I applaud your intent in attempting to shed light on this practice. Exploiting and killing animals for fur is immoral. This is true. But focusing on just one issue (fur) lends legitimacy to other exploitation of animals (eating them and their secretions, wearing leather, etc.).
All exploitation of nonhuman animals is equally immoral. It’s counter-productive to the fight for Animal Rights to focus on any one issue involving the abuse of animals, instead of focusing on the larger picture, which is the use of them at all.
Here are a couple articles that explain in more detail:
These links and tons more on Veganism:My response: Thank you for opening this debate in the area of animal advocacy. I commend you for remaining true to your ideology and showing me the only way to stop the exploitation of nonhuman animals i.e. the abolitionist way. I understand the abolitionist approach to promote veganism as the moral baseline of the animal rights position. Activism is in the form of nonviolent vegan education as to why animal exploitation is immoral. In so doing, speciesism and the use of nonhuman animals will stop. Nonhuman animals will no longer be viewed and treated as property. Although I have adopted a vegan lifestyle I am not abolitionist, welfarist or militant, as I consider humanity to be more complex than these divisions purport. I believe that all life has equal value and therefore support all attempts to end the exploitation of nonhuman animals. When appropriate, I will raise awareness about our moral obligation to end the exploitation of nonhuman animals. I have been doing voluntary work at a cat sanctuary since 2005, which the abolitionist approach benevolently approves of (see bostonvegan.org). The underlying premise of the abolitionist philosophy is honourable: that “moral education” or “abolitionist-vegan” education, condemning the use of all sentient beings, will ultimately lead to a world where no being is treated as property. This will be a world where nonhuman animals have rights that are respected by all humans unconditionally. However, I find the abolitionist viewpoint unrealistic and in its own way counter-productive to any practical change. I understand and agree with the argument against welfare, although I find it selective to focus on one issue, namely the meat/dairy industry, to back the abolitionist anti-welfarist argument. While I have reservations about PeTA, I acknowledge PeTA has done a lot more than giving Temple Grandin an award in 2004. To condemn animal welfare organisations on one issue detracts from the larger picture and dismisses their other efforts to practice responsibility towards nonhuman animals. In the fur industry there is no humane way of farming. As the welfarist approach cannot apply in this instance, you would categorise me as a “single-issue campaigner” (SIC). You would argue that through my campaign I am sending out the message that other uses or exploitation of nonhuman animals is acceptable. This argument to me is simplistic. You cannot seriously argue that if someone supports a campaign to end the despicable fur industry they are going to become so confused as to believe that exploitation of other animals is acceptable. The worst case scenario is that they will not become vegan but condemn unspeakable cruelty to nonhuman animals. I further argue that certain, and obviously not all campaigns, sow the seed for people to start reflecting on the various ways humans exploit nonhuman animals. Small acts of activism, in any form, can grow bigger. The abolitionist paradigm advocates nonviolence to the earth. Regarding this, there are urgent issues that cannot wait until everyone becomes vegan. We have to put the brakes on before it is too late. The devastation of rainforests for palm oil and soya production with resultant deaths of thousands of animals is one example. By the time people are educated that they do not need these products there will be no rainforests and ecosystems left. If we do not end puppy mills there will be so many unwanted animals that shelters will never cope. More and more nonhuman animals will be born in captivity for circuses and zoos. Heinous acts of poaching will lead to the extinction of species if people do nothing but encourage everyone to go vegan. Where does the abolitionist approach stand on environmental protection campaigns? Laws on protecting the environment vary from country to country. Would the abolitionist approach reject SICs taken by Greenpeace? If so, I find this stance extremely arrogant. In your view I am wasting time and energy when instead I should be educating people to adopt a vegan lifestyle. In South Africa which has 11 official languages, pervasive poverty in communities without sanitation and electricity; shocking levels of unemployment; crime; woman abuse and domestic violence this indeed would be a challenge. It was partly the armed struggle and international boycotts that ended Apartheid, not education that all people are equal. According to the abolitionist argument, SICs promoting human rights are acceptable because humans are not legal property. However, if one looks at the historical trajectory that led to this point, there was a time when slaves, minority groups, women and children were considered the property of others. People fighting for human rights used SICs. Petitions were successful in changing law where a change in attitudes followed. Among many examples, trading in slaves stopped before slavery was abolished; suffragettes fought for the vote through SIC actions before they obtained equal rights; child labour was stopped before other children rights came into force. It was incremental campaigns that finally led us to where humans are today. I find it confusing that you want nonhuman animals to have the same status as humans but you reject the model of campaigning that worked to attain these human rights. Is it not short-sighted to reject past experience?