Earlier this year I wrote a blog post listing “5 reasons why PETA won’t make me ditch my Canada Goose”. For anyone who has been living under a rock (or in some tropical paradise), Canada Goose is a popular brand of amazingly warm, down-filled coats with coyote fur around the hood to protect your face from winter’s fiercest blasts.
The article included a photo of me with Maggie, my 10-year-old Golden-Lab rescue dog. In response, several readers asked, sarcastically, why I hadn’t used Maggie to trim my parka instead.
Then, in the past few weeks, activists protesting the opening of the first Canada Goose bricks-and-mortar stores – in Toronto, New York, and London (UK) – deployed the same tactic, bringing their dogs to the demos. If we are not ready to use our pets for fur, they argued, how can we justify using coyotes?
At first glance, they raise an interesting dilemma: since Maggie and the coyote are both canines, it seems morally inconsistent to love and pamper one while killing and “exploiting” the other. But is it really?
Here are five reasons why my dog is not a coyote, and why wearing fur is not like wearing your pet:
1. Coyotes don’t sleep in our beds
Fact is, dogs in much of North America and Europe – at least in urban areas – have become members of the family. Dogs have long helped humans with our work; they have been our devoted companions. But now they have moved into our homes, and for many families they have become surrogate children. Parents living with teenagers may sometimes feel that dogs are, in fact, preferable to human children. Be that as it may, it is clear that pets dogs are no longer on the outside looking in, but have become an integral part of the family. Using dogs for food or clothing has therefore become taboo, akin to cannibalism. Trees, plants, and other animals – including coyotes – are in the other category: consumables. That’s how the world works. (Sorry, PETA.)
2. Dogs chose us to protect them
Dogs split away from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago, maybe much earlier. And, as Stephen Budiansky (The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication) and others have argued, it is very likely that dogs chose us, rather than the other way around. According to this hypothesis, wolves that were not aggressive enough to compete in their pack may have approached human settlements, attracted by bones and other food that humans discarded. Because the most docile animals were more likely to be tolerated, there was a “natural selection” for non-aggressive animals that accepted a subordinate role in their new human “packs”. The wild coyote is a very different beast. As one trapper told me about a coyote he found in his trap: “When I looked into his eyes, I was chilled by the cold, evil stare; this was nothing like a dog!” Only people who have had no close contact with wolves, coyotes or other wild canines can believe that they are “dogs”.
3. Dogs and coyotes occupy different spheres of moral concern
While, theoretically, all humans should enjoy equal consideration, we are generally more concerned about our own children than about the neighbour’s children. And more about our neighbours than about people in another city or half-way around the globe. Without such “degrees of moral concern” we would not be able to function at all, knowing that children are suffering hunger and abuse in many parts of the world while we sip our lattes. Similarly (whatever PETA would have us believe) we are more likely to swerve to avoid hitting a child – even on a tree-lined road; even if it means risking our lives – than we would for a dog in our path. Again: rats, bees and other social animals live harmoniously in large groups, but will tear to shreds any stranger that wanders into their midst. It seems to be consistent with natural law to treat those closest to us differently.
4. If we kill coyotes, we should use them
Coyotes are highly abundant and have expanded their range across most of North America. They are now the number one predator problem for ranchers and, when fur prices do not provide sufficient incentive to keep populations in check, state and provincial governments may offer bounties to encourage hunting and trapping. If we have to cull coyotes, surely it is more respectful – more ethical – to use them. Of course, domesticated dogs and cats can also over-populate, and they too are culled. In modern, Western societies we collect and put down millions of unwanted pets in “humane shelters” rather than leave them hungry, sick and abused in the streets as is done in many parts of the world. That we choose not to use the fur or other parts of so many unwanted pets probably reflects our wealth (we can afford to waste these resources) and the special relationship we have with dogs and cats, more than any moral imperative.
5. Dogs, like their human protectors, have been removed – or at least insulated – from nature
In nature, most plants and animals produce more young each year than their habitat can support to maturity; those that don’t survive provide food for the others. This is the great cycle of life. And like it or not, people are part of this cycle. We too need resources from our natural environment to survive, and we too will feed the worms in the end (unless we attempt to shirk our debt with cremation, but even then our basic chemical components will be recycled). In ecological terms, there is nothing unusual about using coyote fur on parkas. What is unusual is the abhorrence we feel in Western society about making mitts with Rover or Prince – or Maggie. Traditionally, dogs had to earn their keep: pulling sleds, herding sheep, killing rats and other “vermin”, protecting property. When they died, their fur and leather were valuable in societies too poor to waste useful resources. But, as mentioned in our first point, dogs have become part of our families, and in that sense have been removed from nature. We found Maggie at the Montreal SPCA when she was one year old; she had been there a month and came close to being put down. Happily, the number of dogs euthanized in North American shelters has been greatly reduced, thanks to spay-neuter programs and “Adopt, Don’t Shop” campaigns. But we cannot manage wildlife populations with spay-neuter programs. And we cannot live without using the resources that nature provides. The status of “honorary humans” that we have applied to our dogs in wealthy Western societies, cannot be extended to all of creation.
