Fur Clothing Bans
Fur is the “fine, soft, hairy covering or coat of mammals that has been important to humankind throughout history, chiefly for warmth but also for decorative and other purposes.” [1]
Of course, the first function of fur is to protect the animal. “True furs” have both ground hair, a dense undercoat that maintains the animal’s body temperature, and longer guard hair, which protects the ground hair from weather. Some animal furs that do not contain both components are still sold as garment furs, including pony and Persian lamb, which have no ground and no guard hair, respectively. [1]
Animals used for fur include the beaver, bobcat, chinchilla, coyote, ermine, fisher, fox, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, nutria, opossum, rabbit, raccoon, sable, and sheep. More than 80% of commercial fur is farmed, while about 20% is wild. [2]
Humans have used animal furs as clothing since at least the Pleistocene Epoch (2,580,000–117,000 years ago). A Sep. 2021 study reports that bone tools 90,000 to 120,000 years old, likely used for fur and leather working, have been found in Contrebandiers Cave, Morocco. The presence of golden jackal, sand fox, and wildcat bones with tool marks stemming from skinning techniques further confirms that Homo sapiens were, at a very early age in human history, using animals for their pelts. “This new study really pushes back [the date of] the first good archaeological evidence for the manufacture of clothing,” says Ian Gilligan, researcher and author of Climate, Clothing, and Agriculture in Prehistory (2019), “and it’s coinciding nicely with the beginning of the last Ice Age, about 120,000 years ago, so I think that’s really significant. It’s precisely at the time when you’d expect to see the first clothing for protection from cold in context of the glacial cycles.” [3][4]
By the 10th century ce, fur was being worn as a status symbol as well as for warmth. To the Vikings, fur from beavers, which are not native to Denmark, were “exotic.” As Luise Ørsted Brandt of the University of Copenhagen and colleagues explain, beaver fur was not only “an important trade item in 10th-Century Denmark” but also ”an obvious visual statement of affluence and social status, similar to high-end fashion in today’s world.” [5][6][7]
Furs have remained a status symbol ever since. Astrakhan fur, for example, is made from newborn or fetal Karakul lambs of Central Asia. It is named after the Astrakhan traders from the Volga River region who introduced the fur to Russia. It is one of the most expensive furs in the world. The most desirable are the black furs culled from fetal lambs killed 15–30 days before birth (the mother ewe is also killed in the process). Astrakhan fur was popular for centuries in the Middle East and Central Asia before becoming popular among Victorians. U.S. first lady Florence Harding paid approximately £6,000 for an Astrakhan fur in the 1920s (about $538,413 in 2023 U.S. dollars). Astrakhan fur was used as recently as 2007 in an Oscar de la Renta collection that featured “astrakhan coats trimmed with wolverine.” [8][9][10][11]
Though not all fur was or is as expensive as Astrakhan, the exclusivity and cost of real fur led to the creation and popularity of faux (fake) furs (also called synthetic or textile furs) in the 1910s. Faux fur was first made from pile fabric, which has a looping yarn and is used to make corduroy and velvet. Designers then began making faux fur out of silk and synthetic pile fabrics, paving the way for furs “made from synthetic polymeric fibers such as acrylic, modacrylic, and/or polyester, all of which are essentially forms of plastic; these fibers are made from chemicals derived from coal, air, water, petroleum and limestone.” [12][13]
Activism against using real fur gained traction in the 1960s and ’70s with celebrities like Doris Day, who spoke out against real fur and in favor of faux fur in a 1971 Timme & Son ad in New York magazine: “Killing an animal to make a coat is a sin…. A woman gains status when she refuses to see anything killed to be put on her back. Then she’s truly beautiful.” [12][14]
