Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is logging forests for rulebooks and Codices okay?
Is using the last non-regenerative oil reserves for synthetic brushes (and plastic toy soldiers) okay?

nkelsch wrote:
Not really. Tools made from animals built civilization. Fur to wear may be deemed cruel, but I see a distinct difference for animal byproducts being used for tools. One could hardly call a 'brush' one of the first writing tools used in civilization 'cruel'. I also don't begrudge people who had to survive in Siberia to cover thier little pink skins in animal skins to survive. It also doesn't help that the Siberian weasel is a pest, destructive to livestock and crops and is overly destructive as it kills more than it eats opposed to only what it needs.

Sure fashion furs of rare animals may be cruel, but there is a million shades of grey as this issue is hardly black and white unless you live a very vegan lifestyle... (which I respect people who do so. It is the inconsistent, selective outrage, middle of the road people who I find disingenuous)

Not to mention the Siberian weasel is classified on the list of 'least concern' along with cockroaches, pigeons, mosquitoes and humans as species which are on the verge of going extinct.

I have no problem using brushes as it is a tool used by civilization, and it is not exploiting an endangered animal.

Good to see you are interested in discussing this in an adult & civil manner, but I do disagree for several reasons.

People in Siberia, indians and other primitives killing animals to survive and using them whole (bones, skin/fur)... perfectly fine. These people usually have the utmost respect for nature and treat it as such, don't take more than they need, etc. I actually have a lot of respect for that.

Breeding whatever animal under bad circumstance, treating it like throw-away things while there are perfectly good alternatives.... inexcusable.

Nowadays, in general we don't need any tools made from animals anymore (there might be exceptions). We view ourselves as "civilized", in other words not primitives anymore. We don't need to use bone pens anymore either, do we? We have alternatives. Steel and metal instead of bones. Synthetics instead of hair or skin.
I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.
And whether or not something is classified as least likely to become extinct also doesn't make in any different to me. It doesn't suddenly make it okay to abuse it and make it suffer for our pleasure-stuff while, again, we don't have to because we have alternatives.

*Because of its great expense, sable fur is typically integrated into various clothes fashions: to decorate collars, sleeves, hems and hats (see, for example the shtreimel). The so-called Kolinsky sable-hair brushes used for watercolor or oil painting are not manufactured from sable hair, but from that of the Siberian weasel.*

http://ask.metafilter.com/143049/Are-they-killing-sables-to-make-my-brushes

Nice little article with links and stuff.


In my opinion, the fact that you are throwing away your brushes means nothing. Technicaly you already violated your morals by using them for some odd years. If your were really this concerned about organic brushes you would have done research before hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
*It's actually a weasel that's being killed harvested. The kolinsky is a Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica), not the far more expensive true sable. And these weasels need killing, as they are infamous among the Chinese for stealing souls.*

It's a bit naive to think they carefully shave them before releasing them into the wild. Of course they kill them, because they're weasels and mostly no one cares.

Unfortunately synthetic brushes tend not to have the same qualities as real hair brushes and theres little awareness or interest in changing the practices of the brush industry. There are probably animal based products in some paints too, fats and oils, etc.

 TBD wrote:
Reading the description of the new Edge Paints set, I noticed the brush included in that set is made with Sable hair. After seeing that, I went over to the brush section of GW's site and found out most of their brushes are in fact made with (Kolinsky) Sable hair.

It is an understatement to say that I now feel quite stupid for never checking that out before, because I am very VERY much opposed to fur products. There is a significant difference between side products of the meat industry (whatever I and anyone else may think of that is an entirely different discussion), and a fur industry that is simply nothing more than a completely unnecessary, completely unethical & disgusting form of animal cruelty.

So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.

The (obvious) point of this thread:

I can imagine there are more gamers/hobbyists out there who aren't aware of this fact, but who do care about this.

Also, any suggestions for good quality alternative brushes are of course welcome.

If you are serious, if this is not a trolling thread, you need help. All I can say.

You do realize, they make human hair wigs without killing people? Just like they make sable hair brushes without killing the horses.

Compound this by the fact, you are a hypocrite to your own point and now you've actually not only encouraged what you consider 'animal cruelty' but also spit on that cruelty and called it all for naught by throwing away your brushes.

So essentially?

You are WORSE than the so called animal cruelty you are against. How does that feel?

But...surely you throwing away these brushes made out of animal hair means that they were shaved/whateva for nothing? You not buying anymore brushes wont make them change sources, as you will be one of like two people doing this. -_-

...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.

the internet.

