Is Veg Tan Leather Good For The Environment?

[TomBanwell]

Someone blogged about one of my steampunk masks and made the comment that it was good I used veg tan leather as it "saves the planet". I had never thought about whether veg tan was better for the environment than other leather. I'm not sure he wasn't thinking of "vegan leather", which of course I would never use. Any thoughts?

Here is the article: http://www.walyou.com/blog/2010/09/23/olifant-steamunk-mask/

[EricDobson]

I usually try not to comment on things that I can't give a definitive answer on, but this is a topic I'm extremely interested in and hope to learn a lot more about.

My understanding is that vegetable tanning is significantly better for the environment, though I don't know that it's entirely harmless. I hope someone more knowledgeable can shed some light on this. I'd love to be wrong and have someone convince me that I shouldn't be concerned about using chrome-tanned leather, but I suppose it's just as likely that someone will come along and inform me that veg is just as bad in its own ways... we'll see!

[terrymac]

There is a post in another section of the Forum touting some Italian purse maker that is using Eco Friendly leather in all their products. I thought someone must have figured out a new way of raising beef. Found out they were just talking about Veg Tanned leather. It just amazes me how many people are jumping on this bandwagon, and using it as a marketing gimmick. Guess I am just old fashioned enough to start thinking enough is enough. All you ever hear about is how bad raising cattle is on the environment from the methane gas cattle produce to how unhealthy a good steak is, but now we can have eco friendly hides. All I know is I have been wearing leather boots for over 60 years , and so far my feet haven't come down with some dreaded disease as a result from exposure to some non-eco friendly leather. I am sure that at some point in the past, tanning hides could have been a hazard to those doing the work, but I would be willing to bet in this day and age, with all the rules and regulations, it is probably no less hazardous than any other occupation. I'd also be willing to bet that as long as you don't start eating chrome tanned leather, it probably won't kill you either. I just wonder if the good people at Herman Oak and Wickett/Craig realize how they have been saving the planet all these years. JMO

Terry

Edited September 26, 2010 by terrymac

[EricDobson]

The big thing for me is, I don't want to hire other people to do something I would never do myself. If I wouldn't treat my own cows a certain way, and I wouldn't work with tanning chemicals if there was a reasonable alternative, I'm not going to ignore that I'm paying someone else to do it. You can't outsource integrity. I have no problem with raising animals for food and hide, but I think it's worth the effort to find suppliers who conduct business in an ethical way, or to use less harmful options if they're available. I looked into alternatives to leather, and there's nothing very impressive out there. Synthetics are junk and are made from petroleum, and I'm not going to get into nitpicking over which ones are slightly less harmful. That applies to leather too... if the difference between chrome and veg tan isn't huge, then I'm not going to worry about it. I'd just like to know.

Edited September 26, 2010 by EricDobson

[TwinOaks]

Yes, Veg tan leather is good for the environment. We're using up all the hides from the cattle that die. We are RECYCLING!!!!!!!!!!

[Stewart]

well now,

The question of tanned hide. Is it harmful?

As i near a certain age a good "hide tanning " did quite a bit of good.

Back than iI may have a different view about it. It king of helped out

with my manners-did improve school grades..

I guess you may say that a Veg Tan is what i got for not

eating Spinach, which my dad loved or as i believe now he did not.

For an example that some things are bad and you have to work through it.

Can tanning to reoccurance toward some one else?

Yess!!! just ask my son

I hope this answers the question of Tanning being harmfull?

I am proud of my son so as my dad was.

Joe

Edited September 26, 2010 by Stewart

[8thsinner]

This is an interesting topic for me aswell, I do market my products as eco friendly, and that we use all natural materials. Some of those materials ie steel ball bearings do cost money, heat, labor etc to produce but it's still a natural material

This also includes the use of recycled chrome tanned leathers, Ie sofa leathers.

I think it would however come down to the tanning process itself in chrome tanned leather.

The main questions that spring to mind are:

Does chrome tanning use chemicals that are more expensive to produce than veg tanning does? (eg filtering process of bark manual labor etc)

Do you require licenses to use said chemicals (licensing gives your money to an organised restriction system which comes out of tax money).

Does the waste of the veg tanned extraction system get put back in to use as mulch etc, doubling the number of uses of a single materials?

I know little about chrome tanning process of yesterday or today. but I am hoping someone can answer these.

[BIGGUNDOCTOR]

This isn't something that I have even worried about, but this is what I believe those who do may be questioning.