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) recruited the band the Go-Gos for a 1990 campaign in which the women posed nude with a banner reading, “We’d Rather Go-Go Naked than Wear Fur.” PETA continued its “naked” campaign for another 30 years, partnering with an array of celebrities, including Christy Turlington, Pamela Anderson, Tyra Banks, Taraji P. Henson, Steve-O, Dennis Rodman, and Kim Basinger. [15]
In the late 1980s the fur industry was worth a record $1.9 billion, but, faced with fierce antifur campaigns and declining sales, the industry has since slumped dramatically. By the mid-1990s, production of mink in the United States had dropped 40%. As documented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there were only 351 mink farms in 2000, which was a sharp decrease from the 2,836 farms recorded in the early 1940s. The COVID-19 pandemic dealt a further blow to the industry. In 2020 all of Denmark’s 17 million mink were culled because of a coronavirus outbreak, a safety measure that was duplicated in other countries. As of 2021 only about 100 mink farms remained in the United States. [16][17][18]
PETA’s “naked” campaign ended in 2020 with former campaign model Kim Basinger’s daughter, Ireland Basinger-Baldwin, posing nude behind “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” banners. As explained by PETA Senior Vice President Dan Mathews, who created the campaign, “Nearly every top designer has shed fur, California has banned it, Queen Elizabeth II has renounced it, Macy’s is closing its fur salons, and now, the largest fur auction house in North America [Toronto-based North American Fur Auctions (NAFA)] has filed for bankruptcy.” Hundreds of fashion houses, brands, and stores have discontinued the use and sale of fur, including Alexander McQueen, Banana Republic, Coach, Dolce & Gabbana, Jimmy Choo, Macy’s, Tommy Hilfiger, and Zara. [15][19][20]
However, as of June 2023, some luxury brands still use real animal fur. These brands include Dior, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, and Carolina Herrera. Meanwhile, UGG, maker of the ubiquitous sheepskin boots, and other companies use fur but do so in a way deemed sustainable, either because the whole animal is used or because other measures are taken, such as not using vulnerable species. [21][22]
California became the first state to ban the sale of new furs, with the passage of Assembly Bill 44 in 2019. Since taking effect on Jan. 1, 2023, the law has banned the sale of new fur garments both in the state and online, but it did not ban the resale of vintage fur, the wearing and ownership of fur, or the production of such animal products as leather and shearling (the materials used in UGG boots). Penalties include a $500 fine for the first violation, $750 for a second violation, and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. The statewide ban was preceded by local bans in West Hollywood (2013), Berkeley (2017), Los Angeles (2018), and San Francisco (2018). While many may believe that sunny California is too warm for wearing fur, that hadn’t been the case prior to the ban. As the Humane Society notes, “U.S. retail sales of fur garments totaled just over $574 million, with most sales occurring in California at just under $129 million, followed by New York with almost $115 million. Together, California and New York made up nearly 43% of all fur sales in the country in 2017.” [23]
In the U.S. at least 12 cities outside California have also banned new fur sales. In 2021 Israel became the first country, and thus far the only one, to impose a nationwide ban on new fur sales. [23]
(This article first appeared on ProCon.org and was last updated on June 8, 2023.)
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: Raising animals for fur is inhumane. Read More. | Con 1: Animals raised for fur are treated humanely. Read More. |
| Pro 2: The fur industry contributes to the destruction of the environment. Read More. | Con 2: Fur alternatives are bad for the environment, while a humane fur industry is sustainable. Read More. |
| Pro 3: Banning fur clothing, real or fake, will help legitimize humane fashion alternatives. Read More. | Con 3: Consumers are opting for non-fur alternatives without bans, which harm related industries in Indigenous communities and the developing world. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: Raising animals for fur is inhumane.
