringing the animals to a place where their bodies will decompose and help flourish the land around them. This allows for the bones to be the remains left. This is often done in a remote area. My family owns multiple parcelas, which allows us to carry out this tradition.

Our taxidermy consists of bringing the remains- the bones- in to clean them and decorate them. There are many ways to decorate them, with paint being the most common. Decorations also often include personal and valuable belongings and/or symbols that further elaborate on the importance and impact the deceased animal has had in our lives. We do this as a way to appreciate the beauty of our animals who throughout their lives, have provided us with resources to survive. Oftentimes, a family receives the remains of another family’s cow to decorate. However, a cow’s skull will never be decorated if the cow was not treated with dignity throughout its lifetime. This is because our objective is to appreciate the beauty and positives in life, in the lives that were cherished. 

Overall, the Mexican and American views of taxidermy are incredibly different. Both cultures have meanings behind their actions. However, I strongly believe that Mexican Taxidermy values much more meaningful concepts and morals compared to the traditional ways of hunting and gutting. It’s incredibly important to admire the beauty around us which is what my culture successfully expresses.

Alex Smith came into our classroom with a load of interesting information. His fascination with hunting led to the topic of bear hounding- a staggering form of hunting in which bears are chased by hounds until they’re exhausted and forced to climb a tree to be shot dead. Bear hounding has sparked much controversy challenging this inhumane form of hunting as it forces both bears and hounds to go through a lot of stress.

Such practice requires hounds to undergo intense training aside from the risks they run while confronting the bear. Hounds are required to practice on smaller game and sometimes have test trials with more experienced dogs (LiveOutdoors). During this time, the mindsets of dogs are completely changed so that they react in an incredibly aggressive way once they encounter a bear. These extensive hours of training cover a change in howls, behaviour, and attitude. In addition, the conditions and/or weather under which they train can be hot leading to dehydration and other conditions. If a bear decides to fight back, hounds run the risk of “broken bones, punctured lungs, or other serious injuries,” (The Humane Society of the United States). 

However, most controversy revolves around the bears. Essentially, bear hounding is argued to be inhumane. Bears are chased until they are exhausted so that they are forced to climb a tree. This means that the last few moments before the bear’s death is spent under an overwhelmingly stressful situation- which can also quickly escalate if the bear decides to fight back. If bears are being hunted under an intense sun, they run the risk of physical stress due to their thick fur and fat layer. If pregnant bears overheat, they run the risk of losing embryos and others can die (The Humane Society of the United States). 

Bear Hounding also affects the patterns and populations of bears. “Hounds disrupt feeding regimes for both the bears who are chased and nearby bears who are not. Bears must shift their sleeping patterns and become more nocturnal to avoid being hunted,” (The Humane Society of the United States). This means that not only are the chase bears affected, but all of them since they have to be aware. 

Overall, bear hounding is arguably the most effective way to hunt a bear, yet the most inhumane since bears are not allowed to fend for themselves. The question left to answer is if it’s worth considering the condition before the, possible, death of a bear.

Bibliography

“Facts about Bear Hounding.” The Humane Society of the United States, https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/facts-about-bear-hounding. 

Fitzpartick, Brad. “All Hail the Hounds of Hunting.” Petersen’s Hunting, Petersen’s Hunting, 12 May 2021, https://www.petersenshunting.com/editorial/all-hail-hounds-hunting/392435. 

Staff, LiveOutdoors, and LiveOutdoors Staff. “How to Train a Bear Hunting Dog.” LiveOutdoors, 26 Nov. 2016, https://www.liveoutdoors.com/hunting/239309-bear-hunting-dog/#/slide/1. 

Tipster, Hunting. “Hound Hunting Black Bears.” Hunting Tips and Tricks, https://huntingtipsandtricks.com/hound-hunting-black-bears/. 

The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study was conducted in the White Mountains of New Hampshire during the year of 1963.​ An estimated 8,300 acres make up The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, which is collectively owned by the USDA Forest Service, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, and different scientists, which is where the study took place. 

The purpose of this study was to better understand “the response of northern hardwood forest ecosystems to large-scale disturbances such as deforestation or acidic deposition” (TIEE). In other words, scientists wanted to explore how land would be affected when trees are gone within the area. They also wanted to determine the amount of time it would take for an affected forest to recuperate. 

This study was carried out by comparing two different watersheds, or two forests. One being The Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest and the other being a nearby forest that was left to reflourish for 60 years.

Different factors considered included: precipitation, stream flow, evapotranspiration, calcium, potassium, among a few others. The final result concluded that taking away trees from a forest heavy area would allow more sunlight to  help flourish light-dependent species. Since there will be a higher photosynthesis and respiration rate, then there will also be an increase in plant reproductivity (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment). In addition more rain will also reach the floor’s surface resulting in an increase of temperature and moisture, also contributing to the rapid growth of species.

Although different plant species were quickly growing, a lingering question remained. It was “whether nutrient and organic matter lost from the forest floor would be regained before the next cutting rotation” (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).

