Over the past months, several prominent designer brands have announced that their collections will henceforth be "fur free". Animal activists have been quick to claim this as signalling a fundamental shift in societal values, the emergence of new ethical marketing principles, and the imminent demise of the fur industry. On closer examination, however, the brands’ decisions look more like a big helping of cynical risk management, with a dash of marketing spin.

Let’s take a closer look.

Using Animals for Clothing

The most common reason cited by designers for dropping fur is concern about killing animals. Donatella Versace, for example, was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to kill animals to make fashion. It doesn’t feel right."

This can be a legitimate ethical decision, especially if you are a vegan and don’t eat meat or use any animal products. But most of us do eat meat and wear leather. And most “fur-free” designer brands – including Versace – continue to use leather ... and shearling, which is simply a fancy name for sheep fur.

One justification for this apparent hypocrisy is that leather and shearling can be seen as by-products: “the envelope that dinner came in.” If we are killing cows (or sheep) for meat, the argument goes, we might as well use the leather (or shearling) too.

Underlying this argument, of course, is the belief that eating meat is necessary – a notion that vegans and animal-rights groups like PETA do not accept.

But there are other problems with this justification for shunning most furs while embracing leather and shearling.

First, most designer brands continue to use leather that does not come from food animals, such as python and alligator.

Second, sheep are not the only furbearing animals that are eaten by people. Rabbits come quickly to mind. But beavers, muskrats and other wild furbearers are also used for food by First Nations communities and others across northern Canada. Raccoons and opossums are eaten by trappers and their families in the US. Animals not eaten by people are returned to the bush where they feed other wildlife. And while we don’t eat farmed mink, their carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilisers that restore the fertility of the soil – to grow soybeans for Ingrid Newkirk’s tofu stir-fry. Nothing is wasted.

SEE ALSO: Top 5 tasty furbearers: Muskrat stew and more.

Clearly, the argument that using leather and sheepskin (or shearling) is more ethical than using other furs does not stand close scrutiny.

Sustainability

Another argument for shunning fur was recently proposed by Gucci CEO, Marco Bizzarri; he claimed that being “fur-free” is a way to promote sustainability.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bizzarri, fur is more sustainably produced than most of the alternatives.

The wild-fur trade is highly regulated, nationally and internationally, to ensure that we use only a small part of abundant populations; never endangered species.

Some furbearers are so abundant that they would have to be controlled, even if we didn’t use fur. Over-populated beavers flood homes, roads, fields, and forest habitat. Coyotes are the main predators of lambs and calves, and are now attacking pets and even people in many regions. Raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other dangerous diseases. And the list goes on.

But if we have to cull these animals, surely it is more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

Fur farming is also highly sustainable, because farmed mink are fed left-overs from our own food production – the parts of fish, cows and pigs that we don’t eat. Farmed mink are champion recyclers, producing a natural clothing material, mink oil (for protecting leather) and other valuable products (including the best eye-lash fillers ever!) from food industry wastes that would otherwise clog landfills. As explained above, they also provide natural fertilisers to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. This is true sustainability.

By contrast, the fake furs and other synthetic materials that animal activists claim have rendered fur unnecessary, are generally made from petroleum – a non-renewable and highly polluting resource.

Perhaps Gucci should take another look at its sustainability policies?

SEE ALSO: Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur.

Warm, Beautiful, Long-Lasting and Biodegradable

When evaluating ethics and sustainability we must also consider how products are manufactured, used, and eventually disposed of. Fur scores remarkably well on all these criteria.

Fur pelts are “dressed” (preserved) using benign chemicals (e.g., alum salts, which you can put in your bath), because the fur and hair follicles must be protected. This is a much gentler process than leather tanning, where the goal is to burn away the fur hairs. And fur is often used in its natural colours, avoiding the dyes required for most textiles.

Fur garments and accessories are individually crafted by skilled artisans using heritage techniques; they are not mass-produced in sweatshops.

Fur is also a remarkably long-lasting material: a good-quality mink coat will often be worn for 30 years or longer. As styles (or your body mass) change, a well-made fur garment can be taken apart and completely restyled, or handed down to daughters and nieces to be worn vintage. Old fur coats are also recycled to make vests, accessories, or even pillows.

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing.

Finally, after many decades of use, your old fur can be buried in the garden where it will quickly biodegrade.

Fake furs and other petroleum-based synthetics, by contrast, are not usually worn for many seasons (it’s not called “fast fashion” for nothing!), but – like other plastics – will persist in the environment without biodegrading.

Worse: troubling new research shows that these synthetics shed microfibers every time they are washed – tiny bits of plastic that leach into the waterways and are now being found in the intestinal tracts of oysters and other marine life. If we are concerned about animals and the environment, it is not at all clear that fakes are a wise choice.

The Truth About “Fur Free” Designers

So if it’s not really about ethics or sustainability, what should we make of these designers’ decision to drop fur? According to the Jing Daily, a leading digital publication on luxury consumer trends in China, a review of social media comments showed that many young Chinese luxury consumers believe the whole thing is a marketing ploy.

Stopping the usage of fur can help Gucci decrease their costs and increase their profits. And there is no benefit for consumers as they will not lower the price

Some suggested that the decision reflects Gucci’s down-market strategy: “Gucci has never been known for its fur products, and I don’t think its targeted consumers can afford fur,” said a WeChat user named “Maggie.”

Others thought the “fur free” stance was simply a way to boost profits at the expense of consumers: “Stopping the usage of fur can help Gucci decrease their costs and increase their profits. And there is no benefit for consumers as they will not lower the price,” a Weibo user named “Joey Zhenyi” wrote.

And some suggested that “the brand is just making a gesture,” and that a fur-free policy was a way for the company to “make it look sustainable”.

These young people are remarkably astute. After all, even Greenpeace, the leading environmental activist group, does not campaign against fur, because the modern, well-regulated fur trade is not considered to be an environmental problem.

But in a world where media-savvy animal-rights protest groups attract far more public attention than conservation scientists or biologists, dropping fur has become a quick and easy way to show corporate concern for ethics and sustainability, at virtually no cost.  In fact, these brands will certainly lower their security costs by not having to deal with activist protests.

It is no accident that the newly “fur free” designer labels have all acknowledged on-going “discussions” with Humane Society International or other animal-rights protest groups. These companies may or may not have been convinced about the virtues of the vegan agenda these activists promote, but they were undoubtedly convinced that they would face increasingly costly (and brand-damaging) protest campaigns if they didn’t drop fur. (Can you spell “protection racket?”)

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

So the real reasons why some designer brands have recently stepped away from (most) fur are probably a lot messier and less noble than they would like us to think.

Unfortunately, by encouraging more use of non-renewable, polluting, and non-biodegradable alternatives, these “fur free” brands are potentially doing more harm than good for animals and nature.

It's just a theory, but one explanation why Britain is the spiritual home of animal rights activism – and of opposition to fur – is that it exterminated all its large, dangerous animals long ago. North America, in contrast, still presents many opportunities to get mauled or even eaten, with one animal in particular, the coyote, now making its presence felt even in inner cities. Will this increasing exposure to a large scavenger-cum-predator shape the animal rights debate – and attitudes towards fur – in the years ahead?

Bears have been extinct in Britain for about 1,000 years, while wolves probably vanished by the late 18th century. The worst that might happen to you on a stroll in the countryside is to get bitten by an adder, the country's only poisonous snake, but bites are very rarely fatal. And the country is rabies-free. In the cities, if you're unlucky, a pigeon or seagull might poop on you.

So it's easy for the British to be somewhat glib about the dangers of wildlife. Yes, it's sad that tigers eat Indians, but they (the tigers) must be saved for future generations to admire!

In North America, of course, the story is different. Life in rural areas often means sharing space with wolves, bears, cougars, rattlesnakes and rabid raccoons. And life anywhere now can involve facing down a pack of pet-eating, human-biting coyotes. When it's your own kids' lives on the line – as any Indian living next to a tiger reserve will tell you – your view of wildlife may be very un-British!

Coyote Attacks

On April 29, 2018, on a suburban New York playground, a coyote launched an unprovoked attack against 5-year-old Natalia King-Petrellese and her 3-year-old brother. Luckily, police officers were able to kill the coyote, but what would have happened if they hadn't been around?

Coyote attacks on humans are still rare compared with attacks by domestic dogs, reported The Economist in 2013, and only two fatal attacks have ever been confirmed: 3-year-old Kelly Keen in 1981, in Glendale, California, and 19-year-old Taylor Mitchell in 2009, in Nova Scotia.

But aggressive altercations are increasing as so-called "urban coyotes" move in to city centres and lose their fear of humans. "Around 2,000 coyotes are reckoned to live in Chicago and its suburbs," said The Economist, "and it seems likely that the animal is thriving in many other built-up parts of the country. Once restricted to the south-western United States, it spread across the continent during the 20th century and more recently made its way into large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Boston and even New York."

Canada's not exempt either: In Montreal, half a dozen coyote bites on humans were reported last year.

Across North America, coyotes are now prime suspects when pet cats and dogs go missing, while in rural areas they are the number-one predator of calves and lambs.

So it's only a matter of time before the next fatal attack on a human. If it hadn't been for the presence of adults, it likely would have been Natalia King-Petrellese.

