keep up the great work!

Can't they just bring it back if public demand is high enough? Isn't that what causes these animal killers to sell it? It takes more time to change people but gets to the WHY ya know.

Funny how you don't protest against them selling leather, in both cases the skin is ripped from the animal. Is it simply a case that cows don't make for cute pictures on placards?

Being anti-fur is like being vegetarian, it's half hearted. Why not simply target the skin/flesh trade as a whole?

Plus what about second hand furs, are you anti-recycling?

Of course animal rights activists are against leather as well but fur is a winnable target. AR is about making change happen and therefore it is good to have realistic goals. Second hand fur, as a fashion item, perpetuates the acceptance of fur in society and is therefore rejected by animal activists. However donating that fur to the homeless or third world is a good idea and PETA actually does this, so no need for waste.

@Cynic

"Funny how you don't protest against them selling leather, in both cases the skin is ripped from the animal. Is it simply a case that cows don't make for cute pictures on placards?"

You obviously aren't following militant direct action for animal liberation, some recent actions against the leather industry (from  http://directaction.info):

18.08.09: ARSON ATTACK AT FUR/LEATHER SHOP IN LEON (Mexico)
13.08.09: LOCKS RUINED AT LEATHER SHOP, FISH MARKET AND MAX & CO. (Italy)
18.07.09: LEATHER SHOPS SET ON FIRE (Mexico)
30.05.09: ALF PAY ANOTHER VISIT TO LEATHER STORE (Mexico)
28.05.09: LEATHER EXPO TORCHED IN MEMORY OF FALLEN ACTIVIST (Mexico)

"Being anti-fur is like being vegetarian, it's half hearted. Why not simply target the skin/flesh trade as a whole?"

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. It's seems that anti-speciesists (paricularly in Mexico) are seeing the error in solely targeting the fur industry, instead of the skin trade as a whole. For example there may be no fur farms in the UK after a substained campaign, but every store that was targeted was subconsciously approved for its sale of leather.

The same goes for foie gras campaigning (something I was also very involved in during my early "animal rights" days). Every victory ment the approval of the meat industry. By solely being against the seemingly "worser" crime, i.e. fur farms but not leather farms, or foie gras farms but not meat farms, a welfarist stance is taken thus being overtly speciesism.

Nobody wants to admit this, especially those who consider themselves abolitionists, but to oppose one form of animal exploitation, and accept another, is speciesist/welfarist. You can say that foie gras campaigners oppose all animal exploitation, but this is oxymoronic. If they did, they would then campaign until all exploitaiton was removed (human or otherwise).

"Plus what about second hand furs, are you anti-recycling?"

This is a bigger topic than recycling. Should we recycle lamp shades made from holocaust victims skin, or not so in respect for those killed in the holocaust? By not using products made from humans during the Nazi era, we would effectively be anti-recycling.

@ARA

"Of course animal rights activists are against leather as well but fur is a winnable target."

I don't think you realise what you are effectively saying: leather is not a winnable target. I infact think taking down the meat/leather industry is a winnable target, similar to removing all oppressive industries from this Earth. Otherwise I would not bother trying to make change.

"AR is about making change happen and therefore it is good to have realistic goals."

Again, you are saying that ending animal exploitation as a whole is not a realistic goal. I however think that gradually the human species transference to veganism is realistic, without the need for reformist measures such as animal rights.

"Second hand fur, as a fashion item, perpetuates the acceptance of fur in society and is therefore rejected by animal activists."

Indeed, as does any product from a holocaust (human or non-human).

"However donating that fur to the homeless or third world is a good idea and PETA actually does this, so no need for waste."

Funny how Holocaust Memorial campaigns don't donate lamp shades made out of Jewish skin though isn't it? This clearly isn't a good idea, as it perpetuates the acceptance of a holocaust in society and is therefore rejected by liberationists.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in providing clothing to homeless people, I just don't think providing skin is an acceptable way to do this.

I think the end of non-human exploitation is a winnable goal but only in incremental steps. Fur and foie gras are small and disliked enough industries for us to effectively be able to get places to remove them in the short term. For larger and more publicly accepted industries their needs to be education, leaflets, info stalls, movement building, undercover investigations and ALF/open rescue raids. It's not about accepting any abuse it is about using the most effective methods of targeting a specific abuse at any given time.

In terms of donating fur coats I guess it depends how sentimental you are about dead bodies. One of the points behind it is to get 'fashionable' types that would wear fur and don't give a dam about animals to see fur as unfashionable. In the mind of a airhead fur wearer there is no way they would be seen dead in the same outfit as a homeless person. This may be seen as an immoral tactic but it could save animals lives.