Irecently woke up, went to my front door to pick up a hard copy - yes, a hard copy, call me old–fashioned - of The Daily News, and read the top-of-the-fold lead article: “Protesters oppose sale of fur coats”. I said to myself: there they are again.
During Newburyport's Autumn Festival, a dispute erupted at Green Plum Vintage Goods between owner Karen Brown and protesters over her sale of used fur coats. The confrontation follows weeks of online and in-person activism, spearheaded by residents Keith Eddings and Jay Evans, who argue that selling any fur — regardless of age — supports an unethical industry.
Brown defends her business, calling vintage fur sales a form of sustainable shopping. Protesters counter that "an animal still had to die" and are petitioning for a citywide ban on all fur sales. Meanwhile, a bill to ban new fur sales statewide is stalled in the Massachusetts legislature.
Both sides remain steadfast: Brown maintains her practices are ethical, while activists push for Newburyport to become a fur-free community. The issue remains unresolved, highlighting the growing tensions around sustainability and animal welfare.
I thought this issue was settled. After living through the gorilla tactical approaches of various groups of similar individuals carrying cans of red paint to NYC’s Fashion Week to protest by throwing red paint on patrons wearing fur coats, I feel a need to respond.
I have one question for the current group in Newburyport. How many of you wear leather shoes, leather belts, carry leather bags, and carry leather briefcases? The very complaint regarding the cruelty they profess to deplore in the raising of animals for fur-related clothing seems to disregard the treatment of other animals that they freely accept and benefit from.
I have to ask Keith Eddings quoted as saying, “To wear any fur, whether it is new or vintage, is to promote a savage industry and one that is badly regulated.” What about cattle and, yes, chickens too? I then must ask Mr. Eddings and his compatriots: Do you wear any leather products, and if so, do you know the following:
The production of beef, dairy, and leather goods is closely intertwined, as animal hides are a highly valuable co-product of the meat packing industry. Millions of cattle annually endure severe physical and psychological trauma throughout their lives, during transport, and at the stage of slaughter.
To maximize efficiency and manage thousands of animals in tight spaces, cattle routinely undergo painful mutilations. Because state animal cruelty laws frequently exempt standard agricultural practices, these procedures are almost always performed without painkillers or anesthesia.
If someone raises an issue without taking responsibility for behavior attributed to them and then reenacts it similarly, isn't everything they promote just blatant hypocrisy?
According to a documented report I researched online, the following is routine behavior in cattle/beef raising and slaughtering:
- Hot-Iron Branding: Searing a rancher's mark directly onto the animal's skin, causing severe third-degree burns.
- Dehorning: Cutting, sawing, or chemically burning off a cow’s horns to prevent injuries in overcrowded pens.
- Castration & Tail-Docking: Amputating or cutting off a portion of the tail (to avoid flies and fecal contamination in feedlots) and castrating male calves using scalpels or tight rubber rings that cut off blood flow.
There are other examples regarding intensive feedlot confinement, severe transport stress, and, yes, slaughterhouse failures, which prolong the process of death, that are also routinely undertaken.
I am not condoning, nor recommending the retention or forfeiture of the ability of Green Plum Vintage to sell vintage fur; I am only asking, or perhaps, pointing out that if one is going to advocate the rights of one species of animal, while ignoring the rights of a greater population – in this case, cattle - isn’t it disingenuous at best?
I don’t wear fur. It is my choice. But to condemn those who wear and sell fur products without applying the same reasoning to themselves, given that they routinely purchase and use products subjected to the same practices they protest, is… well…I will let the reader finish that thought.