Urban Coyotes and Animal Rights

It seems inevitable that the steady spread of urban coyotes will influence views on animal rights in North America, especially among people living in cities.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

It's a sweeping generalisation, but let's say that our views on wildlife reflect where we live. People born and raised in Montana don't love nature in the same way people from Manhattan do. Rural folk tend to have a more utilitarian view of wildlife; they can wonder at its beauty at the same time as seeing it as a source of food and clothing, or simply as a pest. City-dwellers are more prone to Bambi syndrome, seeing wildlife as innocent, wide-eyed creatures, peacefully going about their daily existence. When you have little real contact with nature, you can imagine it's Disneyland.

So it's hardly surprising that there are differing views about coyotes. For rural folk, coyotes have little going for them. They lack all the glamour of wolves, eat livestock and pets, stink, taste foul, and carry rabies. About the only good thing going for coyotes is that – when their fur is prime – they make a great coat. For many rural folk, the only good coyote is a dead coyote.

Many city dwellers, though, tend to equate coyotes with domestic dogs, even to the point of putting food out for them (despite repeated warnings that this is an extremely bad idea).

These opposing points of view are both valid, but one thing we can all hopefully agree on is that, even if coyotes are not our favourite animal, they're still God's creatures and should be respected accordingly. That can mean many things, from trapping them humanely to trying to coexist with them.

But here's the thing: even the most ardent fan of coyotes will likely become a coyote-hater the minute one tears Fido to pieces or, heaven forbid, drags off their child.

Curiously (to this author at least), this change in attitude is not automatic for everyone. When Taylor Mitchell was mauled to death by coyotes while jogging through a riverside park, her mother issued a statement asking that the animals be spared. "We take a calculated risk when spending time in nature’s fold — it’s the wildlife's terrain," she wrote. "When the decision had been made to kill the pack of coyotes, I clearly heard Taylor’s voice say, 'Please don’t, this is their space.' She wouldn’t have wanted their demise, especially as a result of her own."

Still, I'm going to stick my neck out and say Taylor's mum's reaction was highly unusual. Most parents in her situation would have said, "To hell with coyote rights. Nuke 'em!"

Coyotes and Fur

Last November, Toronto-based Canada Goose, purveyor of coyote-trimmed parkas, took a bold step and opened a flagship store on Regent Street in central London. Presumably the decision to set up shop in the heartland of animal rights was based on the fact that many shoppers here are foreign tourists, because it can't have come as a surprise when local activists started protesting.

Time will tell how this venture works out, but Canada Goose won't be getting any PR help from indigenous wildlife. If some large predators show up in nearby Hyde Park to attack pet dogs, the conversation might change, but that won't happen because Britain has no large predators.

But in North America, of course, that's exactly what is happening. Urban coyote conflicts are now regular events, and that can be expected to change attitudes towards wildlife, but will it also change attitudes in other ways? Just as a new tuberculosis or whooping cough epidemic does wonders for vaccination campaigns, will the surge in coyote attacks on pets and people increase public appreciation for the benefits of regulated trapping – and the sustainable use of fur?

The danger, of course, is that if children are killed, there will be calls for coyotes to be exterminated. Public hysteria could even result in their total removal from the landscape, like British bears and wolves.

The optimal outcome is that urban coyotes open the eyes of city-dwellers to a side of wildlife that has nothing to do with Bambi. A new and more realistic understanding of wildlife will include the realisation that wild animals must sometimes be culled, and if that happens, it's only ethical to use them for food or fur.

City-dwellers will finally get why rural folk don't feed the bears but instead turn them into fine eating and a bearskin rug. Perhaps they'll also get that wearing a coyote-trimmed parka is not "like wearing your pet dog", as animal activists like to claim, but about protecting your pets – and your kids.

The growing media and public interest in sustainability – especially among young people – provides an extraordinary opportunity for the fur trade.

To understand why, think about the vital role that stories play in our lives. Because story-time is much more than those precious minutes we spend with young children at the end of a hectic day. Stories define what it means to be human and are central to our success as a species. “Really?” you ask. Bear with me a moment and we’ll see why – and what this means for the future of fur.

Stories Are Our Social Glue

What’s special about humans is that we work together in large groups. Ants and bees also work in large groups, of course, but only in rigidly programmed patterns of behaviour. Humans are the only animals that cooperate with strangers in ways that can evolve to meet new challenges. And stories are the social glue that allows us to do this. They tell us who we are and what we are trying to achieve.

For much of our history, these stories were expressed in myths or religions. In a more secular age, societal identity and goals are often articulated in new types of stories: Nationalism, Marxism, Liberalism – and, more recently, environmentalism and animal rights.

For much of the 20th century, Western society was driven by a story about science and technology generating prosperity and continual growth. During this period, the story of fur was about warmth, beauty and status. Think glamorous movie stars wrapped in luxurious mink.

The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962, sounded the alarm that unchecked growth could threaten our very survival as a species. Carson’s landmark book launched the modern environmental movement and signalled the emergence of a new story: Earth could no longer be seen as a treasure chest to be looted, but rather was a garden to be protected as if our lives depended on it ... because they do!

With the environmental movement came concern that wildlife populations were being depleted. But while biologists know that the destruction of natural habitat is the most serious threat to wildlife, a good story needs clearly identified good guys and bad guys. Hunters – once admired in American frontier mythology – were clearly the bad guys in this new scenario, portrayed as violent and cruel.

Protesters were the good guys, the valiant protectors of Mother Earth. Through the 1960s and '70s, Greenpeace and dozens of other new organizations emerged to protest the commercial hunting of seals, spotted cats, and other charismatic species – garnering international media attention while generating millions of dollars for a lucrative new protest industry.

The good news is that this media attention helped to rally financial and political resources to address some real conservation and animal-welfare concerns. By the early 1970s, seal hunters received training and quotas were introduced to prevent overharvesting. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), in 1975, ensured that leopards and other vulnerable wildlife populations were not threatened by trade. And by the late 1970s, the world’s first science-based humane trap-research program was established, with support from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian government, and the fur industry.

But these important achievements did not end the protests. As documented in my book Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (CBC, 1985), the campaigns against seal hunting actually intensified, especially after Greenpeace brought Brigitte Bardot to the ice in 1977. Greenpeace’s Bob Hunter observed that this juxtaposition of sex and violence made the seal hunt an irresistible media story. Protests against fur trapping also gained momentum, at the same time as fur prices and sales were hitting record levels through the 1970s and '80s.

The persistence of anti-fur campaigning after the real conservation and animal welfare issues were addressed is explained, in part, by interests. With hundreds of protest groups – and thousands of professional activists – raking in millions of dollars from well-meaning supporters, there was little incentive to say, “Mission accomplished, let’s go home.”

Equally important, however, was the emergence of a new story: animal rights. With the publication of Australian philosopher Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, this new story made a radical break with traditional conservation and animal welfare objectives. It questioned the right of humans to use animals at all. This new story is summarized in PETA’s mission statement: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

This new animal-rights story allowed activists to completely ignore the fur trade’s achievements. Sure we now have research, government regulations, and industry codes of practice. But what does any of this matter if, as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Bernard Rollin, and other animal rights philosophers argued, it is simply wrong to kill animals for human use?

The use of animals is morally indefensible, these philosophers argued, because we have options. So while the lion must kill to live, humans can thrive as vegetarians. Similarly, there is no justification for using fur (or wool, leather, or other animal products) because we now have synthetic materials to keep us warm. And this is where the story gets interesting. Or rather: the stories. Because another story is now emerging – environmental sustainability – and this new narrative has very different things to say about the ethics of using fur.

Landmark Document: Our Common Future

The concept of sustainable development was coined by the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) – the Brundtland Commission – published in book form as Our Common Future, in 1987. This landmark document recognized that humans are part of nature and depend on natural resources for our survival; we cannot “leave nature alone”, as protesters demanded. The real environmental challenge is to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In layman’s terms this means living on the “interest” that nature provides, without depleting our environmental “capital”. So, whenever possible, we should use renewable resources (plants, animals) rather than non-renewable resources (petroleum-based synthetics). And we should use these resources sustainably, i.e., no faster than nature can replenish the supply.

Thirty years after the publication of the Brundtland Commission, sustainability is finally gaining traction. Companies of all sorts are rushing to promote their products and services as sustainable. Sustainable lifestyles are the new cool. What many have not yet understood is that sustainable use is very different from the no-use doctrine promoted by anti-hunt protesters and animal rights philosophers. While fur and other animal products are morally indefensible from an animal rights perspective, they are the way to go when looked at through the lens of sustainability.

A flagrant example of this misunderstanding is the recent claim by CEO Marco Bizzarri that Gucci would stop working with fur to demonstrate their “absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business.”

SEE ALSO: Fur-free Gucci policy contradicts company's "sustainability" claims

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused?

Sustainability vs Animal Rights

The importance for the fur trade of the impending clash between these two powerful stories – sustainability and animal rights – should not be under-estimated. Most of the time, most people – and societies – drift along without questioning the fuzzy ideas that guide our actions. But when conflicting stories collide, we must stop and think. As sustainability crashes into animal rights, the fur trade will finally have an opportunity to tell its story.

