Slaughter Free Leather Not Selling As Expected

[Denise]

We make our own rawhide to cover saddle trees with, and from experience, we know that age, sex and breed all play a part in what a hide is like. Hides from younger animals (yearling bulls for example), even if they are as big, aren't as thick or as firm as from older animals. Cows have thinner belies than bulls do even if the hide over the backbone is as thick. When we get a Hereford hide, it is always thicker than a similar size of other breeds. We have used the occasional dairy hide from local people who slaughter a steer for their own consumption. Definitely thinner than a beef hide of similar age and size. But I knew that from another experience. When I was working as a vet, we had a really large Holstein heifer come in with calving problems. I ended up doing a C-section to get the calf - my one and only on a dairy cow. When I started the incision I used the same amount of pressure I'd been using to cut the skin on all the beef cows I'd done surgery on that spring. Went through the skin, all four layers of muscle, the peritoneum and fortunately not quite all the way through the rumen wall. Yup, they've got thinner hides all right!! I reajusted the amount of pressure for the rest of the incision. Got a live calf and the heifer went on to do well in their milking string too!

[mendedbowl]

Reading some of the unwarranted assertions that have been posted in this thread ( and a few others ), makes me wonder how many members of PETA have joined LW. They do love their infiltration "undercover" work.

ken

[UKRay]

Reading some of the unwarranted assertions that have been posted in this thread ( and a few others ), makes me wonder how many members of PETA have joined LW. They do love their infiltration "undercover" work.

ken

I'm not sure I understand you, Ken. Want to explain?

Ray

[roo4u]

the members of peta, not the general membership who just think they are helping animals, but the leadership, they work very carefully from behind the scenes to impose their beliefs on others...getting legislation passed, even influencing what is taught in schools. the money from peta, from all those animal lovers, is funneled into an outfit called ALF the animal liberation front. alf is a terrorist group that is organized into cells and they are heavily armed. they have been raided a few times and each time the feds found large stashes of weapons. all those lab raids were animals were turned loose and facilities were destroyed thats what peta pays for. the founding leaders of peta also formed alf...they are ira trained terrorists that originally formed in the uk in an attempt to disrupt the british economy. now they are doing the same thing in this country.

[mendedbowl]

I'm not sure I understand you, Ken. Want to explain?

Ray

Ray, I'm happy to explain my comment, or at least attempt to do so. I'm not sure which part you didn't understand. Was it the first part about "unwarranted assertions" posted within this thread? If so, then I would say that there have been a few people make untruthful statements about how the beef, dairy, and leather industries work (whether they believed them to be true or not I can't say). Those misunderstandings have already been addressed above by capable and professional people who have first hand knowledge about actual practices within those industries. If that part is still unclear, I can only ask that you please read the thread again.

Or did you misunderstand the part where I wondered how many members of PETA had joined LW? That's about as clear as I can think to say it, so I can only say it again. I wonder how many members of PETA have joined Leatherworker.net.

Maybe an analogy will help:

If I hear mooing in my back yard, it is only logical that I will wonder if cows have somehow found their way into my back yard. If the same "mooing" that is heard from members of PETA begins to show up in LW forums it is only logical to wonder if PETA members have wandered into the LW forums.

The last part of my comment was that PETA loves to do undercover work. They themselves call them "undercover investigations". Their investigators have no problem bending the truth and pretending to be someone they're not, telling lies so that they can gain entrance into universities and private locations for the purpose of their "investigation" work. Although I hate to direct anyone to their website, that's about the most direct way to prove my statement. If you doubt that PETA loves to use undercover investigation videos to spread their propaganda, just go and look. They seem to be proud of them.

PETA hates the leather industry. They don't believe in using leather or fur from any animal for any reason. Their view is if you support the leather industry in any way, you are sentencing animals to a lifetime of suffering (all of this can be found on their website). So if they hate any supporter of the leather industry, it's safe to say they aren't happy with LW.

If any of my comments have offended you Ray I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent. I'm a straight forward person. I believe honesty with friends, colleagues, and customers is always the best policy. If I post a compliment or praise for someone, I mean it wholeheartedly, if I offer any advice, it's truly an attempt to help someone, and if I have an opinion about a subject...well, I'm not ashamed of it.

ken

[Johanna]

Let's stop talking about PETA. I get enough hate mail as it is. There is no reason to give them any additional publicity or incentive to want to come here. To the best of my knowledge, no PETA members belong to LW. If they do, they aren't causing trouble.

This thread is about the potential slaughter-free leather has in the market. Let's stick to that conversation. Thank you!

Johanna

[UKRay]

[flintlock]

I am new here, and I know this topic is a litle old, but just because the animal died a natural death, does not mean it was humane. Sometimes, animals ar in pain long before they die and to put them down to ease the suffering is much more humane. IMO

[JohnBarton]

As far as marketing value: with the examples of: $100- conventional leather product, $500- slaughter free, $70- synthetic .... there is marketing history to indicate that SOME people really would pay the $500.