It was concluded that this would not be the case. “Organic matter on the forest floor would accumulate to a depth equivalent to pre-cutting levels in more than 65 years and biogeochemical flux and storage of nutrients would return to that of a normal hardwood forest (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).Essentially, this shows that regardless of plant species growing back at faster rates, there were more long term losses and nutrients would take much longer to become surplus again.

In conclusion, forest ecosystems must be given time to regenerate the nutrients they once had since they have been proven to take much longer to regenerate than the actual plant species. As a result, it has been legally established that forests must be provided with “enough time before the next cutting rotation,” (An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment).  These are legal periods of 110-120 years in which forests are given a break to allow them to nourish themselves and recuperate the lost nutrients.

Bibliography

Adam Welman, Cynthia Berger. “Overview of the Ecological Background.” Hubbard Brook Streamflow Response to Deforestation (Overview), https://tiee.esa.org/vol/v1/data_sets/hubbard/hubbard_overview.html. 

“An Analysis on the Hubbard Brook Experiment.” YouTube, uploaded by Sophie Izzo, 18 October 2020, https://youtu.be/isFi5qxWzsE

“Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Overview and Organization.” Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: Overview and Organization | Hubbard Brook, https://hubbardbrook.org/about. 

Tuesday October 5, 2021 was a day like no other. My first class held at Middlebury’s famous Knoll. I typically hate the journey uphill because it’s long and pretty empty. However, as I walked further, I noticed that a flink of cows were consuming their daily grass. It was my first time seeing cows so close in nearly fifteen years. Needless to say, my journey became joyous. 

My peer and I arrived at the top of the hill and sat. As I sat on a crimson Adirondack chair, I observed the beauty that Middlebury had to offer. I was intrigued by a type of coniferous tree. It looked like a christmas tree, but better. It was full and stood tall and proud. The dull green of the tree beautifully complemented the bright green grass and blue-grey sky. It was such a breathtaking view; I couldn’t fight the urge to take out my phone and take a photo.

The photo I took of the coniferous tree at the Knoll.

Soon after we were called to head down the hill and meet with Megan Brakeley. After a quick round of introductions, she asked to do something I have never thought about doing before. Instead of analyzing what we saw, she proposed that we take a moment and acknowledge what we didn’t see. An observation shared was the lack of electricity. I was struck by this; I’ve been to the Knoll many times and have never realized how there is no electric light source. There was only one solar panel closer to the top of the hill to provide a source of water. 

As we shared what we couldn’t observe, I was fascinated by the lack of electricity. I learned that the only source of water was powered by a solar panel. I was left with a question regarding the solar panels lined up near the entrance to the Knoll. What do they power? It’s a question I will be able to answer soon.

Furthermore, I was also taught that the flat grass area that runs along the path up to the student garden, serves as the area where food for local animals is grown. I was staggered. I had believed that it was grassland that served no purpose. It was astonishing to think that all the times I have walked through the path, I have been walking next to what would be later consumed by local animals. As I walked back I no longer felt like it was a long and empty walk. It became a fun journey that sparked my interest in the soil, grass, and everything else the Knoll has to offer.

Deciding what is most environmentally friendly can be a tough task. It can also be extremely difficult to decide whether morality or the environment is more important. An issue that challenges such ideas is whether real fur or faux fur (plastic fur) is more sustainable. Those supporting the utilization of real fur argue that, both, the process of creating faux fur and its after effects are damaging to the environment. On the other hand, those arguing against real fur discuss the concept of morality and elaborate on how using real fur is the action of animal cruelty. Both types of furs have their pros and cons, but what is the better option?

Weighing our options.

Those in support of real fur tend to argue that the process of the creation of faux fur releases chemicals that harm the environment and that the fur itself is non biodegradable, and therefore harmful and less environmentally friendly than real animal fur. Today’s faux fabric is made up of synthetic fibres… including polyester (Bustle). The process of the creation of polyester uses an abundant amount of petroleum. Polyester alone “uses almost 70 million barrels of oil a year” (Green Living Detective). These synthetic fibers will “emit toxic waste and emissions,” (Green Living Detective). This process is detrimental to the environment because all the emitted toxins will contribute to the amount of greenhouse gases and pollution already affecting our Earth. In addition, it is heavily argued that faux fur is worse than real fur because faux fur is not biodegradable. This means that it will not break down and be reused by the environment, ending up in landfills. Both the process of creating faux fur and the durability of it contribute to the pollution of the Earth, but is real fur the answer?

Those who challenge the production and use of real fur argue that it’s morally incorrect and it’s also damaging to the environment. Real fur is mostly based on animal exploitation (The Overtake). Morality is the primary concern when it comes to the usage of fur. On PETA’s website, there’s an opening statement describing that “animals endure a life of misery, pain, frustration, and fear, and many are skinned alive” in order for their fur to be used as merchandise (The Boar). It’s morally incorrect to murder animals for their fur, who are we to possess them? The animal cruelty behind the skinning of animals is arguably worse than the environmental impacts that faux fur has. In addition, the use of fur also has a negative contribution on the environment. For example, “emissions of nitrous oxide and ammonia from mink manure are a serious issue” (Faunalytics). Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that is “300 times more harmful than carbon dioxide” (CBCNews). The farms and overbreeding of animals release many toxic chemicals into the air, creating a negative environment, just like plastic fur. 