I'm pretty sure there are bigger worries in the world than where the hair for my paint brushes comes from. However:

[quote=Midnightdeathblade 489536 4989753 76d4d2c12088b013e2db8e2a276b5c6b.jpgTechnicaly you already violated your morals by using them for some odd years.

 TBD wrote:

I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.

As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel
The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.

rigeld2 wrote:

 TBD wrote:

I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.

As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel
The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.

This. A 2 minute search on Google would have told you that and this whole mess could have been avoided.

But then there'd be no windmills to tilt at!

Well, you've certainly raised a point I'd not even considered before.

However it is only the tail hairs that are used in brushes, with the rest of the pelt used for other purposes. I suspect that a total worldwide boycott by all artists on kolinsky brushes would still result in the fur being collected with very little impact as its essentially a by product.

 IdentifyZero wrote:
[If you are serious, if this is not a trolling thread, you need help. All I can say.

You do realize, they make human hair wigs without killing people? Just like they make sable hair brushes without killing the horses.

Compound this by the fact, you are a hypocrite to your own point and now you've actually not only encouraged what you consider 'animal cruelty' but also spit on that cruelty and called it all for naught by throwing away your brushes.

So essentially?

You are WORSE than the so called animal cruelty you are against. How does that feel?

This is without a doubt the dumbest, most moronic response I have read in a while.

I could respond in kind, but it is probably better that Ijust pity you instead.

Being a toughguy on the internet is easy. It would be great if we ever met in person and you had the balls to repeat this to my face. Let us see how good that would end for you

It's always interesting watching people try to make rational arguments to convince someone to change an entirely emotional decision.

While I respect the decision to avoid making use of products that are the result of farmed animals, I would hope that discovering the truth about where the brush fibers actually comes from would change your mind and encourage you to returning to using byproducts of hunting (renewable) vermin rather than using (non-renewable) petroleum products.

 Testify wrote:
...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.

the internet.

The OP hasn't supported his statements that the animals are tortured or killed for the fur, so it comes across as someone who is whining that sheep are shaved for wool. Yes, he might be correct, but then animals are killed for many other reasons as well so unless there is a great amount of main/suffering it doesn't stand out as more concerning than other animal deaths for most people.

When I worked for the Evil Empire that is GW one of my colleagues had a box of teddy bears and other random toys left by shoppers. If you want to talk about cruelty and sadism you should've seen the contents of that box... Makes the movies Saw and Hostel look Family Friendly... So the fact that they ruthlessly kill and shave small rodents on the steppes wouldn't surprise me... But to pick them out as a specific company is a little pointed you could as easily have said Paintbrush Manufacturers contribute to unneccessary animal cruelty...

 Testify wrote:
...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.

the internet.

It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.

I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.

If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.

 snooggums wrote:

 Testify wrote:
...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.

the internet.

The OP hasn't supported his statements that the animals are tortured or killed for the fur, so it comes across as someone who is whining that sheep are shaved for wool. Yes, he might be correct, but then animals are killed for many other reasons as well so unless there is a great amount of main/suffering it doesn't stand out as more concerning than other animal deaths for most people.

This again.

It's the kind of ill-informed scaremongering tactics used by PETA and the ALF etc. to try and get people to join their cause.

 TBD wrote:

 Testify wrote:
...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.

the internet.

It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.

I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.

If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.

So you're going to ignore the fact that you're wrong about these brushes?
The animals are hunted because they're pests. They are not bred on farms.
Te harvesting of the fur is a side effect.

Well, most parts of such creatures are actually used:
- We don't much use bones for glue anymore nowadays I believe, though that might be different in other parts of the world; I know I use hide/bone glue for instrument repair regularly and it has to come from somewhere
- edible meat is *always* used. If not for human consumption (and believe it, that sausage which doesn't state in big shiny letters just what it's made of? Yeah, that can have quite varied contents in some parts of the - western, even - world) then surely it can be ground up and used as a component for animal food (popular for dog/cat feed: "contains real wildstock" as if your pet would really taste the difference after processing) or something like that.
- pelts, as said, are quite pricey actually.
(this by now is ~80% of a creature's live weight at least and they might have purposes for the rest, I'm not sure with such small creatures)

Then there's the "hey many of these are hunted as pests" argument and the whole "suffering" argument which is way, way overstated (both of which I actually could care less for; I have a *distinct* opinion about animal rights activists etc but since I have a personal rule against trying to get into a flamewar on dakka more than 3 times in two days I'll refrain from now.
... maybe tomorrow ).

