Peta and other groups are trying to control a difficult situation. Nearly all animal shelters in the states euthanize animals. The difference is, PETA “kills” pets, while simultaneously trying to educate people, stop breeding mills, and if possible, end the pet overpopulation problem altogether. Considering how much PETA loves pets and animals (more than people it seems) I’m sure they don’t enjoy killing day. It’s a hopeful means to an end. PETA really does care. Sure, they are extreme, sometimes don’t fully understand things, but they have accomplished a lot. They busted a scumbag lion exploiter in my state recently. You wouldn’t believe the crap the guy was doing. Federal charges.

If trappers and fur farms are doing something wrong or excessive, you shouldn’t blame society. You’re basically saying “you are worse than me”. A hunter is supposed to do the right thing when nobody is looking. That is the ethics of hunting. Only recently did our state ban live animal trapping, that sold animals to be penned up and attacked by dogs for “training” and entertainment. It was a step in the right direction. Granted, trappers aren’t always so lowbrow, but saying something like “there are real murderers in the world” doesn’t automatically absolve you.

Anglers fillet fish alive. They are proud of it. You can watch it on YouTube. If people do that with fish, they do it with other animals. PETA’s clams are legit. Of course, an organization like Truth About Fur would try to discredit them, or spin it to be a good thing.

I expected that reply, and yet you probably shouldn’t have, Those farms are not nice places, and they’re certainly not wild natural places. They’re as bad or worse than pig farms. Which is a shame. Wild pigs are clean and intelligent, but the farms where they live are disgusting, lights on all day, no green anywhere, a real horror show. Some worse than others. However, it can be argued (if not justified) that it’s necessary to supply food for millions of countrymen. Fur, on the other hand, is largely exported, and often not purchased for warmth or survival, by people who don’t know or care where it comes from. The “pressure” that you speak of should not exist. Instead of defending or perpetuating fur farms, it should fall out of fashion worldwide, with a fringe market for wild caught, for people living in Siberia and such. If you are a thoughtful human being, and you don’t have a vested interest in farming, you should agree. I doubt that fur is any more ecologically sound that polyester, all things considered.

You raise a lot of points there, Adam, and the pro and con arguments are often not straightforward, so I’ll just pick one. You state that fur farms don’t “contribute to conservation”, but actually they do. It’s not intentional, of course, but the fact is that the rise of fur farming since WWII has has removed what was unsustainable pressure on many wildlife populations. Farmed mink fur, in particular, now meets the bulk of demand for fur, as a result of which demand for wild fur has fallen, enabling wildlife managers to do their job properly. A clear-cut example is the chinchilla which, despite strict protections, continued to be taken from the wild until the middle of the last century. Without the advent of chinchilla farming, they might well have gone extinct in the wild. Meanwhile, leading conservation groups are increasingly becoming involved in the captive breeding of a variety of species to protect wild populations. For example, the IUCN is involved in the breeding of pythons to supply the exotic skin market.

Dear animal lover,
You people are barking at the most obvious of obvious it become oblivious. If it’s not fur, we won’t be here since our ancestors won’t survive ice age. And considering history, ain’t it wasteful not to utilize every last bit of useful resource?
AT LEAST animal lives shorter lifespan than human. They regenerates faster. If it needed, we farm them (wool, not fur I guess?). If MORE needed, we could fabricated it (faux fur).
The professional were regulated by law. Weren’t the price tag naturally weeds out only those who are able to afford it? Let alone the general fur treatment that weeds out more people off. Stop looking at someone else’s grass. Don’t be easily controlled by media. Love yourself.

You should concern more about real ordinary people that do harm to animal. Your neighbor, coworker, security worker perhaps. Say you allergic (or hate) to cats and they want to protect you. You wouldn’t budge if the poor hungry stray cat was kicked. You wouldn’t budge to people catching stray cats to said animal center. Psychopath also said to once hurts animal during their childhood. In fact there’s a cat repellant spray product sold at my country. Said to repel cats from entering your house, peeing your property, shedding fur, etc. God knows what content it has. Pay close attention to this REAL animal CRUELTY. Could be done more humanely (animally?).

I’ve heard things about vegan, it has it’s positivity and negativity. Somehow those anti fur people remind me of the narcissist one of the group, whose pride hurt easier rather than really living its better side. Kale, chia, berries are good. What rack my mind most is how they casually use >50, hundred years wood, just for a furniture or kitchen tools. The quirkier, the more personal the design is, the more unlikely other people would buy and reuse it, once the owner outlive that furniture.
People can’t just plant tree closer to make more of it. You want qualities too. Poor people are using cheap recycled wood because that is what they can afford. Won’t your vegan plants require large amount land too?
Ah…Back to that wood user. Ain’t it was like killing your grandpa to use their kidney or heart for you? It’s better if their organ is THAT useful. Sometimes people is just after their money. Wait…That could be it.

Hi Catherine, you raise many contentious issues, and our responses to the key ones are all on our website. Just a few nit-picking comments … (1) I presume by “white baby seal skins” you are referring to very young “whitecoat” harp seals. These have not been harvested for decades. (2) We don’t need to go “undercover” to see how the fur trade operates. We are participants in the trade, and unlike animal activists, have free access to every aspect of trapping and farming. Rest assured, the North American fur trade is acutely aware of the need to maintain the highest standards of animal welfare, not just because it is afraid of negative publicity but also because we are mindful of our ethical responsibility towards the animals in our care. (3) Yes, every part of a cow is used, but so is every part of a farmed mink, for example. It’s the nature of highly competitive modern livestock industries that producers must use as much of an animal as they can to stay economically competitive. Sheep are an interesting example. Sure, the primary product may be meat, but sheep fur is also important and helps keep the price of the meat down. (4) The latest scientific research seems to indicate that polar bear populations are increasing in number, and are not headed for extinction as activists claim, but that’s not our area of expertise so feel free to research it further.

You raise two debating points as old as the hills. Should a hunter, for example, play only on a level playing field with his/her prey? It’s a nice idea, but will never gain support. Here’s a quick anecdote. In northern Norway, fly fishermen are derided by commercial fishermen, especially if they release what they catch. “Why,” they ask, “would you make it intentionally difficult to catch a fish, and then release it when you catch it? If you’re hungry, just catch the danged thing. If you’re not hungry, leave them alone.”

As for anthropocentric behavior being “stupid”, well, every species does it. It seems to be a natural condition. Lions couldn’t care less if the wildebeest are hungry, and vice versa.