Fur Fashion in 2007: Common Sense in America

Veneration, Villification, and Vindication of Fur

Davis Prebot
From one end of America to the other, fur has swung into full fashion, firmly entrenching itself, cropping up in every form, from the traditional to the woven, dyed, knitted, and wild. Sales are strong and growing, and, more importantly, American opinion of fur seems to be shifting, amazingly, to a preference based in careful consumer choice and logic, and not emotional rhetoric. In a country that owes a major portion of its history to the fur trade, acceptance of fur seems to have finally sunk in.

The battle over the ethics of fur has raged for decades, driven by animal rights groups and their use of unorthodox (and sometimes, illegal) action to create an artificial hatred by the public of a consumer good. Recent developments and broad trends, however, show that the American public is finally wising up to these manipulations, and in fact is making fur purchase decisions based on common sense. Furthermore, arguments are emerging that show the fur trade as environmentally positive, much to the chagrin of so called animal rights activists.

Fur has long held an important role in the history of America, although one that your average sign-waving protester is likely ignorant of, willfully or otherwise. Conflict over the valuable riches of the fur trade led to lengthy wars between colonial powers, whose settlers became the first Americans and Canadians. Entire metropolitan areas, such as Chicago, owe their founding and existence to the fur trade. Reaching back still further, fur has been the eldest of all human coverings and garments, whether one is quoting from Scripture or the scientific record of cavemen.

In the modern world, though, fur must contend with its nemesis: the animal rights activist. While their intentions are honorable, such "rights" groups exist to do one thing only: create an artificial hatred of a product, in much the same way a company's marketing department creates artificial desire for a product. Campaigns of emotional pleas by celebrities and shock imagery have grown into something far worse: harassment, assault, destruction of property, and intimidation. Most frightening of all, many Americans existed at one point that fully supported these tactics, put into play simply to act against one product. Would they be outraged if such things were applied to any of their own personal choices?

For a time, such campaigns were a success, browbeating fur from the public mind with emotional, illogical fear and artificially created hatred for a product based on erroneous assumptions. However, America now finds itself in the midst of a fur fashion boom, and one that shows no sign of abatement. Fashion houses around the country and the globe vie with one another to produce the best, most original fur creations for the 2007 Fall season, and consumers stand ready with their most powerful vote, their wallets.

Americans are waking up to the fact that not everything animal rights groups say is true, just because it is cloaked in emotional appeal. The recent convictions of animal rights activists on charges of arson and terror show that crimes against the public cannot be forever concealed as morally correct activism. Fur farms cannot mistreat their animals as claimed by activists, because such mistreatment would result in poor quality pelts and thus poor profit. Unlike many petroleum based fashion products, fur is a renewable resource, in a time when Americans may finally be awakening to environmental conservation. Finally, as a regulated industry, standards can be maintained and monitored with far more humanity and consistency than if fur was driven underground. Last, but not least, creative fashion design, cutting, and coloring has resulted in hundreds of new applications for fur, seemingly without end. From Gucchi to Armani, and from New York to Milan and Paris, fur is in charge.

When you see a woman proudly wearing her fur, compliment her. She's shown a taste for style, conservation, and common sense. Nothing says glamour like a proud statement of, "I can think for myself."

Published by Davis Prebot

I work at a major community college. In my life I've had a lot of life experiences on two continents, and I have a wide circle of friends with eclectic, varied interests.  View profile

6 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Lisa, GERMANY11/11/2007

    This is bullshit. The author does not back up any of his claims, while animal rights groups do. Mistrating animals does not in any way result in poor quality pelts, have you ever been to a fur farm and seen these atrocities?
    Anyone who believes this dipshit probably still believes in the Easter Bunny also.

  • Mat10/3/2007

    No, I have no problem with fur. I'm more bothered by issues that affect PEOPLE. If we could make sure that orange pickers didn't live in deplorable conditions, that diamond miners weren't enslaved...those are worthwhile causes. In the meantime, I'll comfort myself in this chaotic world by wrapping up in my warm, sumptuous fur coat.

  • Gemma UK8/5/2007

    About time some common sense prevailed.
    Man has relied on animals as a resource for two million years. Now suddenly they are faced with mass extinction caused by man. And why? Not because of the fur trade. No shortage of mink fox and sable.
    For ALTERNATIVE resources: petroleum, gas, and plantation crops such as soya , coffee, sugar, rape seed, palm oil etc. Habitat has and is being destroyed daily at an unprecedented scale.
    If you have an incentive to protect animal habitat because you need them...as native and rural peoples do...animals will thrive. No shortage of beaver in Cree lands where they are eaten and used for fur trade. Big shortage of beaver near development because they exterminate the beaver because they flood land.And ironically there will be people living and working or receiving power from developed areas who would be anti fur. Ironic.
    Anyway good to see someone has their finger on the pulse that the key is to use infinitely renwable resources. Unlike oil that make

  • dun dun dun!7/14/2007

    so you actually have no problem with animals being killed so you can have a jacket? i mean, you're not bothered by the fact that animals DIED to make your clothing? You're willing to shell out thousands of dollars to buy dead animal?

    perhaps you should talk to a therapist. you sound pretty messed up. like one of those people who eventually loses all their marbles and goes on a murder spree. what sucks is that the people who you kill will probably support animal welfare. either that, or they won't be people at all, they'll be the neighborhood dogs. and then you'll make yourself a nice jacket.

  • Mat6/7/2007

    Great news, and great article!

  • Debra Cornelius5/29/2007

    To hot in Georgia for fur pieces, but as long as they are illegally obtained to each their own. Good article, congrats on your first published work here!

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.