Chrome tanning- hazards of the chemicals used, no EPA standards in other countries where the tanning is done resulting in pollution, and possible effects in regards to health.

Veg tanning-where are the tannins coming from, possible deforestation in other countries, and is it sustainable. I saw a picture in Shop Talk of stacks, an stacks of logs that were used to make the tannins at on tannery. It actually made me think about the whole process some, just seeing that picture. Trees do not grow that fast, and they were decent sized trees.

I figure the only true eco-friendly method would be brain tanning; no chemicals, and all natural. Tha animal itself provides the tanning agents.

[abn]

This is an interesting topic, but I'm not sure I'd spend much time worrying about it. Certainly, there are chemicals that go into any sort of tanning process, and of course there's packaging and shipping that add to the environmental impact of working with leather.

However, the alternative is working with synthetic materials that lay in landfills for centuries. Keeping in mind that leather is a by-product of the meat industry -- and that it's easily bio-degradable -- helps make leatherwork a very eco-friendly endeavor.

[Hedy]

I am increasingly concerned about this subject, personally. It's tough to figure out where our leather comes from because tanneries sell globally. Does your leather come from under-regulated Third World tanneries (such as India), where cows are starved/dehydrated, have pepper rubbed in their eyes to keep them awake, have their tails broken to keep them alert, are allowed to stand for days or weeks with broken legs or worse, get moved with forklifts when they are too weak to walk, get stacked on top of one another in pens while still alive but too weak to move, get killed with dull knives, get skinned while still alive, et cet? Or China (many of same, plus blatant skinning of live animals, including for fur)? There are eye-witness/hidden-camera videos of these practices. I have seen them and been sick for weeks.

Then what about those tannery workers become ill because they are not given adequate protection from long-term exposure (check out the chromium VI risks below)? What about the pollution that results to the water table? These are difficult issues to ponder. Personally, I'm working to forge collaborations with local homesteaders to see if I can get brain-tanned hides from their animal harvests that would otherwise be left to return to the eco-system. Every now and then, our local Native-owned leather shop has a smoked moose hide or such.

I have promised myself I won't randomly buy leather without attempting to acquire something more humane first. There are suppliers who are doing it on the up-and-up, such as http://www.braintan.com/ (Traditional Tanners). You can even buy a wet hide and do the tan yourself. Buckskin, rawhide, deerhide, furs (including buffalo).

Just a look at the chromium science will give an indication:

Chromium(VI) is a danger to human health, mainly for people who work in the steel and textile industry. People who smoke tobacco also have a higher chance of exposure to chromium.

Chromium(VI) is known to cause various health effects. When it is a compound in leather products, it can cause allergic reactions, such as skin rash. After breathing it in chromium(VI) can cause nose irritations and nosebleeds.

Other health problems that are caused by chromium(VI) are:

- Skin rashes

- Upset stomachs and ulcers

- Respiratory problems

- Weakened immune systems

- Kidney and liver damage

- Alteration of genetic material

- Lung cancer

- Death

The health hazards associated with exposure to chromium are dependent on its oxidation state. The metal form (chromium as it exists in this product) is of low toxicity. The hexavalent form is toxic. Adverse effects of the hexavalent form on the skin may include ulcerations, dermatitis, and allergic skin reactions. Inhalation of hexavalent chromium compounds can result in ulceration and perforation of the mucous membranes of the nasal septum, irritation of the pharynx and larynx, asthmatic bronchitis, bronchospasms and edema. Respiratory symptoms may include coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath, and nasal itch.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Hedy

[bdt46]

Everyone seems to want to post their opinion on this thread, so I'm going to post mine! I'm sure I'll catch a lot of guff about it, but I have big shoulders, so take your best shot! Raised in Oklahoma, I have been involved in the cattle business and the leather business for a lot of years. There has to be a market for beef or there would be no reason to raise them. There are an untold number of jobs in this country that are directly or indirectly involved in the cattle industry. That is from producer to buyer to feedlot to slaughter to market to consumer and many other jobs that branch of from each of those. What about grocers and butchers and fertilizer and of course tanners! All that I can say to you people who worry about the treatment of animals and the byproducts of same is, if you are so concerned, then don't buy whatever the product or byproduct is that you are so concerned about! Especially the chrome tanned leather. Don't buy leather shoes, belts, purses, wallets or whatever, as most contain chrome tanned leather somewhere in their construction. As for me, I'll continue to use whatever I need to use to give my customers the best product that money can buy. I guess if all you people refuse to use chrome tan leather, it will just give some of us a broader market. I'm going to keep eating a steak or roast or whatever, and from the energy it give me, I'll continue to put a padded seat in my custom saddles when necessary.