The new International Fur Federation video comparing the sustainability of fur and synthetics is a good example of how this contradiction can be promoted. The website FurIsGreen.com is another.

A recent story in the influential British tabloid, The Sun, demonstrates the power of this clash of ideas to spark a new sort of discussion about fur. The headline stated: “Why Kim’s fake fur is worse for the environment than Kourtney’s real one.”

“For decades we’ve accepted the notion promoted by animal rights campaigners that wearing or buying real fur is ethically and morally bankrupt. ... Yet recently a more complex and nuanced view has emerged, backed by experts in the fur industry, that suggests faux fur could, in fact, be worse for the environment than the real thing,” reported The Sun, citing the International Fur Federation, Fur Commission USA, and other sources.

The problem is that faux fur is made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. Furthermore, recent research is revealing that clothing made from petrochemical synthetics leaches microfibers of plastic into the environment every time it’s washed. These microfibers do not biodegrade; they are carried into waterways, enter the food chain, and are now being found in the digestive tracts of marine life. Real fur, by contrast, is biodegradable and doesn’t cause these problems. And real fur can also be restyled and recycled, providing decades' more use than synthetic “fast fashion” apparel.

SEE ALSO: The great fur burial: How fur biodegrades after one year

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing

If sustainability can provoke this sort of serious reflection in a British tabloid newspaper, it can do it anywhere. And sustainability has strong support from the scientific community; animal rights does not. Not least important, young people are particularly interested in sustainability – after all, they will be here longer! All this suggests that the sustainability story is likely to become increasingly influential.

In recent years, animal activists have worked hard to portray fur as a flagrant example of the reckless exploitation of nature: “killing innocent animals for greed and vanity.”

As a more serious understanding of environmental sustainability takes hold, we now have an opportunity to rewrite the story again – and this time fur will finally be recognized as not only warm and beautiful, but also a celebration of the marriage of human creativity with the responsible and sustainable use of nature’s bounty.

The fur story is about to become much more interesting!

***

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.

There is a saying that the only things we all have in common are birth, death, and taxes. If there is a fourth thing common to every human being on the planet, it is that human lives depend on killing animals. This is true for hunters, trappers, animal-rights activists, vegans, and everyone else, regardless of where we live, our cultural differences, or our lifestyle choices. I don’t say this out of callousness or for shock value; rather, to put every one of us on the same page, in the same common history book of our species. If only for a moment.

I would like to think we can all have the humility and honesty to acknowledge the fact that human life depends on the death of animals, despite how uncomfortable we may be with this truth. To that end, I won’t spend time going over the various ways that human civilizations and settlements displace wildlife and affect habitat. Many of us do our best to reduce our direct and indirect impacts on the natural world, but close as they may come, these impacts will never reach zero. None of us is exempt from the effects of human civilization on wildlife. The task as I see it is not so much to accept or refute this fact, but rather to reflect on our own understandings of it and what it means to have a relationship with animals that involves death.

One of the most common points of disagreement in conversations about animal ethics centers on the consumptive uses of animals. Concerns over the treatment of both wild and domestic animals and their use for food, fur, and other products is an important conversation and one that I believe should be of highest ethical importance to human beings; however, we often bring a set of unstated and embedded assumptions to these discussions that need to be examined if we are to ever truly understand our own ethics, have productive conversations with others, and be effective at conservation.

Reflecting on Foundational Concepts

One of the underlying assumptions that we need to critically reflect on in discussions over the use of animals is the very concept of killing. Our individual and collective understanding of the moral defensibility in killing animals and the nature of the human-animal relationship that is established through an interaction that involves killing are informed by our views of death itself.

In discussing the ethics around the use of animals, we must be thoughtful to the fact that understandings of central concepts such as death and killing are not universal. Cultures throughout the world have vastly different understandings of what it means to die, what happens after death, the relationship between life and death, and therefore what it means on a deep ethical level to kill an animal. Therefore, we cannot approach discussions with the assumption that we all understand the moral foundations of the topic in the same way. More importantly, we must be conscious not to assume that our own culturally-grounded way of understanding these concepts is correct. To approach conversations of such ethical gravity in that way is to demonstrate a sense of cultural centrism that has proven dangerous to both human cultures and ecological systems in the past.

It is possible that some of us have never really taken the time to deeply reflect on our own relationship with the death of wild animals. For the majority of the world that lives in urban centers and will never be personally involved in killing an animal, thinking about this may never be a necessity. In his examination of humanity’s relationship with nature and our own natural history, the author J.B. MacKinnon in The Once and Future World poignantly describes watching a grizzly bear feed on an elk calf. MacKinnon reflects on nature’s experience with death: “springtime in Yellowstone is not the season of gambolling fox kits ... but of the hungry bear and wary bison. Of death, that ordinary horror”. Killing is all around us all the time; whether and how we choose to understand that fact of life on a primal and philosophical level is our choice. MacKinnon goes on to suggest that “to endure among other species, you must experience the world as a place you share with them”. If we wish to share the world with wild creatures and natural processes, we owe it to ourselves to engage with them on their terms.

---

Consider the fact that most modern human beings eat next to nothing that is hunted or gathered from the terrestrial surface of the earth. This is an outcome that would strike our ancestors as bizarre if not apocalyptic, and yet it can’t be said to be the product of choice. We drifted to this point, generation by generation.

J.B. MacKinnon in "The Once and Future World"

---

Let me clear about what this is not. I dislike dead-end arguments in discussions about ethics. It might be tempting to dispute the suggestion that death and killing are equal parts culturally contingent concepts and natural parts of the world, as simply a hunter’s way of justifying his own actions. That has been suggested to me before and I will humour that idea, but it is far more complex than that. Human ethics change over time to incorporate new ideas and knowledge and this changing is precisely what keeps ethics strong and meaningful. Therefore, the suggestion that any single argument can settle an ethical debate is unconvincing at best and suspicious at worst. This is not a claim that killing wildlife is morally defensible because “we have always done it”. I don’t believe that historical precedent justifies continued practice. However, in the same way that history does not justify the present, neither can it be disregarded as irrelevant. So I do think that the long history of interaction between humans and wildlife that has always involved a predator-prey relationship makes the conversation worth having in light of that history and not in exclusion of it. Cultures and belief systems are built upon shared experiences and give rise to knowledge systems and worldviews that are rooted in the places of those experiences. It is the diversity of these cultures that contributes to different understandings of what it means to kill an animal and our conversations on the ethics of killing and using animals must include space for the wide variety of cultural views that exist in the world.

Multiple Worldviews

Our evaluation of the ethics in killing animals for our own uses is bound to be informed in some measure by our understanding of what death means and the subsequent emotions we attach to dying and being dead. It is helpful to consider examples of different cultural understandings of death. These contrasting worldviews around death mean that understandings about the relationship enacted with an animal in the act of killing it can also be very different. Bear in mind that I am highlighting two examples here and that the diversity of human cultural perspectives is nearly as wide and deep as the biodiversity of the natural world itself.

---

The dread of something after death, / The undiscover’d country

"Hamlet" by William Shakespeare

---

The Reverend Charles A. Curran, Professor at Loyola University of Chicago, discusses an understanding of death informed by Judaeo-Christian traditions. Curran explains that in Christian worldviews, death “immediately invokes in us the emotion of fear”. This fear of death is not so much a fear of the physical process of dying, but rather “the notion of the beyond that the word ‘death’ brings to us, because its fear is a fear of the beyond”. This fear is also related to the gravity of having to weigh the morality of our lives and what Curran describes as an “extreme ego anxiety about passing into nothingness” – the fear of irrelevance and being forgotten. There are other more obvious teachings in Christianity about what killing means for the morality of our own lives.

A Judaeo-Christian view of death has been imprinted on some of Western culture’s most influential pieces of art and literature, and it is perhaps only natural that our feelings around our own death would be imparted onto animals when we consider their death. Daniel E. Van Tassel, Professor of English at Muskingum College, notes “the stamp of such Christian views of death” in the “expression of fear at the imminence of death” among a number of Shakespeare’s characters. Van Tassel cites three reasons to fear death in Judaeo-Christian traditions: we fear losing the enjoyment of life and worldly pleasures, the emotional and physical pain that comes with death, and the eternal misery after death. In considering how such a culturally-dominant, if latent and subconscious, understanding of death may impact our view of killing animals, we can certainly identify in animal-rights and other anti-hunting/trapping campaigns references to the second fear of death: fear about the pain and suffering that killing brings. In this fear we see MacKinnon’s characterization of death, “that ordinary horror”.

---

Like other northern hunting peoples, many Yukon First Nation people conceive of hunting as a reciprocal social relationship between humans and animals.

Paul Nadasdy, in "Agricultural metaphors and the politics of wildlife management in the Yukon". 

---

In a book chapter I have frequently returned to in discussions over human-animal relationships, Paul Nadasdy, Associate Professor of Anthropology at Cornell University, discusses the contrasts between Western and Yukon First Nations’ understandings of the concept of wildlife management, focusing particularly on contrasting notions of ownership and control between cultures. Within a Yukon First Nations worldview, humans and animals interact on the basis of a reciprocal social relationship defined by the need to uphold certain responsibilities. Humans hunt wildlife but do so within the context of specific practices designed to maintain the relationship, practices that vary between cultures, but “commonly include the observance of food taboos, ritual feasts, and prescribed methods for disposing of animal remains, as well as injunctions against overhunting and talking badly about, or playing with, animals”. Maintaining the social relationship one has with animals is of utmost importance and in this particular cultural worldview, involves killing.