SEE ALSO: DON’T FEEL BAD ABOUT THE COYOTE FUR ON YOUR CANADA GOOSE JACKET
When I mentioned that I was writing this article, a friend suggested a sixth point: she said that we can’t use our dogs for clothing or meat because “they love us”. Unfortunately, as much as I love my dog, I am not at all sure that this sentiment is really reciprocated. I suspect that Maggie’s interest in me is directly proportional to the quantity of kibble, table scraps, ear scratching and interesting walks that I provide. But then, perhaps the love that humans share is not all that different?
So what can we conclude? Animal activists argue that it is an arbitrary distinction to pamper some animals while “exploiting” others. But this short analysis suggests that such distinctions are not so much “arbitrary” as they are culturally determined; they are based on wealth, urbanization, the changing nature of the family, and other socio-cultural factors. Aboriginal people in North America – and traditional societies everywhere – used dog fur and leather, as many still do. Most dogs used to live and work outside; we have brought them into our homes and families. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to use plants and animals and other resources that nature provides.
So the “moral inconsistency” raised by pampering some animals while exploiting others is more apparent than real. And Maggie would almost surely agree, if she were capable of this sort of rational thought; she certainly appreciates the meat, bones and other animal products we offer.
Ironically, animal-rights purists (including PETA) now also oppose the keeping of pets, which they denounce as a form of paternalistic slavery. I am not sure that Maggie would agree.
RECOMMENDED READ: Animals deserve respect, but they are property – not people. By Andrew Lawton, Global News, May 26, 2017.
While I try to understand your points and consider them, I still feel like I need to say some things.
A) Us humans are responsible for a certain species overpopulationing areas. What should be naturally happening is a perfect food chain, where no one animal overpopulates. The Earth did have this, but our killing for animal for food, clothing or destroying their habitats has messed up a food chain that the world needs to work properly. We are messing with nature too much.
B) I get what you mean about having a close relationship with your dog, I do too with mine, and how we don’t have a connection with these coyotes. But this shouldn’t matter when deciding about whether you should wear them or not. That is called speciesism and it’s a problem. Now I know that saying why would you eat a cow but not a cat, but it makes people think. Hindu people don’t eat cows (beef) because the cow is sacred but us Westerners have lived in a culture where cow products can be in nearly every meal we eat. While in some countries they eat duck tongue or cow brains, this to a lot of us, is horrible.
Speciesism occurs because of culture. But in the end, all animals should be treated with respect and let them live. We’re a very evolved race and by this stage I would like to think that we have the ability to feed animal free products for everything that won’t destroy the planet.
Hmmm…so by your logic killing and using the pelt of a stray dog or cat would be justified simply because they aren’t being kept actively as someone’s pet? The only difference between dogs and coyotes is domestication and there are plenty of species that we’ve domesticated for clothing and food. Your argument just doesn’t seem to prove what you wanted it to.
I think your comment was already answered in point #5.
Coyotes are just like dogs!
It is clear you feel your dog deserves more rights and freedoms than other animals (speciesism). The justification for this, you argue is ‘domestication’. I want to make an important distinction here; it is not the actual ‘dog’ that you are connected to, it is YOUR dog. It is YOUR dog’s personality that has created this bond between you and him. I could drop off another dog at your home and your treatment and feelings towards this other animal would obviously be different. You would be less attached to this other dog. If we argue that it is the personality of an animal that makes us connect with them so deeply, what does that mean for other non-domesticated animals? If you were to observe a pack of coyote pups, in no time one would stand out as bolder than the others. One by one, a personality would emerge in each of pups so much that it would be hard not to start identifying each of them by a name. Eventually, knowing each of these animals intimately, you would have a connection with them. People who care about animals make this connection naturally, while others struggle with seeing animals as more than an empty shell. I know this because I grew up with a sister who never remembered the sex of my dog. Because both coyotes and dogs are individuals with personalities, wearing your pet’s fur or a coyotes fur is, in fact, the same thing. The only difference is that it’s easier for you to hurt an animal you don’t ‘know’.
By no fault of her own, this woman raised a coyote in her home https://www.dailycoyote.net. Can you look at her photos and read her blog and see any difference between the bond she has with this animal and her other pets? Absolutely not! Like I pointed out, it’s ‘knowing’ the animal that is the difference.
Ironically, you do the same thing with all your rants against PETA. It’s easy to hate a big group of animal rights activists because you don’t know them. You see nothing of individuals who care about the rights of animals because that might actually trigger something in you. But make no mistake, there are many people that suffer every day having to live in a world where so many people are missing a moral compass. After all, what kind of person thinks it’s ok to steal someone’s coat?!!!