[EricDobson]

One thing I've found is this organic leather website. I don't know how active this endeavor is but they talk about the issues and apparently are trying to put a system in place that is more accountable. As they point out, the major problem is that right now there is no possibility on a larger scale to track specific hides from organic, humane producer to quality tannery to delivery. I'd certainly like to see more progress made in this area.

Realistically, I think the best thing I could do is become successful using what's currently available, then use whatever influence I develop to make some changes. It'd be a lot easier to influence the building of a new system if I were using a few hundred hides per year.

We'll see.

[terrymac]

I've asked the question before of what is Eco Friendly leather, and what is its benefit to anyone, and now I am going to ask what in the world is the difference in a hide from an "organic" steer to an "non-organic" steer. I really get a chuckle when people start touting the benefits of organic whatever. It seems that all of these concerned people seem to forget that a couple of years ago when some people died from eating tainted fresh spinach, it was organic spinach. Seems like an organic fertilizer was applied to the spinach that happened to come from a place that had an outbreak of coccidosis that ended up in the organic manure that was applied to the spinach. Sorry gang, I will stick with a nitrogen pellet that has no chance of giving some damn disease that is going to kill me. These same peolple also forget hemlock is a natural and organic poison that will kill you just as dead as a commercially produced one. At some point in time, a sense of reasonableness has got to enter the equation. Go in the grocery store and you will see milk that is from dairies that have sworn from using BST to increase milk production. Only problem is, BST is a naturally occuring hormone that is found in every milk cow in the country, and that much of the increased natural milk production has been the result of selective breeding naturally increasing the amount of BST a cow can produce on its own. Didn't seem to bother anyone as long as the cow was producing it, but when someone figured out how to increase it with a shot, all hell broke loose. Sorry guys, I just tired of all the hypocrisy that is out there today. Still can't figure out what would be the difference in hides. Maybe someone more enlightened that me can shed some light. bdt 46, I am with you.

Edited October 1, 2010 by terrymac

[TexasJack]

I've been an environmental professional for over 30 years. If anyone is selling you a product as "eco-friendly", you can just as easily substitute the term, "B.S.".

Yes, some chromium compounds are toxic. Look at a bottle of multivitamins sometime. "Chromium" is listed!! Yeah. Some chromium compounds are not toxic.

Check your pocket; most nickel is very toxic. (In fact, the name comes from "Old Nick", a name for the Devil.) That doesn't mean that having a nickel in your pocket or eating with stainless steel (which contains nickel and chromium) will kill you.

If the chemical used to make something has ONE ingredient that is from nature, it can be marketed as being 'eco'. For example, take soybean oil, react it with ethylene oxide, then with ammonia, then with sodium bisulfite, and you can make an 'eco' detergent. Is the final molecule like one in nature? No. But with the current generation having schools and TV pounding them with pop science, such a product will be highly marketable. As W.C. Fields would say, "There's a sucker born every minute."

I was glad to see someone point out that leather crafters are RECYCLERS! That is exactly true.

Oh, by the way, they don't cut down forests to get tannins. They are byproducts (and usually unwanted byproducts) of pulp and paper mills. Even if the trees are harvested, NEW TREES can grow where the old ones were located! Again, REAL recycling. I spent a few years living in a state with mandatory recycling. We paid extra to have to get plastic jugs picked up. But none of my neighbors ever asked what happened to those jugs. I asked. Since there was no demand for the plastic, and since the state refused to burn them for fuel value, the jugs were piled up and then taken to the landfill and buried. With all the other trash. "Recycling Theater".

Almost any chemical process can be done without harming the environment. In Europe, Canada, Australia, and the USA, that's pretty much mandatory. Other countries? I don't think I have to spell out the answer. Even with controls in place, some companies try to take shortcuts (e.g., BP) and make everyone look bad.

Life is far too short to worry about how happy the cow was before her pelt was tanned.

[Hedy]

Is this a conversation or an argument?

[terrymac]

It is called a "Reality Check"

[8thsinner]

I'd say its a topic which could get heated is all.

I have seen no argumentative behavior, just strong opinions.

The whole "organic" thing with the breeding of cows is say is probably 75% BS however, cows that are simply well treated, feed with natural products etc will have better quality hides how could they not.