There is an element of control and agency that is important in understanding the contrast between different worldviews. In a Western worldview, humans are most commonly positioned above and in control of nature: the world is here to be used by humans. In, for example, a Yukon First Nations worldview, animals have agency and can choose not to present themselves to human hunters. Humans must therefore fulfill certain social obligations towards animals and these obligations are often carried out through hunting. The concept of killing and what it means to kill an animal is thus conceived of quite differently in a Yukon First Nations context than one dominated by Western knowledge and cultural traditions.

The idea that there exists a plurality of knowledges informed by one’s culture must accompany us into ethical conversations and decision-making around the use of animals. We must remember that in many cultures, a context of respect and gratitude is the very the foundation of how humans have come to understand a relationship with animals that involves killing.

Conclusions

I am not a religious person and I would not even suggest that I am spiritual. I have come to understand my actions and morality on my own terms and I have tried to inform that understanding as much as possible by lessons in nature, though inspiration for this understanding can come from many places. I want to make it clear that caring deeply about wildlife is not dependent on religious or spiritual guidance; I have thought and felt deeply about both the individual animals I have killed and about the populations and species of which those individuals were a part. When I kill an animal, there is an intense and undeniable connection with that individual – from the moment I first see it to every single time I cook a portion of it – and there is also a connection with that animal that feels more historic, a sense of shared history on the landscape. Animal-rights campaigns often focus on individual animals that have been given human names. This kind of anthropomorphism often loses the ability to situate the relationship between human and animals on an evolutionary scale. For me, it is precisely the simultaneous feelings of intense personalization with an individual animal and a depersonalization with the awareness that there is a deeper historic interaction that we are a part of that gives the encounter so much meaning.

One thing that many of us can agree on is that healthy ecosystems and wildlife populations are critical for the survival of our species and this planet. We might also agree that maintaining healthy ecosystems and wildlife populations depends on human appreciation and valuation of those places and species and in order for humans to care about and take care of the natural world, they need a personal relationship with it. It may be that some wish to redefine the foundation of this relationship in a way that reflects changing social and cultural norms, but this cannot be taken for granted and this new foundation cannot be laid without conscious and thoughtful reflection, otherwise we risk losing the historic relationships within which both humans and animals have mutually evolved.

We may personally disagree with particular conservation policies or strategies, but it is imperative that we maintain our connections with animals and understand that there are cases where this connection takes place through an interaction that involves death. I personally consider ethical concerns about animal welfare as one of our most important considerations in killing animals. However, when engaging in discussions with one another over the ethics of using animals, we need to be conscious of the foundational assumptions on which these conversations are built. We need to identify and critically reflect on the culturally specific concepts we bring to our decision-making around killing and understand and respect that ethics are a sliding scale throughout the world.

In doing so, we may find that misunderstandings and disagreements run deeper than the specific applications and policies we find ourselves debating and that we gain much more from engaging with a plurality of ethical perspectives than from disregarding them.

Animal-rights activists argue that we are not morally justified to kill animals for any purpose, and certainly not for products they consider to be non-essential, such as fur. But this view of morality may say more about the activists' understanding of society, of nature and of their own unique place within the big scheme of things than it does about people who produce or wear fur.

This thought came to me just before Christmas during a moving performance of Handel’s Messiah, by Montreal’s Metropolitan Orchestra and Choir with star conductor Yannick Nézet-Séguin. Handel’s magnificent oratorio was premiered in Dublin, in 1742, under the direction of the composer; the beautiful libretto by Charles Jennens (1700-1773) is drawn from Old and New Testament texts.

"All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned every one to his own way."

– Isaiah 53:6 (from libretto of Handel’s Messiah)

The music is transcendental, but my thoughts returned to more earthly matters as the choir sang the verse: "... we have turned every one to his own way." Nine words that neatly sum up the guiding philosophy of modern Western society.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not romanticizing the time when the individual was required – often ruthlessly – to conform to the demands of family, clan, nation or religion. But the fact is that we, in our privileged Western societies, have ventured into uncharted waters: for the first time in human history, individual freedom and personal fulfilment are widely considered to be the most important goals, the ultimate "good".

We no longer accept that our marriage partners be chosen by our families, or that what we eat and how we behave be dictated by tradition or a parish priest. Today, each of us claims the right to make our own decisions. The individual is king.

What does this have to do with the radical shift in thinking proposed by animal-rights philosophers? Maybe a lot. Because, above all, believers in animal rights assert that the rights of each animal must be recognised as inviolable. It is the individual animal, not the population or species that is important, according to this view. And this has far-reaching implications. Let’s see how.

Livestock and Humans Depend on Each Other

Most of us believe that humans have a right to use animals for food and other purposes, so long as animal populations are not diminished and species are not endangered. This is known as “sustainable use”. In other words, we eat chickens, but we don’t eat them all. Individual chickens are killed and eaten by individual humans – who will, in turn, one day themselves be eaten by worms, bacteria and other organisms – but both chickens and humans continue. In fact, with North Americans annually consuming some three billion chickens, and billions more eggs, one could argue that both chickens and humans are now very dependent on each other for survival.

A concern for animal welfare complements and deepens our sustainable-use values by acknowledging the individuals involved in this species-level symbiosis. The fact that individual animals die to provide for our needs implies, we believe, a responsibility to protect these animals from unnecessary suffering. In this sense, “animal welfare” seeks to balance the interests of groups and individuals.

The animal-rights philosophy, however, makes a quantum leap: the interests of individual animals are suddenly all that matter. According to animal-rights theorists, the individual chicken’s will-to-life is morally non-negotiable and irrevocable, no matter how useful their proteins may be for the health and well-being of humans – or, for that matter, for the survival of chickendom.

In other words, the animal-rights doctrine perfectly reflects our celebration of the individual in modern Western societies. And perhaps this explains, at least in part, why the animal-rights philosophy has considerable appeal in Western societies, especially among younger people.

Of course, our glorification of the individual is far from universal. Even today, most people live in societies where the individual has less autonomy, where their dependence on the group is more explicit. The moral force or “truth” of animal-rights arguments probably seem less evident in such societies.

And isn’t the dependence of the individual on the group a fundamental reality in all human societies? We live in cities, speak languages, use technologies, and have our spirits lifted by music that were all created by others, often people who are no longer with us.

Rights Not Rooted in Nature

A more profound challenge to the “truth” of the animal-rights philosophy comes from the fact that nature doesn’t show much consideration for individuals. In nature, individuals are short-lived and expendable; it is populations and species that continue.

This ecological truth does not diminish the importance of respecting human rights, but it reminds us that such rights are not rooted in nature or universal truth; they are created by human societies.

What is rooted in nature, however, is the dependence of all animals on other species – especially for food. Like it or not, only the living cells of other organisms can provide us with sustenance. No philosopher or activist can change this fundamental fact of our existence.

Nature is not moral or immoral, it just is. But humans do develop codes of morality, precisely because we live in groups and need each other. Without moral codes we would indeed be lost sheep. But if the animal-rights insistence on each animal’s irrevocable right-to-life is not defensible, what moral code regulates our use of animals?

Our Morality Towards Animals

When it comes to our relationship with animals, our moral code includes four main precepts. Two have already been mentioned: we should use only part of the surpluses that nature provides (“sustainability”), and we should protect the animals we use from unnecessary suffering (“animal welfare”). The other two moral precepts governing our relationship with animals are that we should not use animals for frivolous purposes (“important use”), and we should use as much of the animal as possible (“no waste”).

SEE ALSO: Why fur is the ethical clothing choice.

As I have explained in a previous article, the modern fur trade does respect all four of these important moral precepts. The use of fur, when it is responsibly and sustainably produced as it is today, is indeed morally justifiable, because it balances the needs of species and individuals in a way that is consistent with the way our world really works.

It is animal activists who are lost, who “have turned every one to his own way”, because their fundamentalist philosophy considers only the individual. In fact, as the great humanitarian and animal lover Albert Schweitzer once wrote: insisting that we harm no other life is not a solution to the moral problem that living beings kill and eat each other to survive – it is pretending that there is no problem.

Something that keeps writers like me employed is that no matter how good we are at spreading the truth, when the next generation comes along there are things we have to teach all over again. Such is the case with the clothing material popularly known as sheepskin, lambskin or shearling. And the lesson that needs constant repetition is that it is not wool, it is sheep fur, and animals die to produce it.

In defence of those who find this confusing, it's true that the word "fur" is popularly used to mean the skin and hair (or pelt) of particular types of animal, like mink or fox. But in fact, every hairy animal can provide fur, including sheep, which do so in vast amounts. We just don't call it fur. Sheep fur is variously called sheepskin or lambskin, while the fur of a sheep which has been recently sheared is called shearling.

And just for total clarity, when we use sheep hair without the skin attached, it's called wool, and no animals are killed to produce it.

In the context of the great fur debate, these are important distinctions because many people are wearing fur without even knowing it, including some people who should know better.