Just trying to offer something to the trade where an additional profit could be made by the maker, with the intent of helping the industry. I just believe so strongly that leather is grossly underpriced in value when compared to other commodities AND the leather worker is not generally rewarded for his efforts when compared to other industries.

Best Regards,

Steven Siegel

Not really weighing in one way or the other but I'd like to point out that to me there is a bit of a disconnect here when you are trying to connect the prices that leather workers receive for finished goods and the "morality tax" that some people are willing to pay for supposedly bio-ethical things.

If any leather worker is not getting the amount of money that they feel that they deserve for their work then they should either quit, make better things or improve their marketing. The argument that leather work is grossly under priced has nothing to do with the type of leather used. We all know that some people get great money for their stuff and other people don't. That's just life and has to do with many many factors. No one is ENTITLED to a certain income JUST BECAUSE they spent x-amount of hours learning their craft or because they work so hard at it. People earn what they can according to their ability AND market forces.

I agree that there IS a market for so-called "green" materials. Whether there SHOULD be a market where people are asked to pay more and willingly pay more for these items is another topic. In my mind what should happen is what is already happening and that is that companies are finding out that being environmentally friendly and bio-ethical saves them money and preserves profits. Thus, instead of having to market SOME materials as more ethical while implying that other materials are not, we can all benefit by knowing that industry as a whole is more ethical and humane.

Personally I think that any leather worker who markets their products as being made from "free range" cows is painting themselves into a corner because then they have to pretty much NOT use any other type of leather. And let's say the price of material is double that of other leather. Why increase the price of the finished goods by 3-10x ???

Is that ethical and moral to take more money away from a person just because you can play on their emotions and sense of morality? This seems like the wrong way to increase one's income. I mean if we really care about these things and I am linking the vegan lifestyle with the green movement here, then one has to consider the carbon impact that making the 3 to 10x extra money to PAY for the "slaughter-free" leather goods has on the world.

Life is really a viscous circle isn't it?

[Horsetutor]

OK, So, if I make saddlebags out of Steven's hides, which costs me quite a bit less, and looks good, profit-wise,-- can customers tell the finished product from the ones I have been making from those cows who ran afoul of IBP's captive bolt?

Would I be able to do some creative marketing, and get better prices? Cause this ol' fat cowboy is interested in that.

Plus, also, if I build up a nice niche market, can those unscrupulous devils just make knockoffs and CLAIM THEIR LEATHER WAS FROM "NATURAL" LEATHER, AND THUSLY BENEFIT FROM MY CLEVER MARKET WORK???[

Just curious. What little mind I have works that way.

As far as a lesser carbon footprint, I fear it takes more emissions to harvest range dead cattle than normal ones. Th normal cows go efficiently to the slaughter house, 50 or 60 to a trailer. The other requires a separate truck, and a front end loader, most likely, both using that awful fossil fuel for only one hide. I don't know where one of Segal's hides go to be treated, but I doubt it is as handy to the tannery as, say S. B. Foote is to Swift Packing. ( about half a mile. in Cactus, TX) Probably gonna require more trucking than that. More fuel, more time, more special handling, bigger footprint..

I guess I have my doubts.

Is this the same Steven Segal who whacks folks around in the movies? Great flicks, bud, if it is. I love 'em.

I'm an old Marine and I still kinda like violence.

BTW, before You city folks get out your pitchforks, shovels and lynching gear, I'm mostly just kidding. My tongue is firmly in my cheek, OK?quote name=JohnBarton' timestamp='1295498963' post='182691]

Not really weighing in one way or the other but I'd like to point out that to me there is a bit of a disconnect here when you are trying to connect the prices that leather workers receive for finished goods and the "morality tax" that some people are willing to pay for supposedly bio-ethical things.

If any leather worker is not getting the amount of money that they feel that they deserve for their work then they should either quit, make better things or improve their marketing. The argument that leather work is grossly under priced has nothing to do with the type of leather used. We all know that some people get great money for their stuff and other people don't. That's just life and has to do with many many factors. No one is ENTITLED to a certain income JUST BECAUSE they spent x-amount of hours learning their craft or because they work so hard at it. People earn what they can according to their ability AND market forces.

I agree that there IS a market for so-called "green" materials. Whether there SHOULD be a market where people are asked to pay more and willingly pay more for these items is another topic. In my mind what should happen is what is already happening and that is that companies are finding out that being environmentally friendly and bio-ethical saves them money and preserves profits. Thus, instead of having to market SOME materials as more ethical while implying that other materials are not, we can all benefit by knowing that industry as a whole is more ethical and humane.

Personally I think that any leather worker who markets their products as being made from "free range" cows is painting themselves into a corner because then they have to pretty much NOT use any other type of leather. And let's say the price of material is double that of other leather. Why increase the price of the finished goods by 3-10x ???

Is that ethical and moral to take more money away from a person just because you can play on their emotions and sense of morality? This seems like the wrong way to increase one's income. I mean if we really care about these things and I am linking the vegan lifestyle with the green movement here, then one has to consider the carbon impact that making the 3 to 10x extra money to PAY for the "slaughter-free" leather goods has on the world.

Life is really a viscous circle isn't it?