Rabbit fur explored during FYS class on October 30, 2021.

Morality and the environment are both at stake. Deciding what is more environmentally friendly is tough. Initially, I believed that real fur was more environmentally friendly because the fur itself is biodegradable and the process does not require petroleum. However, I have learned that not only are animals brutally murdered, but the process also involves toxins going into the atmosphere; which is why I have decided for myself that fur is not the most environmentally friendly option.

Bibliography

Cutler, Lauren. The Boar, 18 Oct. 2020, https://theboar.org/2020/10/fur-fashion-morally-wrong-sustainable-alternative/. 

“Faux Fur Ruched Throws.” Pottery Barn, https://www.potterybarn.com/products/faux-fur-ruched-throw-collection/. 

Mortillaro, Nicole. “Nitrous Oxide, More Harmful to the Climate than CO2, Increasing in Atmosphere, Study Finds | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 8 Oct. 2020, https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/nitrous-oxide-climate-1.5753907. 

The Green Living Detective One day. “How Green Is It… to Wear Synthetic Fabrics?” Green Living Detective, Green Living Detective, 10 Apr. 2019, https://www.greenlivingdetective.com/how-green-is-it-to-wear-synthetic-fabrics/. 

Schneider, Desiree. “Fur Kills Animals, Faux Fur Kills the Environment. What Is Better?” Medium, The Overtake, 26 June 2019, https://medium.com/@overtake/fur-kills-animals-faux-fur-kills-the-environment-what-is-better-6580a1b7ef47. 

Sharkey, Lauren. “Is Faux Fur Bad for the Environment?” Bustle, Bustle, 10 Feb. 2020, https://www.bustle.com/p/is-faux-fur-bad-for-the-environment-21784082. 

I was unfamiliar with the Adirondack Mountains until my enrollment in Middlebury’s first year seminar course, “Adirondack Conservation.” Class discussions felt awkward and strange. Unlike others, I am unaware of all the acres of nature within the east coast – specifically speaking, the Adirondack Mountains. However, I have explored many areas within Los Angeles to the point that I have been able to identify clear distinctions and similarities between both coast’s nature.

I am from Southern California – just fifteen minutes from LAX and twenty-five from USC. Although Los Angeles is an incredibly urban city, you’ll still be able to find grand parks hiding within the millions of buildings. Although not the greatest in size or nature, the most commonly known is Griffith Park.

Griffith Park is home to the widely recognized Hollywood Sign. Every year, thousands of LA residents and tourists come and take the challenge of climbing one of Griffith Park’s mountains to touch the Hollywood Sign – which is completely illegal. After learning about Adirondack Park, I was able to compare and contrast it to LA’s Griffith Park. 

There are clear distinctions between both parks. First and foremost, the Adirondacks cover approximately 6 million acres. The distance this New York “park” covers is immense compared to Griffiths Park’s 4,511 acres. Simply knowing this, we can make the inference that the Adirondacks have a much greater variety of species and natural phenomena. In addition, in-class discussions give me the impression that those who travel through the Adirondacks are there to admire the land and the nature upon it. I’ll have to admit, I strongly believe that, over half of the people visiting Griffith Park come for the “aesthetic,” for a selfie with the Hollywood Sign, or the Griffith Observatory. Most hikers dismiss the land they are hiking because it’s usually dry and lacking greenery, as well as bodies of water. Reading Bill McKibben’s “Wandering Home,” was evidence enough to realize that the Adirondack Park is a flourishing and striking sight. There’s no need for buildings or signs when nature itself is captivating. 

Although both parks are distinct, both communities face common issues. One of them is an extensive amount of litter present. A reason why many of the people hiking Griffith Park dismiss nature may be that the park has a lot of litter making the land less appealing. I’ve traveled along Griffith’s paths many times. My hiking partners may differ, but I know that there will always be litter right by my side as I hike up the mountain. It’s an issue that seems impossible to resolve due to the thousands of people who visit the park daily. The Adirondacks are not left behind when it comes to littering. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has had to address an increase in the number of litter reports (WCAX3). It’s crucial to recognize this similarity. As more people travel along the parks’ lands, more litter is piling up.

Excessive littering will begin to harm ecosystems. Opinions over what park is the better one will differ. However, despite what coast we are on, we must unite to address littering to conserve the environment. It is unfair for parks to suffer and lose biodiversity over trash that takes no more than a few seconds to dispose of correctly. Many parks have websites addressing littering and what you can do to help. Research the parks in your area and learn about how littering is impacting them. I am a “west-coaster”, of course I’ll consider Griffith Park to be better. However, I am also a park visitor with the responsibility to look after my belongings while I hike… just like you.

Bibliography

“Adirondack Park Agency.” About the Adirondack Park, apa.ny.gov/about_park/index.html. 

Griffith Park, www.laparks.org/griffithpark/. 

Team, WCAX News. “Ny Dec Reports Increased Litter in Adirondacks.” Https://Www.wcax.com, www.wcax.com/2020/07/20/ny-environmentalists-increased-reports-of-litter-in-the-adirondacks/.