Pam's Ugg Boots

The most memorable case of someone not being able to put two and two together was Pamela Anderson. During her Baywatch days, she almost single-handedly turned Ugg sheepskin boots into a major fashion trend. She then took up the cudgels for PETA, campaigning against the practice of mulesing sheep while still wearing her trademark Uggs.

For some unknown reason, PETA decided not to tell Pam what Uggs were made of, but finally the penny dropped. "I'm getting rid of my Uggs," she wrote on her website in 2007. "I feel so guilty for that craze being started around my Baywatch days. I used to wear them with my red swim suit to keep warm never realizing that they were SKIN! I thought they were shaved kindly. People like to tell me all the time that I started that trend - yikes!"

"It's Clear It's Sheep's Wool" – Vogue

But the point here is not just to have a laugh at Pam's expense. She is a high-profile example of a pervasive ignorance found not only among the general public but even in the world of fashion.

This November, Vogue (UK) interviewed Gucci's new handler, the Humane Society of the US, about the brand's decision to go "fur-free". As we shall see, there's cause for scepticism when brands like Gucci, which use a lot of shearling, make this claim. Will they be dropping all furs, including sheep fur, or just the mink and fox?

Never fear, reported Vogue's interviewer, Emily Farra; Gucci had all the bases covered. "Gucci has already made its signature Princetown loafers in lamb, sheep, goat, and alpaca fur, which do not require the animals’ pelts," she wrote. Really? What is "alpaca fur" if it's not a pelt? More significantly, Gucci is quite open about its sheep-based Princetown loafers being lined with shearling, and, yes, that means the whole pelt – skin and hair.

We called out Ms. Farra on Twitter, but she refused to see the light ...

Animal Rights Groups, Designer Brands Conspiracy

Ignorance about sheep fur persists in part because neither designer brands that use it, nor the animal rights groups that handle them, are forthcoming with the truth. It's a trade-off. In return for brands declaring themselves "fur-free", their animal rights handlers turn a blind eye to the fact that sheep pelts are fur.

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

A shameless example of this duplicity is Ralph Lauren. Since 2006, it has been "100% fur-free" and compliant with "PETA guidelines". In reality, it uses a huge amount of sheep fur, often disguising it as other types of fur, necessitating the following footnote to the show notes of a recent collection: "Ralph Lauren has a long-standing commitment to not use fur products in our apparel and accessories. All fur-like pieces featured in the collection are constructed of shearling."

Talk about double-speak! Both Ralph Lauren and PETA are surely aware that shearling is fur, and yet they insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise. And they get away with it because, as Pam Anderson and others have proved, intelligence is in short supply where sheep fur is concerned.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, here's the short version: Sheepskin, lambskin and shearling are all fur. And yes, animals die to produce them.

Anti-fur protesters today are an established part of our autumn scenery, like falling leaves or the southbound migration of Canada geese. But, in fact, all of the problems that originally triggered such protests have been addressed and resolved. So are the current crop of anti-fur protesters rebels without a cause? Or worse, are their protests now just a pretext for intolerance, a smokescreen for imposing on others a radical new form of militant vegetarianism?

Is it time to say “enough with the anti-fur protesting”?

A quick review of the history of anti-fur protesters raises serious questions about why they still exist.

Early Anti-Fur Protesters

Organized opposition to fur trapping began in 1925 when American adventurer and spy-turned-diplomat Edward Breck founded the National Anti-Steel Trap League after an encounter with a trapped bear during a visit to Nova Scotia. This was the peak of the “Roaring Twenties”, when raccoon, beaver and other wild furs were the rage. Fur prices were high and, with few government controls, fur-bearer populations were depleted in some regions. The two key themes of anti-fur protesting had emerged: concerns about the humaneness of trapping methods (animal welfare) and the need to ensure that trapping did not deplete furbearer populations (conservation/sustainability).

The Great Depression and World War Two swept away the exuberant fashions of the 1920s, and by the 1950s wild species represented barely 25% of North American fur sales. Concerns about trapping receded.

But in the 1960s – in an effort to expand the market beyond mink, Persian lamb and other classic farmed furs – the fur trade reintroduced wild species as “fun furs”, an initiative that received a major boost when Jackie Kennedy bought a leopard-skin coat in 1962. Ironically, this was the same year that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published, heralding the birth of the modern ecology movement.

Protest was in the air. In 1965, a film broadcast by Radio-Canada raised conservation and animal-welfare concerns about the northwest Atlantic seal hunt – a hunt that was then still little known and largely unregulated.

SEE ALSO: Ten lessons from 30 years battling animal rights.

And while trapping was now carefully regulated in North America, full international controls were not yet in place: the US Endangered Species Act would only be passed in 1969, while the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was not implemented until 1975. This was the context in which Cleveland Amory launched his Fund for Animals in 1967, and his first major campaign was against the use of fur from leopards and other endangered wild cats.

Celebrities, Media and Fake Fur

In his book Man Kind? Our Incredible War on Wildlife (1974), Amory recalled that his anti-fur campaign was sparked by a visit from a representative of fake-fur manufacturer E.F. Timme & Son. The company offered to give $200 and a fake fur coat to any “socialite” who would publicly denounce the wearing of furs from endangered species. Amory suggested that they up the ante to $2,000 and proposed the names of several well-known actresses who would decry the wearing of any wild fur. As members of his board, they could also be counted on to hand over the cash to his Fund.

With Doris Day, Mary Tyler Moore and others, the Fund for Animals became the first animal protection group to take a page from the ad man’s book and use “celebrities” to attract media attention. Long before Greenpeace brought Brigitte Bardot to the seal hunt (1977) and PETA promoted a string of models and B-list actresses to declare that they “would rather go naked than wear fur," Amory understood that “the medium is the message."

Amory also took up the animal-welfare side of the fur debate. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (CAHT) had sent him a seven-minute film they claimed was “filmed on the trap-line,” although it was later revealed that many scenes had been staged in a compound. It was called They Take So Long to Die, a line from an old National Anti-Steel Trap League poem. Amory sent the film to CBS Evening News, and on March 21, 1972, 20 million Americans watched animals struggling in leg-hold traps. Amory appeared on the program to demonstrate a quick-killing Conibear trap, which he presented as a more humane alternative.

It is important to note that Amory and the CAHT were arguing for more humane and sustainable trapping, not for a ban on trapping or fur use. The CAHT had made its film to pressure the Canadian government to seriously research improved trapping methods, and when the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping was set up in September 1973, the film was withdrawn from circulation. [For a full history of trap research and development, read our interview with humane-trap champion Neal Jotham.]

As legitimate conservation and animal-welfare concerns were being addressed, however, a new kind of anti-fur campaign was emerging.

Reformers Lose Their Way

The pioneering work of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping was taken up by the newly-formed Fur Institute of Canada, in 1983, and this continuing research has resulted in significantly improved trapping methods, trapper education, state and provincial regulations, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. But while the CAHT had withdrawn They Take So Long to Die, some of the footage was incorporated into Canada’s Shame, a new film produced by the Vancouver-based Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals (APFA).

While condemning the Fur Institute’s world-leading trap research program as a sham, APFA founder George Clements was unable to suggest how it might be improved when he was questioned under oath by the Parliamentary Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, on June 5, 1986. “If you are really serious, then I would really have to go back home and think about that,” Mr. Clements confessed. When another MP pointed out that “it is very easy to criticize and belittle certain things but [MP John Parry] asked if you had a game plan or a solution to this particular problem,” Mr. Clements was contrite: “I have been put in my place,” he said.

Now known as The Fur-bearers, the APFA has since abandoned any pretense of seeking more humane trapping. It now claims that “there is no such thing as a humane trap,” and calls for the complete abolition of “the commercial fur trade, including trapping and fur farms.”

From Leg-hold Traps to Fur Farms

As the popularity – and prices – of fur reached record levels through the 1970s and 1980s, protest activity intensified. Large, rowdy, anti-fur demonstrations became a common sight in many cities. And even when fur prices and sales retreated with the crash of the stock market in 1989 and the economic recession that followed, the protests – and political lobbying – continued, with leg-hold traps as the main target.

As they did with the seal-hunt, activists zeroed in on the European Parliament as a weak link in the political chain. The European Economic Community had banned the importation of furs from young (whitecoat and blueback) seal pups in 1983, although there was no conservation or animal-welfare justification for doing so. In 1991, the EEC adopted Council Regulation 3254/91 which “prohibits the use of leg-hold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leg-hold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards.”

Anti-fur activists thought this meant the end of the wild-fur trade, because “international humane trapping standards” did not exist at that time. But they were wrong. With the implementation of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards in 1997, it became clear that animal-welfare concerns about trapping were being seriously addressed, much as conservation and sustainability problems had been addressed by national and international regulations in the 1970s.

In response, anti-fur protesters shifted their focus to fur farming. Over the past decade, activists have released a series of undercover videos to bolster their claim that mink and fox suffer on fur farms. In fact, a wide range of government regulations and industry codes of practice ensure that farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care. Farmers have every reason to abide by these codes, because there is no other way to produce high-quality fur.

