The Fur Flies as Retailers, Animal Rights Activists Clash in Wardrobe Wars

Come next ski season, the classic fur parka will be one step closer to extinction.

Nils Skiwear of Fountain Valley has removed fur collars from its entire 1990-91 line of ski jackets to avoid a fur fight with animal rights activists.

“It was a hard decision. We had a group of jackets with fur collars that were extremely successful, and fur had a lot to do with the appeal of the product,” says Richard Leffler, executive vice president of Nils.

Yet Nils decided to discontinue the line in answer to anti-fur protests.

“All we want to do is sell ski wear,” Leffler says. “We don’t want to be caught in the middle of a controversy.”

Increasingly, the battle over animal rights is being waged in the wardrobe.

For a growing number of people, clothes made from the hides and coats of beasts have lost their beauty. The fur coat, traditionally a symbol of luxury, has become anathema to those who claim the coats cause unnecessary cruelty to animals.

The fur industry maintains the anti-fur protests have had no impact on fur sales. Sales for the 1989 season which ends this month are expected to reach $2 billion, up from $1.8 billion in 1988 and 1987, because of an especially cold winter.

Still, fur dealers in Orange County say they have suffered immediate effects from the fur fray.

Monte Portnoff, part owner of Arthur’s Furs Inc. in Laguna Niguel and a furrier for 56 years, has received harassing phone calls and had the locks of his shop sealed with glue.

“Some customers are nervous about wearing their furs,” Portnoff says. “Some have called wanting to know if we’d buy them back, but they change their minds after we talk to them. We tell them it’s a matter of freedom of choice.”

Kris Kumar, owner of Odeon in South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, has had ice cream thrown on one fur, damaging the coat so it could not be sold, and she has stopped people from cutting coats with razor blades.

“We’ve felt the pressure,” Kumar says. “They’ve called us on the phone and said, ‘Wait until we come over there and paint your coats red.’ When we published an ad, they mailed it back with red paint spilled on it like blood and wrote, ‘This is what you’re doing to animals.’ ”

While the protests haven’t discouraged her customers from buying furs, some people have told her they’re afraid to wear their coats in public, Kumar says.

“Nobody can take human rights away,” she says. “It’s freedom--what people want to wear, what they want to eat, what they want to say.”

Fur isn’t the only item some want cleared out of the closet.

Animal rights activists have identified other “cruelty-free” clothes and accessories as well: Ivory jewelry made from the tusks of elephants; leather shoes, purses and clothing made from cowhide or exotic animals; wool and silk garments.

For now, fur remains their top priority in part because it’s a luxury item, one they say can be easily eradicated from closets.

“I’ve been given two furs from my mother-in-law, and I won’t wear them,” says Hazel Mortensen of Westminster, chairwoman of United Humanitarians of Orange County. “I can’t justify an animal suffering so I can parade around in fur.”

Ava Park of Costa Mesa, founder of Orange County People for Animals, once sported $20,000 worth of fur coats. They’ve since been burned, buried or stuffed away in boxes.

“I thought fur was beautiful. I felt good in fur. But when I learned of the animals’ sufferings, I no longer saw them as beautiful,” Park says.

“Fur is strictly a vanity item. You don’t need fur to keep warm. Synthetic materials work better.”

Others--who sport their furs proudly--say they don’t want somebody else dictating what they should wear.

“I’m an animal lover and the owner of a fur coat,” says Kitty Leslie, fashion consultant for Fashion Island in Newport Beach. “I also walk on leather shoes and eat hamburger.

“We are perhaps being overly emotional on this issue,” Leslie says. “These are not endangered species. They’re fox, mink and beaver bred and raised on ranches for their pelts. I do not think we’re being cruel on this. There’s no suffering to these animals. They’re born, bred and killed instantly.”

Anti-fur supporters, however, contend that the animals suffer greatly for the sake of fashion. They speak of ranch-raised animals harming themselves in their tiny cages. Particularly appalling, they say, are animals trapped and killed in the wild.

To contest such arguments, the Washington-based Fur Information Council of America has launched a campaign to refute animal rights activists’ claims.

“We respect their right to their opinion, and we don’t object to those who do not choose to wear fur or leather,” says Tom Riley, vice president of the council. “But we object vehemently when they thrust their opinion onto others. We believe people have the right to choose what they wear. That was confirmed in Aspen,” where a proposal to ban fur sales in the city was recently defeated.

The council disputes accusations that the animals are mistreated.

“Eighty percent of furs sold in the United States come from fur farms. They’re probably the best cared-for animals in agriculture. Fur farmers depend on the quality of the pelt, so they make sure the animal gets the best care,” Riley says.

“Bad fur farmers won’t be in business for long. If their animals are under stress or diseased, it will show on their coats. Farmers want the animals to be healthy.”

The feeding, care and method of killing animals is regulated by the Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition, according to Riley. Coalition standards call for killing animals by carbon monoxide gas, lethal injection or electrocution. Animal rights supporters charge that these methods are cruel and painful; the coalition considers them humane.

“Animals in the wild do not die of old age,” Riley says. “They die miserable deaths. They’re torn apart by other animals, they starve or succumb to diseases. Mother Nature is not humane.”

The council also argues that those animals trapped in the wild are not endangered, but would be trapped anyway to control their populations.

“If there were no market for pelts, the trapping would continue because it’s needed,” Riley says.

How far will the move to “cruelty-free” clothing go?

The killing of endangered African elephants for their ivory tusks has been widely reported. While it’s illegal to import ivory into the United States, ivory jewelry and trinkets can still be sold here.

Ava Park has eliminated leather from her wardrobe, and as for ivory jewelry, “It’s not chic,” she says.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has called for a boycott on wool clothing, claiming sheep are cut and mistreated during shearing. The group also discourages people from wearing silk because silkworms are killed during production.

Park says convincing people to give up a staple like silk is a long way off.

“Not many people feel sympathy for worms,” she says. “If you were to ask the average Orange County woman not to wear silk, she’d run screaming from the animal rights movement.”

If people do adopt such practices, it will take time. Even Park admits she couldn’t bring herself to throw out $5,000 worth of leather shoes, but she has since switched to non-leather shoes that “look just as great.”

“If you try to stop everything abusive, you may end up doing nothing,” she says.