Outcry Over Cruelty to Animals, Mistreatment of People in Fur
Does wearing fur lower your IQ? Or just prevent you from knowing what’s in the news? (“The Fur Fury; Is PETA Driven by Animal Rights or Resentment of the Rich?” Feb. 18) These are possible explanations for why pro-fur writer Valli Herman-Cohen would accuse [the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] of not campaigning against leather the very week PETA unveiled an expose of appalling cruelty to cows used in the Indian leather industry and called on stores not to sell the stuff and consumers not to buy it.
After all, the New York Times, the Independent in London and other news outlets around the globe reported on our footage of cows having hot chili peppers rubbed into their eyes and their tailbones painfully twisted to try to make them stand when they are too weak to walk to the slaughterhouse floor.
As for Ms. Herman-Cohen’s bizarre idea that animal rights is about targeting the wealthy, Stella and Paul McCartney, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan and Oprah Winfrey are among those who wouldn’t be seen dead in fur. The issue is not money, but ethics. Cruelty can be found in every tax bracket. Luckily, compassion can be found there, too.
INGRID E. NEWKIRK
PETA president
*
I do not need to have an animal die in order to signify my “wealth.” I am already rich beyond my dreams because I have been blessed with the virtue of compassion for all living beings. I also do not wear leather or eat animals and, quite to your dismay, I care for the poor in Third World countries.
When I see a woman in a fur coat, it sends out a message about that person loud and clear. “I do not give a damn about anyone but myself.”
CLAIRE HAIGH
La Verne
*
Why is your fashion section constantly trying to promote real fur when everybody knows the agony that the animals needlessly suffered in order for the fur to be obtained? Senior Fashion Writer Valli Herman-Cohen states: “Substitutions, such as . . . fake fur in place of real just don’t send the same message [of the] glamorous ladylike look of 2000.” Nothing could be further from the truth, as I was brought up to believe that a lady is respectful and compassionate at all times!
Therefore, ladies do not wear real fur, as doing so would be the antithesis of respect and compassion for animals! Fortunately for ladies who wish to be glamorous, synthetic fur has gotten so realistic-looking that it effectively mimics the skins of foxes, mink and other animals. This winter, as I have done all my life, I will continue to wear my glamorous imitation fur with pride, all the more so because the fur is imitation and no animal had to suffer and die for my appearance!
KATRELYA ANGUS
Sierra Madre
*
I very much enjoyed your recent column on PETA and certainly agree with the premise. To me, the PETA people are in the same league as those who plant bombs in abortion clinics; their goal is not to persuade but to punish. And what sane person is ever persuaded by violence? The people whom they choose as targets merely confirms the moral cowardice of the group.
SUSAN SELF
Via the Internet
*
Very intelligent, insightful and interesting your commentary regarding PETA motivation. But you fail to mention one of the PETA people’s main outrage against the wearing of certain furs: The means by which the poor animals are killed: via anal electrical shock.
Although the slaughter of other animals for the making of leather biker jackets and pants is also unkind, as far as I know, it doesn’t come close to the cruelty involved by the former morte modus operandi.
JOAN JOBE SMITH
Long Beach
*
To clarify, the anti-fur movement has nothing to do with the Haves and Have-Nots. It’s all about animals suffering needlessly to satisfy our greedy, vain and human penchants for the material things in life. If you lived in the Yukon, I could understand. But if your ZIP code is anything close to 90210, then fur is just dead.
VANESSA VALERA
Via the Internet
*
Thank you for your Feb. 18 article “The Fur Fury.” I like to think of myself as socially responsible, but on the matter of wearing fur for fashion, I feel at odds with PETA and other such organizations. I feel they serve a good purpose in raising awareness about the treatment of animals. However, their approach attempts to usurp an individual’s rights to choose. When these advocates do not follow logical lines--that is, by discouraging selected cases of animal byproducts--they become unreliable arbiters of social responsibility.
This is particularly disturbing for those of us who were historically shut out from symbols of affluence. Many minorities, for example, worked long and hard to achieve items of luxury. Now they are supposed to be taboo? Oh, how convenient. One could argue that status symbols are shallow, but that is another debate. As long as fur is a part of fashion, I say we purchase and wear our items and not be intimidated to do so.
C. FARRELL
Glendale