The "organic" hype over the last few years is all about money these days and restrictions have been put on the growth to ensure you stick to certain rules to be able to advertise as organic. I think those people matter less than the people who care about their cows and do look after them properly. Most likely no one even knows the difference cause it's all sold through the same people or ends up in the same tannery.

My partners, sisters ex-husband for example is a dairy farmer, he has independently been judged to have the best milk in the country. He does love his cows, to the point where he goes through a very disciplined routine, feeds them well etc. However he sells to a company like many others who just take the milk and sell it through a company name, I don't know the company name but they buy from hundreds of farmers around the country so how would the customer know the difference between any of them?

I am glad to know that veg tanning is done through recycling. It matters to me that my products damage the environment as little as possible, but like someone else said, I will use the best I can find to give my customer the best he can get. It just so happens that veg tanning makes better leather, it's an easy choice.

[mendedbowl]

I am increasingly concerned about this subject, personally. It's tough to figure out where our leather comes from because tanneries sell globally. Does your leather come from under-regulated Third World tanneries (such as India), where cows are starved/dehydrated, have pepper rubbed in their eyes to keep them awake, have their tails broken to keep them alert, are allowed to stand for days or weeks with broken legs or worse, get moved with forklifts when they are too weak to walk, get stacked on top of one another in pens while still alive but too weak to move, get killed with dull knives, get skinned while still alive, et cet? Or China (many of same, plus blatant skinning of live animals, including for fur)? There are eye-witness/hidden-camera videos of these practices. I have seen them and been sick for weeks.

Then what about those tannery workers become ill because they are not given adequate protection from long-term exposure (check out the chromium VI risks below)? What about the pollution that results to the water table? These are difficult issues to ponder. Personally, I'm working to forge collaborations with local homesteaders to see if I can get brain-tanned hides from their animal harvests that would otherwise be left to return to the eco-system. Every now and then, our local Native-owned leather shop has a smoked moose hide or such.

I have promised myself I won't randomly buy leather without attempting to acquire something more humane first. There are suppliers who are doing it on the up-and-up, such as http://www.braintan.com/ (Traditional Tanners). You can even buy a wet hide and do the tan yourself. Buckskin, rawhide, deerhide, furs (including buffalo).

Just a look at the chromium science will give an indication:

Chromium(VI) is a danger to human health, mainly for people who work in the steel and textile industry. People who smoke tobacco also have a higher chance of exposure to chromium.

Chromium(VI) is known to cause various health effects. When it is a compound in leather products, it can cause allergic reactions, such as skin rash. After breathing it in chromium(VI) can cause nose irritations and nosebleeds.

Other health problems that are caused by chromium(VI) are:

- Skin rashes

- Upset stomachs and ulcers

- Respiratory problems

- Weakened immune systems

- Kidney and liver damage

- Alteration of genetic material

- Lung cancer

- Death

The health hazards associated with exposure to chromium are dependent on its oxidation state. The metal form (chromium as it exists in this product) is of low toxicity. The hexavalent form is toxic. Adverse effects of the hexavalent form on the skin may include ulcerations, dermatitis, and allergic skin reactions. Inhalation of hexavalent chromium compounds can result in ulceration and perforation of the mucous membranes of the nasal septum, irritation of the pharynx and larynx, asthmatic bronchitis, bronchospasms and edema. Respiratory symptoms may include coughing and wheezing, shortness of breath, and nasal itch.

can you please give links to videos you mentioned and credible documentation (not the PETA website) to support your statements about the treatment of cattle in India? those practices (starvation and dehydration) are not beneficial for producing better meat for the market or better hides for the tannery, so it's hard to believe that kind of behavior is widespread. What would be the motivation for that type of treatment? After all, cattle are venerated by Hindus in India, and it's illegal to slaughter them in almost all of the states of the Indian union.

Also can you please tell how many cases have been documented of tannery workers becoming ill from long term exposure at work?

Not trying to argue. Just asking for some facts, and some rational thinking.

ken

[bdt46]

As I said in an earlier post, that like 8thsinners family, I was for many years in the cattle and leather business. I am still a fulltime saddle maker. All the years I owned cattle, they were a top priority in being taken well care of. For most people the cows are like a member of their family. Their health and welfare is many times put above the owners! Agreed, some people don't take care of their animals, and they usually don't last long in the business. I never worried about using leather from cows that were not taken care of because those hides are usually culled out for whatever reason. The Lowest grade of hides, TANNERY RUN, will show lots of blemises such as tick holes, scars, brands etc. I never use this grade of hide anyway. I don't thinkthat I'm being argumentative, I am just trying to be fair in my opinion! I would also like to see some of the documentation on the earlier mentioned abuses. Not the PETA propaganda, but any real documentation! Hope I don't offend anyone, just expressing my opinion!