But in commercial-scale production, there will always be a few sick or injured animals; farmers often keep these in a special section of the shed where they can be easily observed and cared for. But activist videos don’t explain that. Nor do they explain that mink will appear agitated when disturbed in the middle of the night by strangers carrying cameras and bright lights. And as if that were not enough, the camera can always focus on manure under the pens (where it is supposed to be), or the voice-over can ominously inform us that these animals are being “raised in small cages” only to be "slaughtered and skinned for their fur.”

Rebels Without a Cause?

As this quick history reveals, the original anti-fur protesters were motivated by legitimate animal-welfare and conservation concerns. Over the past 50 years, however, these concerns have been addressed. Trapper training, new regulations, and continuing scientific research ensure that trapping in North America is now conducted responsibly and sustainably. Farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care, as required by government regulations, industry codes of practice, and the demands of a highly competitive international marketplace.

In fact, anti-fur protesters are no longer driven by real conservation concerns. Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature do not protest the fur industry because they do not consider it an environmental problem.

And anti-fur protesters are not really driven by animal-welfare concerns either. Animal-welfare groups (like the CAHT) that accepted the responsible use of animals but worked to improve the humaneness of trapping, have been superseded by media-savvy “animal rights” groups, like PETA. And while PETA distributes videos that it claims show animal-welfare abuses – and it will always be possible to find a bad apple somewhere – its publicly-stated objective is the elimination of any use of animals, even for food or vital medical research.

But when 95% of the population still eat meat and wear leather, it is disingenuous to claim that it is immoral to use fur that is produced responsibly and sustainably.

So the question remains: Is there still any justification for anti-fur protesters doing what they do? Is protesting against fur now just a way to attack "the establishment", or a smokescreen for promoting a radical “animal-rights” agenda? Or perhaps they have simply lost their way.

As American philosopher George Santayana said so succinctly, “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”

The fur retailing season is beginning, and with it we can expect the usual flurry of fur protests. Despite decades of anti-fur campaigning, activists have generally failed in their efforts to push designers and consumers away from using and wearing nature’s most beautiful clothing material. Fur has probably never been featured in so many top designer runway collections, and fur has certainly never been used in a wider variety of products, from apparel to accessories to home furnishings.

But animal rights activists are not very interested in opinions that differ from their own, so the fur protests continue.

Sometimes, consumers are harassed and retailers are warned that their stores will be targets until they stop selling fur. (Can you spell Protection Racket?) A favourite new tactic is the store invasion (often called Direct Action Everywhere or DxE) where activists enter a shop, individually, posing as consumers, and then pull out posters and begin chanting slogans in unison. One or more protesters film the “action”, taunting shop owners and security staff who dare not push them towards the exit for fear of being slapped with assault charges. Another nasty new trick is to flood a retailer’s Facebook page with negative comments and reviews.

Following are some ways to protect your retail business from animal rights protests.

1. Use Early-Warning Systems

While fur protests can happen any time – especially during the fur season – the next big activist target date is “Fur Free Friday” (the activist response to “Black Friday”), which falls on November 24 this year. Google "Fur Free Friday 2017” to see if your town is listed. Or monitor the national Facebook page.

There are many ways to find out about protests that may be planned for your store. Animal rights groups are often headquartered on university or college campuses, and they find many of their foot soldiers there. So monitor university bulletin boards. It's even better if someone you know can join the local animal-rights group. Or simply keep an eye on the Facebook page of your local animal-rights group.

Not least important, your national fur trade association can provide a timely heads-up when trouble is brewing, or advice and assistance if your store becomes a target. Be sure you are a paid-up member of the Fur Information Council of America (323.782.1700; [email protected]), or the Fur Council of Canada (514-844-1945; [email protected]). They need your support so they can be there to support you!

2. Build Relations with Local Law Enforcement ... and Others

It is always best to build your relationship with local police before you need their help. It can be as simple as calling your local precinct and asking for a meeting with a commanding officer. Or speak with officers who patrol your street. Explain your concern that stores selling fur are often targets for protests or vandalism. Getting to know your local police can play big dividends: they can often warn you of up-coming protests, or keep an eye on your store at night, especially in the period before and after fur protests, a time when vandalism often occurs.

Not least important, police can be present during demos, to tone down rowdy demonstrators and ensure that consumers can access your store without being harassed. While police cannot “take sides”, they do have a mandate to keep the peace and prevent harassment or confrontation, which allows them to keep protesters a certain distance from your door. How they interpret this mandate often depends on what sort of relationship you have developed beforehand.

Remember always to file a police report about any harassment, threats, graffiti or other vandalism, no matter how minor. Take photos before scraping away graffiti from store windows or walls. And keep any threatening phone messages. Such incidents often precede more significant attacks. And these reports allow police to see patterns of radical activism developing, or to make a case with their commanding officers for devoting scarce resources to protecting your store.

You should also build bridges with your local business group or Chamber of Commerce, and with local politicians. Their support can help to ensure that the police will be there when you need them.

3. Secure Your Store

Most fur stores have good security systems to prevent break-ins and theft – insurance companies require them – but be sure you have security cameras and that they are functioning! Cameras surveying the inside of the store can help to identify protesters who enter your premises. Cameras facing the sidewalk can discourage vandalism.

One particularly nasty activist weapon is Butyric acid, a carboxylic acid that has an extremely powerful and unpleasant vomit-like odour. When sprayed under the doors of a store, at night, fur coats can be effectively ruined, as the smell is nearly impossible to remove. The best solution is prevention: ensure that there Is no way to spray anything under your doors or through keyholes or mail slots!

4. Prepare Yourself and Your Staff

Plan and discuss the procedures you will employ if there is a protest at your store. As a general policy, do not engage or argue with protesters; confrontation will only encourage them and could make the protest more "newsworthy" if any media are present. Never touch or push protesters.

Some retailers have rented large cube vans to park in front of their stores, blocking the protesters from the view of passing cars or pedestrians on the opposite sidewalk.

If you know in advance about a protest, consider hiring professional security: they have the knowledge and experience to handle protesters lawfully and effectively.

If you are subjected to repeated or abusive fur protests, you should consult a lawyer: there is a considerable body of labour law relating to the legal limits of picketing.

5. During Fur Protests

It is rare that protesters try to enter stand-alone stores (DxE invasions usually target shops in malls), but if they do, ask them to leave, and call the police. Do not try to expel protesters physically; it is very likely that you are being filmed, and any physical contact could result in criminal charges.

It can be useful to have someone photograph the fur protesters, for identification if needed, and to let them know they are being watched. But check first to ensure that this is legal in your town. And remember rule number one: you do not want to escalate tensions or provoke violence. It is usually better to suffer through the occasional fur protest quietly, rather than make yourself a target for more protests.

For those who would like to respond more actively, the Retail Fur Council of Canada has produced a new tool for retailers to use if they are subjected to a DxE store invasion. Click on the posters below to download, then print them out and hold them up behind chanting protesters or in front of their cameras, or display them in store windows during fur protests. Messages include: “Say NO to extremists” and “Defend freedom of choice!” Such tools should be used with caution, though; you do not want to escalate tensions or make yourself more of a target.

6. Dealing with Media

Media now usually ignore fur protests, especially in larger cities. If journalists do ask you to comment, it is usually best to refer them to your national association (FICA or the FCC). Your association professionals are trained and better prepared to speak with the media ... and they have no street-level store windows to break.

If you do want to say something, keep it simple and positive, and then suggest that the journalist contact your national association for more information.

Here are some examples of the type of media statement you can make:

• “If someone does not want to wear fur or leather, or eat meat, that’s their choice. But most people in our society think we do have a right to use animal products, so long as this is done responsibly -- as fur is. If you want to know more about that, you should speak with our national association; I will give you their coordinates.”
• “Everyone has a right to their opinions, but our business is doing very well. We are very proud to offer our customers high-quality and sustainably-produced natural products like fur. If you want to know more about that ...”
• “If our store is thriving after so many years, it is because there are many people who appreciate the beauty of natural clothing materials. Sure there are synthetic alternatives, but most are made from petroleum, which is not really better for animals or the environment. If you want more information about how fur is produced ..."

7. Dealing with Cyber-Attacks

Several North American retailers have recently been hit with cyber-attacks where their Facebook pages are flooded with negative comments and ratings.

If this happens, here are some things you can do:

• Contact Facebook immediately and ask them to remove the abusive (and fake) ratings/reviews. Go to Facebook's Help Centre here, and follow the menu items Policies and Reporting / Reporting Abuse.
• Tell them this is an orchestrated terrorist-type cyber-attack; tell them you feel threatened.
• If you advertise with Facebook, tell them you will stop advertising if they cannot remove these abusive posts/ratings quickly. (It works!)
• If Facebook does not respond quickly, contact [email protected]; as a stop-gap measure we can rally supporters for positive posts.
• The simplest and quickest solution of all is simply to disable the ratings and comments section of your Facebook page.

Finally, remember: It is always best to be prepared, but most fur protests are brief and relatively harmless. The most important thing is to remain calm and not be suckered into escalating the tension. If you learn that you will be targeted by a fur protest, contact your national association – they have the experience to help you get through these frustrating episodes.

Do you have any other ideas or experiences you would like to share? We would love to hear from you!

It has been some 35 years since I began promoting the ethical credentials of the fur trade and denouncing the fallacies of animal-rights extremism. As a pro-fur warrior, I have had many odd and interesting encounters, some of which you may find amusing. Following are a few memorable moments, in no particular order.

After the publication of my book Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy, in the mid-1980s, I was often asked to address groups of livestock producers and others who worked with animals, to explain the new challenges posed by the emerging animal-rights movement. To help my audiences understand the animal-rights philosophy, I liked to throw out a challenge: Why, I asked, do we think it’s “OK” to kill and eat a cow, for example, if we don’t think it’s acceptable to kill Charlie, sitting there in the first row, even if we sneak up on him while he’s sleeping so he doesn’t feel any stress or pain?

The question invariably produced a chuckle, and it got them thinking. But it didn’t faze one old cowboy who had been tasked with thanking me for my presentation to a group of Western Canadian cattlemen. “By the way: the reason it’s OK to eat a cow but not Charlie,” he said, turning to look at me with a sly grin, “is because the cow has its eyes on the sides of its head.” What he meant, of course, was that predators – including tigers, owls ... and humans – have eyes in the centre of our faces, to provide the bifocal vision needed to accurately evaluate pouncing distances. Prey animals generally sacrifice such precision for a wide-angle view of approaching danger. I was supposed to be the communicator, but that weather-beaten rancher summed up a central dilemma of the animal-rights debate in just a few words.*

Touching Moments

Some of my encounters have sounded a more touching note. I will never forget the young Inuit woman in tears after I brought her to an animal-rights lecture, she was so hurt by the way her people’s hunting traditions were denigrated. A dairy farmer’s daughter also cried as she told me how it felt to be labelled “cruel” by friends at school because of her father’s work: “My father who trudges out to the barn yet one more time before going to bed, even in the most bitter cold, to be sure ‘his girls’ are comfortable for the night!”

And then there was the Newfoundland hunter who thanked me for my writing because “it’s good to know that someone out there understands who we really are, our way of life.” And the Cree trapper who read Second Nature, footnotes and all, through a long winter season alone on his northern trap-line.

Each of these encounters, and many more like them, has rekindled and reinforced my determination to expose the cruel impact of misguided animal-rights campaigning.

And Absurdities

Other incidents had a more absurdist twist. Like the time I was invited for a media tour in England. Because of concerns about Animal Liberation Front violence – particularly nasty in Britain at the time – my hosts had taken security precautions. My name was registered at the chic West Kensington hotel only as “Incognito”. I didn’t think anything of it until that night when I phoned the front desk for a morning wake-up call. The receptionist confirmed the hour I had requested and then asked, “Will there be anything else, Mr. Incognito?” I assumed she was being ironic, until she added, “By the way, is your name Italian?”

Equally absurd, although certainly more disturbing, was my encounter with Richard Adams, of Watership Down fame. When not writing about the secret life of rabbits, Adams was an animal activist who travelled to Canada to protest the seal hunt in 1977, and enjoyed a brief and turbulent stint as president of the RSPCA. When I met him in the late 1980s, Adams was campaigning against the fur trade in the United States, and I was asked to debate him on Boston television. He refused to shake my hand when we were introduced before the broadcast ("I wouldn’t shake hands with Hitler," he explained), but I stole his thunder – and precious minutes of live television time – by sticking my hand into a soft-catch fox trap “on camera” while explaining why his claims about cruel trapping were misinformed and outdated.

The best was yet to come. After the TV debate, we were invited for an in-depth interview by a Boston Globe journalist. She offered Adams the opening salvo, but he ignored her as he busily perused a sheaf of notes. After I explained a few facts about fur, she turned to Adams again. Still not a word. So I was able to explain a bit more. And then more. Until, suddenly, as the journalist reported in the next day’s paper, Mr. Adams gathered up his papers, stood up without a word, and left the building.

I saw Richard Adams one more time, a few days later, at a New York television studio where we were scheduled to debate again. I was waiting in the Green Room when Adams walked in and informed the producer that he would not appear on the program if I was there too. The producer asked him why? “Because he’s insane,” Adams replied. “We have lots of insane people on New York television,” the producer assured him. Adams left. He had made a calculated decision, I realized: he was scheduled to speak at dozens of US colleges and would be interviewed by many journalists over the next ten days – alone. Why share the limelight with someone who actually knew something about trapping and fur farming?

Postscript: A few years later, a rabbit cull was organized on the Isle of Man, a tax haven where Richard Adams had fled to protect the fortune his books had generated. An enterprising journalist decided that it would be interesting to ask the famous rabbit author for his thoughts about the cull. “You have to remember that my book is fiction,” said Mr. Adams. “In real life, rabbits are a pest.” Or as Mr. Adams told another journalist: “If I saw a rabbit in my garden, I’d shoot it.”

*NOTE: Some scientists now believe that human bifocal vision developed when our ancestors took to the trees, improving our ability to leap from one branch to another. According to this hypothesis, bifocal vision in this case did not make us better predators, it made us less-accessible prey! Subsequently, of course, it also made us much more effective predators.

***

The author is an internationally recognized defender of the fur trade. Raised in a fur-manufacturing family, he is the author of Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy, the first serious critique of the animal-rights movement from an environmental and social justice perspective. Herscovici served for 20 years as Executive Vice-President of the Fur Council of Canada and is the creator of Furisgreen.com. He is now the senior researcher/writer of TruthAboutFur.com.

Now that recent actions by White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis have sparked discussion about the importance of tolerance in a modern, multi-cultural society, perhaps it is time to denounce another type of increasingly aggressive hate group: animal-rights extremists.

I can hear animal activists choking on their tofu stir-fry, but the facts speak for themselves: their campaigns – like those of other hate groups – almost always involve a direct attack on the rights, reputation and livelihoods of other people.

Hate groups are usually defined as organizations that promote discrimination against specific groups of people based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It’s time we added "employment" to that list.

Think about it: animal activists are not satisfied with expressing their opinions or exercising their right to wear cotton, hemp and synthetics, rather than fur or other animal products. Instead, they seek to impose their views on everyone.

While they call for compassion, they often seem to be driven more by anger and hatred of people who don’t share their views.

They use sensationalist and misleading videos of dubious origin to smear the entire fur industry and everyone associated with it – the same sort of tactics employed by other hate groups. The Nazis, of course, pioneered the use of staged films to fan hatred against Jews and others.

And if propaganda doesn’t work, animal extremists – like other hate groups – aren’t shy to employ intimidation. Despite decades of misleading activist campaigning, fur is now being sold in a wider range of stores than ever, in designer collections, as trim on outerwear, in fashion accessories. If consumers agreed with the activists’ condemnation of fur, stores wouldn’t be selling it. But animal extremists do not think that consumers and retailers have a right to make such decisions for themselves.

Their response is rowdier demonstrations. Fur-wearing consumers are harangued as they enter or leave stores; they are followed down the street by angry activists. Stores are warned that the demos won’t stop until they drop fur from their offerings. Under cover of darkness, store windows are broken and locks are glued. So much for the respectful exchange of views.

The animal extremist message is clear: "Do as we say, or face the consequences." Like a mafia protection racket. Or a chilling echo of the threats and intimidation used against businesses that resisted segregationist thugs in the early days of the US Civil Rights Movement.

Elevating Animals, Degrading People

The aggressiveness of animal-extremists is fueled by their fundamentalist “animal-rights” philosophy. If you believe that killing a mink (or a cow, pig or chicken) is the moral equivalent of killing a fellow human, it is easy to justify the most radical of actions.

SEE ALSO: Why Animal Rights Activists Are Becoming More Aggressive

Unfortunately, rather than elevating the moral status of animals, such beliefs easily lead to the degradation of other people. Once again, the Nazis provide a stark warning: not only were Hitler and several of his top henchmen vegetarians, but the Third Reich was the only national government in history to implement a complete ban on the use of animals in medical research. Dr. Josef Mengele used Jews instead for his cruel experiments.

In fact, most people in our society accept the responsible use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes. As designer Karl Lagerfeld has said about activists protesting his use of fur: “For me, as long as people eat meat and wear leather, I don't get the message.”

We have shown in a previous article, "Why fur is the ethical clothing choice", that the modern fur trade fully satisfies the four criteria required for most people to accept the use of animals as ethical. The wild-fur trade is well regulated and sustainable. Research and standards promote animal welfare for both wild and farmed fur-bearers. Fur animals are fully utilized with minimal waste. And the fur trade supports rural and remote communities while providing a valuable and long-lasting natural clothing material.

I know that most "animal-rights" advocates will be shocked at being labelled as hate mongers; they will claim that they are promoting justice, not discrimination. But every hate group claims to be promoting justice for their own particular cause. Having a cause does not justify attacking the reputations and livelihoods of people who do not share your beliefs.

It is time that the people of the fur trade were recognized for their knowledge and skills in maintaining this remarkable heritage industry, and for developing one of the most responsible and sustainable animal-use industries in the world.

And it is time for the media, political leaders, and the general public to take a much harder look at the misguided and irresponsible actions of animal extremists – and to say "no" to hate groups of all stripes.

What are you doing to protect fur and the industry? The fur trade has faced many difficult challenges over the past few years. These include fast-changing lifestyles, new and cheaper (and usually synthetic) clothing materials, vertically-integrated companies, multi-national fashion-marketing giants ... and, of course, sensationalist animal-rights campaigns that spread disparaging and false information about our industry.

The fur trade has done a remarkable job of dealing with these challenges, especially considering its small-scale, decentralized and largely artisanal character. The increased use of fur in small pieces (vests, jackets), trim (on parkas) and accessories (hats, scarves, handbags) has made fur more accessible to more, and younger, people than ever before. We see more fur now on the catwalks and in the streets than we have for decades.

Nonetheless, we know we still have lots of work to do. Animal activists continue to spread misinformation that can confuse consumers. Their latest strategy is to pressure fashion and outerwear retailers to drop fur from their inventories. And such pressures can be very difficult for consumers and retailers to resist, especially if they are not sure whether the fur trade is responsibly managed.

The truth, like it or not, is that our industry is too small to expect our professional associations and breeder groups to solve these problems alone. We all have to pitch in to protect fur tradespeople and get our messages out to consumers, designers, retailers, media, politicians, and the general public.

Here are some ideas about things that YOU can do to help.  And we’d love to hear some of the other things that YOU are doing to let people know about our remarkable, heritage industry.

If you are a fur designer, manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer:

• Be active online. Comment on news articles and on social media, presenting polite and knowledgeable arguments to defend the trade. Even if people don’t comment back, people are reading. Let’s present ourselves as an industry that is confident about its processes.
• Answer customers' questions honestly, and if they press you about issues, respond accordingly. Have the information ready and know the facts. Our industry has often been misrepresented, so we need to be especially open with our customers.
• If you have a company website, add our link to your website so people can click through to get facts about the trade, and refer customers/associates/suppliers to TruthAboutFur.com
• Add the video The Fur Industry in 2 Minutes Flat to your website using this embedded link: <iframe width=“560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sydmyD8ouxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you are a trapper:

• Take guests out on the trap line from time to time. It may slow you down, but it is worth it. Read more on taking people out on your trapline.
• Volunteer to hold classes and teach people about what trappers do.
• Educate the young. The key to sustaining this wonderful activity and to protecting fur trapping is to get young people interested in it.
• Be active online about what you do, how you do it, and why you do it. Trapping is very complex and it is important to understand the benefits trapping brings to wildlife populations and how licenses fund responsible conservation.
• Ally yourself with hunters and fishermen. Sportsmen need to work together to strengthen and protect their rights.
• For strong debate arguments, check out our Q&A section about trapping.

If you are a fur farmer:

• Open your farm up to visitors. Inviting people onto your farm gives you the chance to educate them on how the industry works, and show you have nothing to hide. Contact your local or national fur farming association (Canadian Mink Breeders Association or Fur Commission USA) for information on how to organize such an event.
• Answer questions. Fur farming should be easy to defend. Animals must be treated well in order to have nice fur, and even the activists can't deny this obvious fact. If people have questions about the animals’ pens, food, and health, be honest and tell them what you do and why you do it.
• Remind people that fur farms are an integral part of the human food chain, and that the animals eat leftovers from chicken farms and fisheries.
• Be active on online. Many farmers show photos of their animals and the daily life of farm work. Being open and transparent about your work is key to ensuring we protect fur farming and get people to support it.
• Ally yourself with other farmers and support the farming trade. Sticking together is key to protecting the farmers of North America.
• For strong debate arguments, check out our Q&A about fur farming on our website.

For everyone who supports or works in the fur trade:

• Be active online! Comment on articles and social media. Share the truth, dispel myths, and remind people that there are lots of us that support the trade.
• Work hard to debunk myths and share positive fur trade information on all of your personal networks.
• Check out the Truth About Fur website to brush up on the facts, and refer people to it if they have questions about the trade.
• Support brands who sell fur, and try to avoid brands who have an anti-fur stance.
• Buy fur! Whether you are buying new, vintage, a coat, or an accessory, one of the best ways to support and promote this remarkable heritage industry is to buy and wear fur products.
• Support real animal welfare and conservation, not “animal rights”! Make sure you know the true agendas of any charities you support. If you care about pets, always donate to your local shelter and not the national “animal-rights” groups such as PETA and HSUS. Read up on charitable donations.
• When you wear fur, tell people why you do it. Be vocal about your support of the trade and don’t shy away from expressing it.

Stay in touch! If there is an important issue we need to address quickly, contact us by email, Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Do you have an amazing story to share? We want to post it in our Truth About Fur blog. Help us be the go-to place to represent the true image of the industry. Send us your beautiful pictures. We welcome your comments and contributions.

Some of our useful resources include answers to the most frequently asked questions:

• Are animals skinned alive for their fur?
• How are farmed mink killed?
• Is fur processing bad for the environment?
• How are fur animals trapped in the wild?
• What happens to the rest of the trapped animal once the fur is taken?
• Do fur farmers and trappers get a fair price for their products?

The public debate about fur (and other animal products) is often distorted by confusion between two important concepts: animal welfare and animal rights. These terms sound similar and are often used interchangeably, but they describe two profoundly different ideas. Caring about the welfare of the animals we use – for food and other purposes – is very different from assigning them the rights that activist groups are now proposing.

Do you believe that farm animals should be treated humanely and spared unnecessary suffering? Then you are a proponent of animal welfare. Animal-rights advocates, by contrast, argue that humans have no right to use animals at all – not for food, clothing, or anything else. They believe that all livestock production should be shut down completely. “Not better cages, no cages at all!” is their rallying cry.

It is rare that we agree with PETA on anything, but its views on the chasm separating animal welfare and animal rights are spelled out clearly on its website for all to see:

“Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation ... Animal welfare allows these uses as long as ‘humane’ guidelines are followed.”

Let’s see how this distinction plays out in the real world.

Eating Meat, Fish and Dairy

Animal-welfare advocates have worked for the past 100 years to ensure that the animals that provide us with meat, dairy products and eggs receive good nutrition and care. Thanks to their efforts we have humane-slaughter regulations, codes of practice and other provisions to minimize stress and suffering. This is an on-going process. For example, while modern production methods have made animal protein more affordable for millions, promoting healthy brain development for infants and children, they also raise new animal-welfare challenges.

Animal-rights advocates do not seek better conditions for farm animals. Rather, they oppose all killing and consumption of animals no matter how humanely this is done. Their openly-stated goal is to shut down all livestock farms and to end the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs, and any other animal products – even honey. They demand everyone becomes “vegan”, and argue that animal-welfare improvements only serve to justify what, for them, can never be justified, i.e., the killing of animals.

Wearing Leather, Fur, Wool and Silk

Again, animal-welfare advocates work to ensure that animals used for the skin, fur, feathers, hair, or other materials are treated humanely, with minimal suffering. Their efforts have driven North America’s world-leading trap-research program, and the development of codes of practice for fur farms.

Animal-rights campaigners oppose any use of all animal products for clothing or accessories. They often show examples of shocking abuse in their campaigns against fur, leather, and wool – which can make it look like they are concerned about animal welfare – but their goal is not better standards or regulations. They don’t believe humans have a right to use animals at all, which means no more wool, leather, fur, cashmere, down or even silk.

Owning Pets

Animal-welfare advocates believe that owning a pet is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. A pet needs to be housed, fed, and cared for properly, to ensure an acceptable level of well-being.

Animal-rights activists consider pet ownership to be a form of slavery. In their Brave New World there would be no more cats, dogs, fish, hamsters, bunnies, budgies, or other pets. In fact, the shocking kill-rate at PETA’s “shelter” confirms that it prefers to euthanize pets rather than find new homes for them, despite receiving more than $50 million annually from well-meaning donors.

Animals for Entertainment

Zoos, circuses, racetracks and other activities that use animals for entertainment are obliged, by law, to respect the welfare of their animals, ensuring they receive appropriate nutrition, housing and care.

Animal-rights activists, by contrast, want to ban all such activities. If they have their way, there will be no more animals in circuses, no more horse-back riding or dog shows, not even zoos that support breeding programs for endangered species. If giant panda conservation had been in PETA's hands rather than those of the Chinese government, it would probably be extinct by now.

Animals for Medical Research

The efforts of animal-welfare advocates ensure the responsible care of animals used for medical research. The “3-Rs” require that researchers “Replace” animals with other techniques when possible, “Reduce” the number of animals used to the minimum required to achieve their objectives, and “Refine” experiments to minimize suffering. Experiments using animals must be justified to show that the benefits could not be obtained otherwise.

Animal-rights activists want to ban any use of animals for medical research, no matter the benefits. To understand the implications of this position, consider that, according to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, “Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.” This does not impress animal-rights activists. According to PETA’s founder Ingrid Newkirk, “Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

Animals at Work

People have long used animals for all sorts of work: horses and oxen pull loads and plow fields; pigs root out truffles; service dogs help a range of people in need while others pull sleds and sniff out bombs; and now, falcons are taking down intrusive drones. Most people who work with animals care about their partners and provide them with excellent care, and these animal-welfare concerns are increasingly codified in regulations.

Animal-rights activists seek to end this important relationship that humans have long enjoyed with animals.

Bottom line: while “animal welfare” recognizes that animals enrich our lives in many more ways than we usually consider, “animal rights” denies that humans have any right to use animals for our own ends.

Groups like PETA blur this distinction by showing extreme examples of animal abuse in their campaigns. Their goal is not to improve the treatment of animals we use. It is to end all animal use completely.