On the Ethics of Acquiring Animal Remains
I find that ethical dilemmas are the biggest factors associated with skin dancing. Each person draws their own line on how they should or should not acquire animal remains.
Some only use parts from natural deaths and from animals unfortunately hit by a car. Others will use vintage or ‘recycled’ parts, such as myself, that may have been hunted at one time long ago, but that are today made use of and treated with respect. I know of others who hunt, and use every single part of the animal; the skin, the meat, the bone. If done with respect, gratitude, and without waste, I do find this acceptable (excluding endangered species, of course). If you make use of every part, not merely the skin for a sporting or trophy purpose, and honor the animal with dignity, I see this as alright. Many people say that all hunting is wrong; I can’t say that. Everything in life is connected, not just spiritually but ecologically as well. It would be ridiculous to expect no animal to ever be killed; there just must be balance. I am deeply against using the pelt or parts of an animal that was hunted solely for it’s skin, or claimed as a trophy. But that’s just my perspective; treated with respect, dignity, and if killed, used graciously without waste, are to me all ethical ways of acquiring animal parts. Like I said, everybody has their line.
My line is drawn with respect. If you are using an older, vintage part of an animal, treat it well, acknowledging the spirit within and not treating it like an object, then in my mind you are giving it a better ‘afterlife’. Spirits pass, they are fluid; they come and go, reincarnate, or stay. I believe that every single one is more than entitled to be treated with the basic dignity that they deserve. If life is taken, for food, and every part is used, then what I said above still applies. But it is also life giving life, the natural cycle of things.
I mainly aquire my remains from vintage shops or buyers, such as Naturepunk or Lupa on Etsy. I respect and admire both their work and their treatment of the remains. I have two pelts; one died by being hit by a truck. The other died naturally, of old age. I’ve seen furs in old shops, thrown about as a sales item, and it breaks my heart. I almost always find a way to take them home. I just can’t stand to see them treated so disrespectfully. My distain for those who treat remains without dignity is second only to those that hunt them for their skins. So if I can I take them back with me, take them to where they will be treated right, I do.
Though my line is firm, I do acknowledge that there will always be some blurriness in matters like this. Not every situation is the same, and spiritual matters are not so black and white. I don’t believe ethics can be completely compartmentalized; if they are, then that is when mistakes are made, when you hold to some principle despite the situation, instead of doing what is actually right. Ethics are our guidelines, but they are also a barrier. They can prevent us from seeing things from another perspective. I have my line, but I am not so shortsighted that I believe my principles are without flaw or exception. For me, it is a matter of walking that line.
The main focus of this is on how animal remains are required, but this would be entirely incomplete without me touching on what type of remains are acquired. The two go hand in hand, more than some people realize.
I find with a lot of people that ethics not only apply to what manner in which parts are acquired, but it also extends to what animals should be used after death and which should not; in short what types of animals should and should not be used. People have very different ideas about what kind of animal is right to get remains from. This can at first seem considerate, but to me it seems contradictory; if two animals die in the same way, but one is a different species than the other, it will effect people’s choices in a way I feel is largely based on misguided archetypal notions of a specific animal’s sacredness in comparison to another’s. For example, say a parrot and a hawk died naturally (I’m not talking legality here, just an ethical example). Though they both may have suffered a natural, painless death, I know many people that would not use parts from the hawk, but would have no problem using the parrot’s remains. This type of behavior, to me, implies a lack of understanding of the sacredness of all life, not mindfulness of it. I don’t believe that one animal is more ‘special’ or ‘above’ another, and therefore should be utilized differently. Misguided attempts at respect can actually reflect disrespect in this way; either using a ‘lower’ animal, because you do not think it is right to use the more ‘sacred’ animal, or using the ‘higher’ animal because you find the other one common or not as worthy. I find that people don’t measure equality by the life of the animal, but by the archetypal associations of the species. A hawk is no more sacred than a parrot, and the dead are no more sacred than the live. While trying to avoid using parts out of disrespect, it does cast a shadow of judgment in some direction, be it of the ‘higher’ animal in their mind, or the ‘lower’. I don’t see things as more or less sacred based on their size, species, or commercial ‘worth’. I believe that all things in life, and death, are sacred. I will never approach something with a higher or lower respect than anything else.
That being said, I still do have my drawbacks. I am afraid of spiders, and scream bloody murder if one surprises me. Nevertheless, I have somebody escort it out of the house safely to the garden, or if it’s small enough I’ll do it myself. We’ll all run when we see a skunk about to spray us, most of us will be grossed out by something, and there will always be different ways we associate with other creatures. Just because I don’t want a spider near me or a skunk spraying me doesn’t mean I don’t respect them, though.
And, for now, that’s about it.