What's new

How do they harvest badger bristles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would a carnivore (which the badger is) create destroy crops?
Unlike its American counterpart, the Eurasian badger is omnivorous. Not only do they feed on crops, they uproot them as well.

A reasonable assertion, but I for one am not convinced by this argument. I bet that they get more money for the pelt than the food is worth to them. The badgers are probably killed for the pelt and they make use of the meat as food so as not to waste (the meat is the by product), not the other way around.
With this I tend to agree.
Seriously, given the choice, wouldn't you rather have steak, lamb shank or pork belly rather than roast badger? The vast majority of civilized humans only eat herbivorous animals (cows, pigs, sheep) and not carnivorous animals (cats, dogs, badgers)...
Key words there being "given the choice". Rural China is very poor, so having fillet mignon my not be an option.
Besides, we are talking about China. They eat many things that we don't. Don't forget, in some Asian countries like Korea, dog is considered a delicacy.
 
I'm confused...

I thought this was supposed to be a thread on how the bristles of a badger were harvested and not to make any determinations regarding whether it was an ethical decision to buy a badger brush, have a badger brush, talk about a badger brush, or look at a badger brush... or not.

Come on, guys. Step back. If you want to eulogize the demise of a badger, just don't buy one of the brushes and quit preaching to the multitude of guys on this forum who aren't going to agree with you. I find the usual unenlightened false claims of "caring about our planet" a mite disingenuous. Just a mite. That means not a lot, but more than a tiny... and less than a little.

I hate to break this to some of you, but an animal does not know whether it died for its meat, its hide, its pecking order in the food chain, or how good it looks hanging on the wall. A badger is no more or no less important than a cow, a pig, a goat, a cockatoo, or a guppy. Should animals be respected? Yes. Should they be worshiped? No.

So, unless you don't eat meat or fish at all, you wouldn't wear or make use of any leather products including shoes-belts-wallets-cosmetics, and it's not an endangered species, then just hush up already.

And if you still have a valid complaint after all those clarifications, why in the world are you hanging out with a bunch of boys with whom you have nothing in common? :confused:

I'm thinkin' you could always start your own forum and call it something like...

Alternative Lifestyles...

Of course, in doing that you could possibly run the risk of being confused with a different group altogether. :biggrin: That's a joke, son, I say, thats' a joke. (I don't care who you are, that's funny right there - Larry the Cable Guy)
 
The vast majority of civilized humans only eat herbivorous animals (cows, pigs, sheep) and not carnivorous animals (cats, dogs, badgers)...

Sorry, but that's where you are incorrect...China has the Vastest Majority of Civilized Humans on Earth at 3.4 BILLION, and they eat Cats, Dogs, and yes, Badgers. It is actually a WESTERN custom to only eat Herbivores, not the other way around. Oh, and BTW Asian countries, as a whole, make up 4.4 BILLION people of the Total World population of just under 5.5 Billion. That means that 3/4 of the people in the entire world live in Asian countries.
 
A reasonable assertion, but I for one am not convinced by this argument. I bet that they get more money for the pelt than the food is worth to them. The badgers are probably killed for the pelt and they make use of the meat as food so as not to waste (the meat is the by product), not the other way around.

Seriously, given the choice, wouldn't you rather have steak, lamb shank or pork belly rather than roast badger? The vast majority of civilized humans only eat herbivorous animals (cows, pigs, sheep) and not carnivorous animals (cats, dogs, badgers)...

Why do you believe the meat isn't just as, if not more, important than the money generated by selling the hides? As ogopogo pointed out, I don't think rural Chinese are wealthy enough to ignore a free food source. Without anyone actually going to China and observing, this is all speculation. However, I don't think anyone will say Chinese farmers are well off, and personally, if I am trying to keep myself from starving, I'll eat anything that will keep me alive.

As for whether or not I, or you for that matter, wouldn't like traditional American meats more than badger, who knows? I've never eaten badger, have you? It could be absolutely delicious. If you asked me five years ago would I like to eat frog legs, I'd have said hell no. Now, I just wish there was a place around here serving them.

Your use of the word civilized leads me to believe that you are saying that anyone who shares your views of the world is correct, and anyone who doesn't, well, they're not civilized so who cares? This seems especially so since you list cats and dogs as other carnivores, from which China has gained some measure of notoriety for eating. I wonder if it's easier to disregard someone's point of view if you can think of them as uncivilized savages.