[imstephenjones]

I see this is a very old post, but I'd love to let in on some valuable information that I believe was misconstrued in this feed.

The question was: Is veg tan good for the environment?

Actually, to my dismay, it is not. But no method of tanning leather is. When you look at what the hide goes through (soaking, fleshing, un-hairing and liming, bating, pickling, splitting, shaving, neutralizing, retaining, drum dying, fat liquoring, etc.) you see that there are a lot of steps and a lot of chemicals used to complete each step.

These chemicals are processed through water treatment facilities with chlorine and other harmful chemicals that are let out into a very tender eco-system. They strip the protectant layers from fish, plants, and even cause mutations in aquatic. It's pretty crazy when you get down to the whole process.

The biggest thing I want to note is that chrome tanning is not worse than vegetable tanning. It is actually better for the environment as a whole. For the 55,000 tons of Mimosa tannins used in harvested annually it takes 33,000,000 gallons of water to process and 145 acres of land. This is from the Mimosa, mind you, the least harvested for it's tannins.

To harvest Chromium III (not to be confused with Chromium VI - A known carcinogen and very dangerous material that has been banned for any type of use) it takes very little resource. NOTE: Carcinogen causes caner.

There is also a difference in the consumption levels of each. Tannins come from very few species of trees. The tannins are actually in the trees to protect it from various insects within their ecosystem by producing a nasty taste. Being that there are very few species of trees usable for this type of tannin for the tanning process we are over-consuming a resource that will not last us another few centuries at the rate we are currently going. On the other hand Chromium III (again, not harmful to humans, wildlife or the environment) has a reserve to last us indefinitely. Removing a species of trees that make up a complex eco-system is harmful. Very, very harmful.

There was an article posted in the New York Times some years ago that talked about a ship that was found at the bottom of the sea. This ship took sale in 1786 and was carrying vegetable tanned leather and hemp. When the divers found the ship all they found was the bell and vegetable tanned leather. There were also veg tanned sandals found buried from the Tutankhamen, which were over 3,000 years old. Chrome tanned pieces are known to biodegrade back into the earth providing nutrients to the ecosystem. Veg tan, on the other hand, is very resilient and useless after it's useful lifespan.

I used to be an advocate for veg-tanned leathers because of the misleading hype about it. Now I am more interested in chromium tanned leather, as it serves as a less harmful alternative for the overall eco-system we call home and can be improved upon to create a healthier system overall.

I hope this cleared up some of the muddy waters!

[BAD HIDE]

It's an old post, but curiously relevant. Old hands might not give a shit, but as an environmentally conscious newcomer, I kinda do.

Kinda.

Stephen, you bring up some interesting points. I don't know how Cr III is obtained, but it's some sort of chemistry mumbo jumbo mixed with mining and whatnot - Oak bark is pretty damn simple. Get bark, grind it, soak it. Tannins are found throughout the plant biosphere, but there's only a few species ideal for industrialized tannin production, Mimosa being one. But trees grow back. Anything on an aggressively exponential scale is going to be insanely detrimental to the environment and eventually exhaust resources, but modern forest management has only improved conservation and provided higher yields. 200 or 3000 year old leather doesn't bother me, conditions were right for that material to resist decay. There's nothing in that material that wasn't natural. We haven't seen 3000 year old chrome tan, but given the same or more ideal conditions for that tannage, we can probably assume the same results. Neither of which is near the guaranteed 1000+ year decomposition cycles of synthetics like vinyl and plastics. Water consumption and treatment is a problem with all tanneries, but I can only assume the ones operating on US soil are far more responsible than their overseas counterparts. Horween is practically in downtown Chicago for Pete's sake.

The way it stands right now, 95% of the world's leather is chromium tanned, and a majority of that comes from poorly regulated countries. Even buying chrome tan creeps me out a bit because, unless it's Horween, retailers do not list list where they get it from. Veg tan can be a more natural and sustainable product if done on the right scale and regulated properly, but it also can be just as destructive if managed poorly or operating on an unsustainable scale.

I don't want to ruin this planet for my kids, but I know by even having this computer, I'm part of the problem choking our planet into an unsustainable mess. I use what's best for the job and try to order the most from the devil I know - Horween and Herman Oak - companies known for quality and consciousness. I also lean towards using leathers that are tanned in an old fashioned and natural way, something I could even do myself if I had the acreage and willingness to deal with the smell. I sorta give a shit, but since I also see a big chunk of unsustainability in our daily lives, I kinda just wanna use the good stuff and not worry about it.

