Animal Activists Are Criticized for Ignoring Constitutional and Environmental Realities

The Times recently ran articles regarding animal rights activism (“Confronting Animal Rights Activism,” Dec. 3) I am a third-generation furrier. Although one might say that I am prejudiced, I like to think that I am logical.

As I listen to the spokespersons of the animal rights groups I wonder about their ability to deal in a logical manner.

We can see the results of animal rights activists in the sealing industry. There are literally millions of surplus seals now polluting the oceans and eating the fish, causing an environmental disaster.

Locally, in Orange County as well as other suburban areas, there is a problem with coyotes that have lost their natural habitat to urban sprawl and are looking for food. What better to nibble on than a small child out playing? Will the animal rights activists move from the suburbs to the city so that the animals can live in peace?

Fur garments are a renewable resource that often last for over 20 years. Fake furs and fur substitutes are made from petroleum products, both a non-renewable resource and non-biodegradable. There are many positive facts about the fur industry. It is healthy for the economy, healthy for the environment and there is a commitment to humane care.

Do animal activists have the right to deny individuals their right to freedom of choice? If the animal rights movement is fulfilled, the human race will revert to eating and wearing grass and hemp.

I have had rocks thrown through my windows by the Animal Liberation Front and I have been picketed. Friends and family in the fur industry have had their lives threatened. Any honorable organization will work utilizing the constitutional means available to them, not through violence.

Fur is ecologically sound; fur is freedom of choice. The United States is built on freedom of choice. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee freedom of choice.

ARNOLD SURFAS

Tustin