Should have just been killed “5 Reasons We Kill Coyotes Because They aren’t as Nice as Dogs”. Literally just explained why they are different, but offered no justification to killing Coyotes beyond population control. Name the species of animal that has been responsible for killing off more endangered species of animal in the world than any other? Definitely not wolves! Yes, humans are clearly great at playing God. Your 1st, 3rd and 5th point are all just rehashing the same outdated idea: We can kill coyotes and not dogs because dogs are domesticated and are our friends. And we didn’t force them! These animals chose to be our friends (my dog will be best friends with a complete stranger if he has food too!) so they must be our friends and we should kill the bad wolves because they stared at us humans wrong after we trapped them. How dare they do that? Well that justifies killing them. And then your second point explains how dogs are exactly like wolves because they were wolves who just evolved to be more docile than the other ones. Like hello?! So dogs are just an evolved version of wolves who became nicer to humans because we would feed them? So the nice ones get to live and the mean ones die because they evolved differently? The ignorance and selfishness you display in this article is mind boggling. Especially considering you reference this article in comments whenever someone brings up the blatant hypocrisy of your domestic dog- wild dog argument. The whole problem is you somehow think human beings have more value on this Earth than animals, and so look at everything through that lens. If the purpose of life is survival and proliferation of our species, surely you have to agree that we must work with nature and not against it to achieve this.
Life is life, irrelevant if it’s on your couch or killed in the wild. No explanation you have offered has justified abusing one being and loving another.
It is, indeed, a tricky subject and we gave it our best shot. The reality is that everyone in society has multiple attitudes towards animals, valuing them (or not) for food, clothing, companionship, beauty, etc. Do you perhaps think it is unjustifiable to differentiate between any two animals under any circumstances? Should a pet dog be given the same considerations as a rat in the barn? Or is it just when it comes to fur that you have a problem?
Mainly commented, because of the dogs and wolves(already voiced my opinion on fur in another post you made).
1) In some countries, they still eat dogs. There are countries and religions where eating pork is seen as bad. Both animals are very smart. To be honest, I have nothing against eating meat, even though I do not eat it myself, and I don’t care what it is. At the end it is part of nature. But I do have a problem when that animal is rare, gets abused, suffered and killed for only one small part(like horns, fur, fins, etc).
2) The parts you mention about wolf packs are outdated and got debunked by its creator David Mech. If wolves behaved like you mention in the article, they would be extinct by now. A pack is actually a family union, that has the breeding pair and its offspring. There are no battles within the pack to get a “higher rank”. Wolves are rather peaceful. But if a strange wolf invades the pack, then a fight most likely happens.
The alpha theory came to be when they observed randomly put together wolves in captivity. Mech later on studied wolves in the wild and their behavior was much different than the wolves in captivity.
And humans cannot be the leader of a completely different species. Calling yourself a “packleader” is silly. Ever heard someone saying “I’m the leader of a school of fish”?
3. Main problem is human overpopulation. We keep reproducing without thinking too deeply. More houses need to be build and there is more and more demand on food, energy, land, etc. Which reduces the habitats for other species and those animals often have no were to go. And then people are surprised when they show up in the backyard.
Human overpopulation has a huge negative impact to the planet and also to us(unemployment rate growing, pollution, not enough places to live, more diseases, etc).
That’s why I think that the greenest thing anyone can do is not reproducing, or having only one biological child, and/or adopting children.
4) Kind of agree with that. But that can be avoided.
I’m happy to hear that you chose adoption instead adding more pets to the population!
@ the last/added part: It is true what you say about being the food provider for the pets. And sadly, most people humanize dogs too much that it becomes unhealthy. One of the most common mistakes is to believe that dogs feel guilt. Sadly, its not true, since guilt is rather a choice. The feeling of guilt has no room in nature. People like to have Disney-animals as pets. And expect too much of them.
Doesn’t mean that they won’t love us.
However, the whole article feels rather like an excuse to make yourself feel better. But the thing is that in today’s time and vast majority parts of the world, wearing real fur is useless, outdated and unnecessary. It looks pretty, but that’s all. It is just for fashion and to fill the pockets of the producers, nothing more.
One more thing; please don’t lump all animal activists with PETA-supporters or SJWs. Not a fan of them either, since they often complain about nonsense(like fictional characters) and put things to the extreme.
I could not agree more with Alan Herscovici, the logic used here is right on target. I know that tax payer dollars are used to control over populations in cases where rabies and mange cause suffering and coyotes are certainly included here. Coyotes have a history of overpopulating all across North America, coast to coast and north South.
Bravo, this is so well said. We are ultimately responsible for all these population shifts within the species that attempt to live in our overpopulated, human world. I live outside of Boston, and there are coy-wolves everywhere here. I’m happy to say so, since they eat deer (lime disease), and Canadian Geese. (golf courses…kidding!) Shift the apex predators and the entire thing gets mucked up. Leave nature alone.
Very well written and rationalized… too bad animalists aren’t capable of such a logical exercise…
Not to mention some societies- Asian and Eastern European- still eat dog. People in Venezuela are eating dog- they have nothing else. After much research on the subject, particularly about fur animals, the tight regulations involved, the FACT it is PETA and other animal ‘rights’ groups producing the ‘skinned alive’ videos and paying people to commit other acts of animal cruelty, I have no problem being ‘all in’ on animal use. No one wants animals to be abused, but death isn’t abuse. Death happens to everyone and everything. It’s a part of nature like WE are. I don’t want to pretend I’m separate from it. THAT is the highest form of spiritual illness.