The vast majority of civilized humans eat whatever will sustain them, and it is significantly easier, or perhaps only possible, to farm herbivores rather than carnivores. If it were possible to mass produce meat from carnivores, the American diet would most likely be very different from what it is now.
 
I'm confused...

I thought this was supposed to be a thread on how the bristles of a badger were harvested and not to make any determinations regarding whether it was an ethical decision to buy a badger brush, have a badger brush, talk about a badger brush, or look at a badger brush... or not.

If you look at the post that began this thread, you will probably glean that it was intended to determine the fate of the badgers, and that the discussion was intended to address ethics from the start.
 
Why do you believe the meat isn't just as, if not more, important than the money generated by selling the hides? As ogopogo pointed out, I don't think rural Chinese are wealthy enough to ignore a free food source. Without anyone actually going to China and observing, this is all speculation. However, I don't think anyone will say Chinese farmers are well off, and personally, if I am trying to keep myself from starving, I'll eat anything that will keep me alive.

As for whether or not I, or you for that matter, wouldn't like traditional American meats more than badger, who knows? I've never eaten badger, have you? It could be absolutely delicious. If you asked me five years ago would I like to eat frog legs, I'd have said hell no. Now, I just wish there was a place around here serving them.

Your use of the word civilized leads me to believe that you are saying that anyone who shares your views of the world is correct, and anyone who doesn't, well, they're not civilized so who cares? This seems especially so since you list cats and dogs as other carnivores, from which China has gained some measure of notoriety for eating. I wonder if it's easier to disregard someone's point of view if you can think of them as uncivilized savages.

The vast majority of civilized humans eat whatever will sustain them, and it is significantly easier, or perhaps only possible, to farm herbivores rather than carnivores. If it were possible to mass produce meat from carnivores, the American diet would most likely be very different from what it is now.
I think that what crosses the farmers mind is something more like, "That critter is #&6$ing with my crops/livestock/etc..."

That's what would be crossing mine anyway. Of course, thats not to say they scoff at the reward of the pelt or that they wouldn't use the meat. But I think the perspective of the farmer with a gun is to protect what he already has rather than to go digging for gold in a badgers den. But only the farmer could truly say.
 
Your use of the word civilized leads me to believe that you are saying that anyone who shares your views of the world is correct, and anyone who doesn't, well, they're not civilized so who cares?
My use of the word civilized was not meant to mean this at all. In fact, the statement should have been written without that word in it. I'm no Shakespeare and I'll be the first to admit it!

Clearly this "discussion" is getting far to heated for a shaving forum. I appologize for making my comments which many of you are quite passionate about so I'm going to remove my posts. I'm here to talk about shaving, after all, not badger wellfare.
 
If you look at the post that began this thread, you will probably glean that it was intended to determine the fate of the badgers, and that the discussion was intended to address ethics from the start.
You and I GLEAN different things. From his quote from that very first post,
...but does anybody know the common procedure for people seeking to make shaving brushes to get hair from badgers?
I actually gleaned from that part of his sentence that he was curious as to how the hair got from the badger to the socket on the brush.

I was curious as well, which is why I started reading the thread. I've already heard every argument there is regarding the use of animals as food/clothing and I'm not interested in reading the worn-out script again. Since you are the Zen guy who can clearly deduce a writer's intent from words that don't seem to match your assessment, I'll pass on the rest of this discussion and start my own.
 
Clearly this "discussion" is getting far to heated for a shaving forum. I appologize for making my comments which many of you are quite passionate about so I'm going to remove my posts. I'm here to talk about shaving, after all, not badger wellfare.

Bravo to Siv for ending the argument peacefully.
 
I was curious as well, which is why I started reading the thread. I've already heard every argument there is regarding the use of animals as food/clothing and I'm not interested in reading the worn-out script again. Since you are the Zen guy who can clearly deduce a writer's intent from words that don't seem to match your assessment, I'll pass on the rest of this discussion and start my own.

I didn't mean to upset you, Bill.

It just seems that the original poster is concerned about ethics because he mentions synthetic brushes and asks about the fate of the badgers in addition to what you've quoted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom