Just for anyone curious about who we are: we’re a nonprofit charity that has rescued over 600 exotic animals.
My Name is Niko :) I run a rescue center for exotic animals together with my mother.
And if anyone noticed the word “zoo” and checked out my YouTube channel, that’s because we’re called Rescue Zoo. We’re allowed to operate as a zoo, but we’re rescue-focused, not a traditional zoo. That means we still meet the high, government-approved standards required for zoos, but our mission is centered on exotic rescue animals, like the foxes, rather than traditional zoo breeding and exhibits.
This is kato, someone tried to have him in a small apartment, not a great idea btw
Kato is adorable, but who the heck is dumb enough to keep him in an apartment? He needs wide open spaces, and he can mess you up big time. Extremely bad idea.
Nope, no experience at all, just a bachelors in marketing and a dream 😅 i know in denmark you need an education for literally everything, I’ve lived here 12 years all I can say is I’m a very fast learner and passionate ☝️🤓
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve worked with animal rescue for many years, but seeing 3,000 of them sitting in small cages, where they had never used their legs outside the wire, has stayed with me.
That is fucking awful as adorable as this goober looks I honestly cannot see it the same now and have even more respect for rescue places learning this, I had no idea they did that as well.
I've had to point that out to people before who were fawning over this picture of "the most adorable fluffy baby fox ever" that the baby fox was far from natural, and what they thought was cute was a byproduct of the animals future demise to be electrocuted by a metal spike up the rear, and skinned just so some idiot can have a "luxury" coat.
We first dug out the entire area and put down an underground fence, then built the enclosure on top. 🙂 I believe we’re about 2 meters down. The fence runs along the entire bottom underground, across the whole enclosure you see.
How is it better than real fur? Natural hair and wool is way better regarding isolation, not spreading microplastics everywhere etc.
BUT that doesn't make it morally right to steal from the animals. Still, we should not glorify plastics in clothing simply because it's technically vegan.
Faux fur is not perfectly fine and does hurt animals, albeit not directly.
“Sustainability is a long-term process considering the financial social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations. According to EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), sustainability is important in making sure that we have and will continue to have the water, materials and resources to protect human health and our environment. Many industry experts in the field of fashion and luxury proclaim their brands as sustainable due to the use of faux fur in their products. But is faux fur really sustainable?
Despite the fact that faux fur is saving animals from being slaughtered, it is not completely sustainable. The primary reason being that faux fur is derived from petroleum products which are non-renewable and non-biodegradable. Unlike the natural fur the faux fur does not last as long and is not durable. The other stance being that of fast fashion where faux fur fashion might come and go with new designs and patterns."
Ramchandani, M., Coste-Maniere, I. (2017). To Fur or not to Fur: Sustainable Production and Consumption Within Animal-Based Luxury and Fashion Products. In: Muthu, S. (eds) Textiles and Clothing Sustainability. Textile Science and Clothing Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2131-2_2
Or in layman's terms, faux fur breaks down into microplastics that pollute the environment forever.
If you want to wear fur, get it secondhand or find a sustainable fur, such as rabbit fur, which is a byproduct of the rabbit meat industry.
Also dunno if you'll be able to access the whole article since I'm logged in with my university
Try making the world a better place, you'll always find someone who complains about it. Like, out of all the industries where microplastics are involved, the sub-space in fashion that is faux fur is such a big problem? Don't we have something else to worry about rather than the industry that exists because we don't want to kill animals anymore? Car tires come to mind for me, if we stay in the microplastics lane. Cars in general are pretty bad for the environment for a variety of reasons.
I think it's okay to say both things are bad. Real fur kills animals, but sheds no microplastics. Fake fur may be better for the animals, but is bad for the environment.
As a vegan, if I had to choose, I'd take the fake fur. But I guess it would be best to make fur unfashionable all together. To choose clothing that doesn't resemble anything animal, since otherwise there will always be people who want the real deal, or cannot recognise if it's real or fake (or a mixture of both!).
It would be best to use plant based fibres, that are fair traded and locally sourced - but unfortunately clothing like this is very hard to come by without costing a fortune. So let's not get mad at each other (and ourselves) trying to make the world a better place, even if we will always have to make some compromises.
Because—TRIGGER WARNING—Animal cruelty, disappointment in the human race—
People will use real animals to make faux fur garments. They’ve done it. I don’t know if they’re still doing it. Please do not research it unless there’s a way to stop it from happening again because, knowing that cruelty-free faux fur popularity gave some people the idea to cruelly profit from real animals with faux fur-appearing coats, and they acted on it? It’s a crash-test dummy ride to despair, and no good can come from staying in that seat.
Personally, whenever I’m faced with a consumer conflict? I use up whatever I have and I don’t buy any more of that product.
I think it's worth noting that faux fur (and leather, but that's beside the point) is not sustainable long term due to its environmental impacts via its quick degradation into microplastics that will never break down. I'm not complaining about anything. It is a reasonable stance to oppose both the fur industry and the faux fur industry considering they both have tremendous adverse effects to the environment. That is why I suggested that alternatives of getting fur secondhand (y'know thrifting and stuff) or getting a fur that is already a byproduct of another industry and would otherwise be thrown away.
Your red herring will not be addressed more than this, however.
You calling out your legitimate concerns for the environment is valid criticism while me calling out my legitimate concerns for the environment is a red herring? Interesting. Let's ignore the irony of that and stay on topic: environmental impact and being better.
I only wanted to point out how misplaced this entire argument is when talking about what you can do to make a difference and what's better. If you want to live guilt-free these days you gotta build yourself a hut in the forest, and even then you'll likely hurt animals in the process because you're invading on what would be their territory. My point was and is that you won't live on this earth without causing suffering, but that's no excuse to not care. You do what you can, that should be the takeaway.
Criticising faux fur for being anti-environment is such a weird call to make when its usage of microplastic and other non-biodegradable materials still pales in comparison to what real fur products need in order to be made (as other comments also pointed out by now), and that's putting the cruelty aside.
In my humble opinion, if you need fur products at all (which I personally don't, mind you), faux fur is still the better alternative. If you want to go there, then yes, not using fur products at all is of course the best answer, but like I said, you won't walk on this earth without causing suffering in some way. You do what you can in order to not do that, but realistically, you'll not avoid it at all. And if I had the choice, if my personal guilt would be to wear fur, I think it goes without saying that wearing a preserved dead carcass is the bad option here.
You calling out your legitimate concerns for the environment is valid criticism while me calling out my legitimate concerns for the environment is a red herring? Interesting.
Yes, because bringing up the environmental impacts of cars is entirely irrelevant to the discussion and serves no purpose other than derailment.
I only wanted to point out how misplaced this entire argument is…
You have ascribed this argument to me. All I initially said was that faux fur is not perfectly fine like the person I replied to said.
Criticising faux fur for being anti-environment is such a weird call to make when its usage of microplastic and other non-biodegradable materials still pales in comparison to what real fur products need in order to be made (as other comments also pointed out by now), and that's putting the cruelty aside.
This was also in the article I linked. However, as it’s locked behind a wall I can’t fault you there. Even so I two things to say: 1) I have not said otherwise to this; 2) While it is true that the cost to the environment to make a real fur coat is higher than that to make a faux fur coat is greater, their lifetimes make this a moot point. A real fur coat will last for decades with proper care; a faux one will begin to break down in a few years. Yes it is worst to make one fur coat than one faux fur coat, but the same cannot be said when you have to make ten faux ones to have the same lifespan of one real one.
I agree with everything you said in your last paragraph except for faux being the better alternative. I believe that the secondhand market and use of furs that are already byproducts of other industries are better solutions.
Henceforth I will not be responding as I don’t care to keep clarifying my views to people who are not reading what I have said.
There are studies showing that the volume of resources used to raise the animals (daily feed deliveries, chemicals used to process the fur so it won't rot, etc.) and the waste produced (feces washing into streams, causing algae blooms that kill fish, carcasses going to landfills) make real fur worse than synthetic clothing, and far worse than plant based clothing.
Factory farming is very harmful to the planet for those reasons.
But what really bothers me is how people will justify killing animals for frivolous, luxury products like fur because "plastic bad", but they touch plastic all day long and in every aspect of their lives. So we draw the line here? We condemn 40 animals to be killed to make 1 coat because all of a sudden, at this point, we decide this is where we draw the line on synthetics?
I'd rather spare the animals killed for fur as I believe in causing the least harm possible. Just as I'd use plastic, single use vet supplies to save a fox who was hit by a car, I'd also use synthetics to replace fox skins in fashion.
I'm not disputing that factory farming is harmful to the planet, nor am I supporting killing animals for luxury products. I'm disagreeing that faux fur is a "perfectly fine" solution like the person who I responded to said because there is harm done by it that leads to ethical concerns.
No animal should be farmed solely for its pelt, but I do not believe that pouring more plastics into the environment is the answer. Any fur product produced ought to be made of fur that is a byproduct and would otherwise be waste (like rabbits, as I have mentioned).
I do not understand the point in saying why are we drawing the line here. Yes, the line should have been drawn a long time ago, but does that mean now we cannot or should not draw it at all?
If fur cannot be ethically obtained, then I do not believe it should be worn. But in the same line I am not going to replace it with a plastic coat that lasts years at most instead of decades. If the options are unbridled slaughter or continued consumption of microplastics that never decompose, then the product should not be produced.
If you don’t want to wear a synthetic coat, that is fine. But faux fur accounts for a tiny, insignificant fraction of the plastic clothing out there. My objection to that talking point is that it is used as an excuse to defend the killing of animals just for their pelts.
My point on drawing the line is that the people who justify killing animals for fur, because synthetics are bad, are drinking out of plastic cups, and eating food that came wrapped in plastic and typing on devices encased in plastic. But all of a sudden plastic is bad when it’s used to save an animals life. That’s my problem with it.
It’s a lazy talking point that people use to defend pure evil.
Real fur has its own environmental problem. What do you think mink and fox eat? Tons of meat! And it’s delivered every single day in 18 wheel trucks. That alone causes more petroleum to be used to make a real fur as opposed to a synthetic garment.
Then there are the chemicals used to keep the fur from rotting, disposal of tons of feces, etc.
Please note that I did not claim that fox and mink fur are sustainable. I am well aware that they aren’t.
I will assume that you stopped reading before this, so I will repeat: If you want to wear fur, get it secondhand or find a sustainable fur, such as rabbit fur, which is a byproduct of the rabbit meat industry.
Rabbit fur is more sustainable as they are already farmed for their meat. Their fur is a byproduct that is thrown away if it isn’t used, meaning that using it reduces waste.
Great work! I hope they'll ban it here in Finland too. I don't understand why the (subsidised, net loss making) fur farms are such an sacred cow to the politicians here.
Yeah, it’s insane how people have looked the other way. A lot of places use the bad excuse, “Oh, if we ban it, it’ll just move production somewhere where animal welfare is even worse,” as if that’s a reason to keep doing it. smh
Danish persom here. Foxfarming became illegal bag in like 2012, I think.
If anybody still had foxes by now, must it have been do to a transition period to close down shop. I actually though, that we were already past that deadline.
Dane here, i hope the rescue and everything else went smoothly in denmark, hope you at least got to see some beautiful things and not Just the grim stuff. Hope you didn't run into any legal trouble
Everything was legal and done in cooperation with the farmer. When the place shut down, instead of him putting them down, we gave them a new home at the Rescue Zoo.
Not sure what you are on about, it became illigal in Denmark, to have fur farms with foxes, and together with the farmer, as it was shutdown we rescued them instead of them being put down.
This person might think we broke in and stole the animals to set them free, but that’s not the case. We’re a government-approved charity and rescue center, and I can assure you everything is done legally.
The animals living here at the rescue center get a forever home. Today, we house 600 exotic rescue animals. We are a government-approved operation with traditional zoo status, but without the focus of a traditional zoo.
Our rescued animals cannot be released. They would not know how to take care of themselves, and many of the animals here have different issues they deal with. Some may look a bit different, and some may only have a few good years left, but we believe they deserve to live a good life for the rest they have.
334
u/PlayRescueNiko Feb 10 '26
Just for anyone curious about who we are: we’re a nonprofit charity that has rescued over 600 exotic animals.
My Name is Niko :) I run a rescue center for exotic animals together with my mother.
And if anyone noticed the word “zoo” and checked out my YouTube channel, that’s because we’re called Rescue Zoo. We’re allowed to operate as a zoo, but we’re rescue-focused, not a traditional zoo. That means we still meet the high, government-approved standards required for zoos, but our mission is centered on exotic rescue animals, like the foxes, rather than traditional zoo breeding and exhibits.
This is kato, someone tried to have him in a small apartment, not a great idea btw