 TBD wrote:


So my current GW brushes will go straight into the garbage bin where they belong, and I'll have to find alternative cruelty free brushes. I am rather appalled that GW turns out to contribute to animal cruelty in this way when cruelty free alternatives should be available.

Wow, you can resurrect dead weasels by tossing paint brushes into a garbage can?

Don't forget the oxen, drybrushes are made using oxen hair, or don't they count because they are not cute and fluffy?

 TBD wrote:

 Testify wrote:
...this is a terrible thread. Dude says he doesn't like animal cruelty going into making paintbrushes and is essentially trolled and flamed by people mocking the very notion of feeling sympathy for animals.

the internet.

It isn't the thread, it is the responses made in it.

I am aware the world is inhabited by uncaring simpletons mostly.

If the result of this thread is that 1 person is enlightened against 100 of these Homo Heidelbergensis types, then I consider it a succes already.

While I do respect your convictions, I'd like to point out that that the thread was started by you not understanding the difference betweeen Kolinsky sable and actual sable hair. I'd hope you're the one who got enlightened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolinsky_sable-hair_brush


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
Don't forget the oxen, drybrushes are made using oxen hair, or don't they count because they are not cute and fluffy?

While it was kind of creepy watching a guy get pissed off that we kept swatting flies, it is quite rare to run into someone who prioritizes preventing animal cruelty that applies it evenly across the entire animal kingdom.

Besides, trees don't scream when we kill them with axes.

These 'White Sable' are synthetic from all accounts. I'm thinking of ordering some myself as I'm against fur farming in general.


http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Simmons-Short-Handled-White-Brushes/dp/B000BHN5Z4/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1353173509&sr=8-23&keywords=robert+simmons+white+sable+brushes

So much fail in this tread, Internet always make for great amusment whenever these things are brougt up.

This is pretty much the same reason I don't have an I-Pad/I-Phone because of the exploitation of the workers who make these luxury items who get paid very little compared to the retail cost of the product.... Oh and also the fact I can't afford those self same products... Everytime I travel, eat, wear clothing, buy products of almost any kind somehow, somewhere, somewhen, someone or something is being exploited/damaged/harmed or killed for me to have that item. I could rail on but I think my point is made there are consequences to everything we purchase... You have to weigh up whether your moral compass can deal with those consequences. Thats your choice, don't expect everyone else to share your moral compass...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
These 'White Sable' are synthetic from all accounts. I'm thinking of ordering some myself as I'm against fur farming in general.


http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Simmons-Short-Handled-White-Brushes/dp/B000BHN5Z4/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1353173509&sr=8-23&keywords=robert+simmons+white+sable+brushes

Kolinsky sable hair comes from wild animals that are hunted because attempts to domesticate them enough to farm them have failed spectacularly.

rigeld2 wrote:

 TBD wrote:

I'm not sure to what extent the Siberian Weasel is considered a pest, but that is not where these brushes come from. They are made of farmed animals.

As someone else said, this is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Weasel
The hairs are harvested from animals caught (and killed) in the wild. Siberian weasels do not live in breeding farms.

I wish it was incorrect, but it really isn't.

Maybe that is where they get part of the hair too, but hair of farmed animals is also definitely used. You tell me which came from where?

The whole "this animal is a pest anyway" story isn't so clear cut either as long as there are commercial intersts involved, as always.

You are free to have your own definition of 'cruel' as there is by no means a universally correct definition. Just be prepared if you try to buy 'cruelty free' brushes, you may find that almost all brushes labeled as such are not going to meet your standards because 'the industry' doesn't consider farm-raised cruelty the same way trapping is. If you are not careful you may end up buying some cruelty free brushes which are made the same way as your devil GW brushes.

If you are going to apply a consistent vegan standard which all animal slavery or death is unacceptable, then you need to get synthetic brushes which are substandard and won't be as good.

If you are honest about your attitude and the plight of farm-raised Siberian weasals, I highly recommend checking out PETA's website and aligning your life values because if you didn't know animal-hair brushes were cruel, then prepare to find out a majority of your daily existence and civilization as a whole still to this day exists on the exploitation of animals as a natural resource.

Personally I feel recreational horse riding is cruel, but I am fine with 'working animals' in roles where they still serve a purpose. I know my beliefs are inconsistent and people see them as stupid, but I am fine with that. If you want to throw away brushes because some farm-raised weasels are killed, go for it.

Otherwise, this just seems like this week's "let's hate GW" thread.