“Fur is an example of how we have confined wild animals to small, filthy cages in their millions in order to produce frivolous fashion items, the production of which is also destroying the planet. That’s why issues such as fur matter, and it’s so important that we stop supporting this cruel industry,” says Jenny Canham of Four Paws UK. [24]
Indeed, animals farmed for fur are kept in cramped cages that are much smaller than the animals’ natural roaming distances. For example, Arctic foxes naturally roam within a 12-mile family territory and can migrate nearly 3,000 miles. The cages the foxes are kept in on fur farms are smaller than one square meter (about 10 square feet). [25][26][27]
Animal rights groups say the animals are frequently sick, suffering from infected eyes and wounds, limb and mouth deformities, obesity, overgrown nails, and stress behaviors, including pacing, repetitive nodding, self-mutilation, and cannibalism. [25][28]
Caging such animals as Arctic foxes is even more cruel because they “simply don’t have anything to do. They are predators who haven’t really been domesticated. They’ve been grown in these conditions for less than a hundred years, so they have all of their natural instincts left,” explains Kristo Muurimaa of Justice for Animals. [25]
Fur animals live extraordinarily short lives and are generally killed before the animals are a year old. Animals might be gassed (which is very distressing for mink in particular because, as Fur Free Alliance explains, they are “semi-aquatic and highly evolved physiologically to hold their breath”) or electrocuted through the mouth and anus. The Humane Society International has also filmed fur animals being killed with brutal blows to the head, by having their necks broken, and via other physical attacks. [28][29]
Even wild-caught fur animals suffer painful deaths after being snared by rudimentary traps to await, without food or water, the hunter who may then beat the wounded animal to death. [29]
“The fur trade would prefer that the grim realities of fur farming were out of sight and out of mind, but…we owe it to these animals not to turn away, and to stop being complicit in their suffering,” says Claire Bass of the Humane Society International/UK. [30]
Pro 2: The fur industry contributes to the destruction of the environment.
Fur is “an environmental nightmare. Most fur is produced on fur farms that are factory farms, and factory farms are one of the worst offenders when it comes to pollution and emissions that cause climate change and producing toxic chemicals that leach into waterways and soil,” says Ashley Byrne, PETA’s associate director. [31]
Mink, for example, produce millions of pounds of feces annually, much of which pollutes local waterways. Feces-polluted water has been linked to eye infections, digestive ailments, and stunted growth in humans. In Denmark, killing more than 19 million mink for fur annually releases more than 8,000 pounds of ammonia into the air. Airborne ammonia is linked to human respiratory disease. [32][33][34]
The fur industry is one of the world’s top five worst toxic-metal polluters, thanks to dressing the fur. Dressing is the process of preparing the fur for use, which can involve using a number of toxic chemicals, including ammonia, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, and bleach. Toxic metals are especially problematic because they are not biodegradable, accumulate in the human body, and have been linked to DNA damage in humans. [32][35][36]
Furthermore, the fur industry decreases biodiversity. The fur animals themselves are culled unnecessarily when trapped in the wild, which can lead to protected status or even extinction. The sea mink was once prized by trappers and is now extinct because of the fur trade. Plus, up to 67% of what the traps catch are non-fur animals, which are often discarded as “trash” because they are not of use to the trapper. [37][38]
Then there is the situation in Louisiana, in which the nutria, a rodent often described as an “overgrown guinea pig, with a rat’s tail,” was brought to the state from South America in the 1930s to increase the fur-trapping trade. The trade did increase for a time, but the nutria literally ate “an area approximately the size of Delaware,” not only destroying the land but denying habitats to all the other animals, including insects, as well as plants that lived on the land. Nutrias also damage roadways and levees by tunneling under them. [39][40]
Along with nutria, non-native species were also introduced in Europe for the fur trade, including American mink, raccoon dogs, and muskrats. American mink that have escaped from fur farms now account for 80% of wild mink in Denmark, and they devastate the environment, killing native birds, rodents, and amphibians. [38]
Pro 3: Banning fur clothing, real or fake, will help legitimize humane fashion alternatives.
Fur farming and wild trapping are not sustainable or humane; neither is making faux fur from plastics. Wearing fur, real or fake, vintage or new, simply perpetuates unsustainable industries and quashes innovation, because the fashion business isn’t being forced to find sustainable options. [31]
Globally, “fast fashion” produces 80 billion pieces of clothing annually, 85% of which ends up in landfills. In the United States 20% of clothing is never worn. In the United Kingdom, that percentage is a whopping 50%. And the fashion industry emits 10% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions along with 20% of wastewater worldwide. [41][42]
Fur sales bans are one way to force fashion brands and consumers to make better choices. Fashion editor Jenna Igneri says it’s easy to “opt for another sustainable outerwear option, such as a non-animal-fur coat made of recycled materials or vintage wool. If you can’t resell Grandma’s mink with a good conscience, arguing that whoever wears it next will be perpetuating the problem, know that there are plenty of other options than simply keeping it packed away in the deepest depths of your closet. For example,…there are organizations that repurpose old furs as bedding for rescued wildlife, which is a great (and…much cuter) option.” [31]
The fashion business needs a sustainable overhaul, and fur is a good place to start. “Fashion is often said to both reflect and lead culture—the industry has a once-in-history opportunity to demonstrate that creativity and respect for boundaries can lead to authentic sustainability,” says Timberland’s former chief operating officer Kenneth P. Pucker. [43]
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: Animals raised for fur are treated humanely.
“North America produces the finest quality farmed furs in the world. To achieve this, farmers must provide excellent nutrition and care for their animals,” reports Truth About Fur. There are always exceptions and rule breakers in every industry, but “national codes of practice and certification programs provide assurance that farmed furbearing animals receive excellent care. The standards of care for farmed mink and fox are based on many years of scientific research.” [44]
Animals like mink only travel long distances to search for food and, once food is found, they like to snuggle in their dens. Because the farmers provide mink with nutritious food all the time, the animals are able to stay cozy without having to hunt or compete with other animals for scarce food. [44]
In addition, foxes and mink are protected from parasites and other diseases by wire mesh floors, through which feces can fall. In “natural” enclosures, the animals were too close to their waste, which spread disease. To protect the animals, even truck tires are disinfected before the vehicles enter the farmyard. [44]
The American Veterinary Medical Association sets guidelines for the most humane euthanasia of the animals, and Fur Commission USA follows those rules. As Truth About Fur explains, “While most farmed animals must eventually be killed, it is our responsibility to ensure that this is done humanely, with as little stress as possible to the animals….From an animal-welfare perspective, it is important that fur animals can be euthanized in their barns by people that feed and care for them daily.” [44][45]
The idea of a steel trap mangling an animal is outdated and wrong. Fur animal trappers use lethal traps, designed to kill the animal quickly or leg- or foot-hold traps, which barely injure the animal while it is held for fewer than 24 hours before it is killed with a small-caliber firearm. The restraining traps are the same as those used by researchers who catch and then release animals after tagging and studying them. [46][47][48]
However, the humane treatment of fur animals is left to the farms. The Animal Welfare Act, which protects other animals, expressly exempts fur animals. Instead of regulating or banning fur sales, governments should simply ensure that animals are treated humanely by fur farmers. [45][49]
Con 2: Fur alternatives are bad for the environment, while a humane fur industry is sustainable.
A well-regulated and humane fur industry is far better than the plastics industry, whose products are used quickly and then dumped in landfills or the ocean. Faux fur is “typically composed of petroleum-based synthetics and plastics, which pollute our waterways with microplastics and end up in landfills for centuries to come.” [31]
Some producers of faux furs say their products are “developed using recycled plastic, and that’s great; however, it’s still plastic,” says Mark Oaten, CEO of the International Fur Federation, who also questioned “how it’s possible for a chemical-based product [faux fur] to be more sustainable than a natural-based product.” Furthermore, faux fur sheds, releasing more tiny plastic fibers into the environment. Real fur also sheds, but the hairs are biodegradable. [13]
A study comparing natural and faux fur coats concluded that the life cycle of a faux fur coat had a 300% greater risk of damaging the ecosystem, a 169% greater risk of having an adverse impact on resource consumption, a 129% greater risk of contributing to climate change, and a negligible 3% greater risk of damaging human health. [50]
The fur industry can also have the positive environmental impact of controlling the destruction of invasive species. For example, nutrias destroy up to 25 square miles of land annually, costing billions of dollars in Louisiana alone, where “an area approximately the size of Delaware has already disappeared into the Gulf of Mexico.” New Orleans designers who use nutria fur for garments and accessories are thereby helping the environment. [39]
Similarly, some producers are using the fur from roadkill to make garments. Pamela Paquin of Petite Mort Fur says, “Here is a resource that’s going to be there, whether or not we use them. We can turn our noses up at them, drive by, treat them with disgust, disdain, or we can stop and treat them with respect, and use what’s there.” Using culled invasive species or animals killed on roadways provides a sustainable real fur option for designers and customers. [39]
Finally, responsible farmers are making sure fur animal farming is sustainable by feeding the animals leftovers from human food production. They also use what remains of the skinned animals as well as their bedding and manure for other products, including mink oil, organic fertilizers, and biofuels. [51][52]
Con 3: Consumers are opting for non-fur alternatives without bans, which harm related industries in Indigenous communities and the developing world.
Consumers have been moving away from fur without bans. The sales of fur have naturally fallen as consumers have looked elsewhere for fashion statements and status symbols. Only about 100 mink fur farms remain in the United States, down from 2,836 in the 1940s. [16][18]
“As consumers, all we can do is to put in the work and do our own research when it comes to our choice in sartorial purchases. When you factor in what effects an article of clothing can have on the planet, animals, people, and ourselves, would you still feel good wearing it?” asks fashion editor Jenna Igneri. [31]
Leaving the decision to buy fur to consumers also enables more-thoughtful legislation that considers ethical farming and fur as a byproduct of other legal industries. Many communities, especially in Africa, China, and Vietnam, survive by sourcing leather and fur discarded by the meat industry and in turn producing leather and fur garments. Banning fur would remove a legitimate source of income and work for those communities while leaving the fur to rot instead of being used. [31]
Additionally, fur is a crucial product in many Indigenous cultures and economies. The antifur activists and others pushing bans are “not thinking about the damage that they’re doing to…small Indigenous communities, where economic development opportunities are scarce,” says Johanna Tiemessen, Manager of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment in the Northwest Territories of Canada. While many bans exclude Indigenous communities, the bans irreparably harm sales to the non-Native population. [53]
Discussion Questions
- Should new fur sales be banned? Why or why not?
- In most conversations about new fur sales bans, Indigenous communities are exempted from the bans. But should they be exempt? Shouldn’t they be forced to be as environmentally conscious as everyone else? Why or why not?
- Some argue that vintage real fur and new fake fur send the wrong message and should also be banned. What do you think? Explain your answer.
Take Action
- Analyze California’s fur ban legislation.
- Compare and contrast the arguments of the pro-fur organization Truth About Fur and the antifur organization PETA.
- Examine fur alternatives with journalist Jenni Avins.
- Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the other side of the issue now helps you better argue your position.
- Push for the position and policies you support by writing U.S. senators and representatives.