[Tesla Ranger]

It is a topic as complicated as it is relevant. I'd like to thank the last two posters for offering some clear data on the issue. Tanning is a very resource intensive series of processes with a long array of byproducts, many of which are toxic well before you get to the point of using tannins or chromium. It's difficult for me to envision any tanning process that is ecologically neutral, much less "eco-friendly" (which, to be fair, is usually a misleading term). When it was done on a relatively small scale in geographically sparse areas the environment could generally withstand the impact (provided over hunting wasn't an issue). The industrial revolution, among a great many other things, permitted the process to be done on a far more concentrated and massive scale. In some ways this has been beneficial (both for the environment and for humanity), and in some ways it hasn't. These improvements resulted in far more pollutants being concentrated in specific areas but they also allowed for potentially less harmful processes (such as chrome tanning).

The proverbial elephant in the room is that there's only so much leather for us to work with as a byproduct of how massive the cattle industry has grown. The USDA estimates that there are somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 billion (that's 1,500,000,000) cattle currently sharing the planet with us and every other organism. This number is absurdly higher than what the planet could naturally sustain, or even what we could sustain prior to the invention of synthetic fertilizers (itself an interesting if controversial topic). As the human population has grown (which it's been doing at a rate I can only describe as stupendous since the industrial revolution) the organisms we cultivate have grown with us. Both these numbers have grown far larger than the natural environment could ever sustain and are only possible due to advances like synthetic fertilizers. I suppose it's up to the reader whether that itself is a net positive or not. All these cattle do create a problem in the global environment. Aside from the swaths of land that have been re-purposed for their care and maintenance and the generally abysmal state of "corporate farming", cows happen to release a fair deal of methane. This is a byproduct of their ruminant digestive systems. It isn't anything new or undiscovered and when there were only a few million cattle the environment could safely absorb that amount of methane. That's no longer the case when we've increased the number of cattle so exponentially. The agricultural industry is firmly seated along with energy production and mass manufacturing as the biggest causes of climate change.

The good news (and there is good news) is that it is that of the three it is the one with the best potential for innovation. An excellent example of this are several livestock farms in the US and UK (and possibly elsewhere) that use the methane generated by their cattle to generate their own power. Rather than release that methane into the atmosphere they recapture it to be energy-independant. Several of them wind up creating an energy positive, meaning they're making more electricity than their using, and they're paid for that energy when it's added to the power grid. This creates an obvious financial incentive for relatively small farmers (I haven't heard of any corporate farms making use of this, but hopefully they are) to make this change.

In the end, whether or not something is good, indifferent, or bad for the global ecosystem (which includes us, coincidentally) is a terribly complicated topic. Many of the conclusions seem to rely on personal ethics and philosophy as much as science. Is it better to have a larger human population despite the burden it places on the planet? Technology itself is, by its very definition, just a tool but have we as a species used it to better or worsen our planet on a whole? Like many other questions, we as a species are still deciding the answers today. The topic has become tied up in money and politics (on both sides, though one side far more than the other) which has resulted in it only becoming more complicated. I still think we each have to come to own opinions on these topics, hopefully after a careful review of the process with as little hyperbole as possible.

For me personally it underscores that the material I'm working with was at one point a living thing's skin. That organism may not have died just so I could use its skin to make a bag or some coasters, but it's still true that I wouldn't have that material if not for it's death. So, and this may be just for me, it feels important that I should keep that in mind and try to utilize that material to the best of my ability. I should employ it as efficiently and expertly as possible, regardless of what it is I'm producing. The industry isn't going to change much based on any action I might take and there are a great many unsustainable practices I take advantage of on a daily basis. But that only makes it more important that I be aware of the What, the Where, the How, and the Why so I be responsible in my daily life. Our ancestors, especially when they lived closer to their sources of food, knew the value of sustainability, of not damaging the land. I believe it's all the more important to conserve that tradition and mentality in a time when a global economy and technology combine to keep our food sources out of sight and out of mind.

[mojave]

Why worry about veg. tan leather and the environment, solar fields and wind generators do more damage to the environment, land, and wildlife than any dried leather. The solar field near Las Vagas, NV. has killed all wildlife in that area. Are you wanting the EPA soldiers to regulate the leather industry? If so, keep writing, their reading.

That all I have to say about that.