Sources
- Encyclopædia Britannica, “Fur,” britannica.com, May 9, 2022
- Truth About Fur, “What Types of Furs Are Used in the Fur Trade?,” truthaboutfur.com, Mar. 24, 2022
- Brian Handwerk, “Evidence of Fur and Leather Clothing, Among World’s Oldest, Found in Moroccan Cave,” smithsonianmag.com, Sep. 16, 2021
- Emily Y. Hallett et al., “A Worked Bone Assemblage from 120,000–90,000 Year Old Deposits at Contrebandiers Cave, Atlantic Coast, Morocco,” cell.com, Sep. 24, 2021
- Monica Cull, “Beaver Fur Was a Status Symbol for the Vikings,” discovermagazine.com, July 27, 2022
- EurekaAlert!, “High-Status Danish Vikings Wore Exotic Beaver Furs,” eurekalert.org, July 27, 2022
- Luise Ørsted Brandt et al., “Palaeoproteomics Identifies Beaver Fur in Danish High-Status Viking Age Burials—Direct Evidence of Fur Trade,” journals.plos.org, July 27, 2022
- Encyclopædia Britannica, “Karakul,” britannica.com, Oct. 9, 2018
- Leimomi Oakes, “Terminology: What Is Astrakhan?,” thedreamstress.com, Jan. 12, 2012
- “Persian Lamb,” Evening Post, Nov. 4, 1922, p. 16, paperspast.natlib.govt.nz (accessed Mar. 28, 2023)
- The Cut, “Fashion Report Card: Critics Love Jacobs, De la Renta, Herrera, DVF,” thecut.com, Feb. 6, 2007
- Alice Hines, “The History of Faux Fur,” smithsonianmag.com, Jan. 22, 2015
- Julia Brucculieri, “Faux Fur Is Made of Plastic, and It’s Not Helping the Environment,” huffpost.com, Oct. 23, 2018
- E.F. Timme & Son ad, New York magazine, Oct. 18, 1971, pp. 56–57, googlebooks.com (accessed Mar. 28, 2023)
- PETA, “Victory! ‘I’d Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur’ Goes Out with a Bang,” peta.org (accessed Mar. 28, 2023)
- Anneke Ball, Noah Lewis, and Mark Adam Miller, “The Rise and Fall of the Real Fur Industry in the US,” businessinsider.com, Feb. 23, 2022
- Hannah Jiang and Kaitlyn Wang, “Europe Is Slaughtering Millions of Mink to Curb the Spread of COVID-19,” businessinsider.com, Dec. 2, 2020
- Ellyn Ferguson, “The Fur Flies As House, Senate Wrangle over Ban on Mink Farming,” rollcall.com, May 10, 2022
- Bryan Eneas, “Historic Fur Auction House Granted Creditor Protection Status,” cbc.ca, Nov. 5, 2019
- PETA, “PETA Pushes Fashion Brands to Move Beyond Using Fur—and Wins,” peta.org (accessed Mar. 28, 2023)
- Olivia Petter, “Which Luxury Fashion Brands Still Sell Real Animal Fur?,” independent.co.uk, Feb. 7, 2022
- UGG, “Honest: Our Materials and Commitment to Animal Welfare,” ugg.com (accessed Mar. 28, 2023)
- The Humane Society of the United States, “California’s Statewide Ban on Animal Fur Products Officially Takes Effect,” humanesociety.org, Dec. 29, 2022
- Jenny Canham, “Why Now Is the Time for a Fur Free Britain,” wcl.org.uk, May 2020
- David Mac Dougall, “Inside Finland’s Cruel Fox Fur Farms, the Shame of the Luxury Fashion Industry,” euronews.com, Jan. 24, 2022
- University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, “Arctic Fox,” bioweb.uwlax.edu (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- Adam Popescu, “Why One Arctic Fox Took the Longest Migration in the Species’ History,” onezero.medium.com, Jun. 25, 2019
- Fur Free Alliance, “Fur Farming,” furfreealliance.com (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- Humane Society International, “The Fur Trade,” hsi.org (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- Humane Society International, "Celebrities Write to the Prime Minister Asking for Urgent Action on Animal Welfare Pledges, As Leading Animal Protection Organisations Stage Downing Street Demonstration," hsi.org, May 9, 2023
- Jenna Igneri, “Fur Might Finally Be Cancelled—But Red Paint Didn’t Do It,” refinery29.com, Jan 22, 2020
- PETA, “Wool, Fur, and Leather: Hazardous to the Environment,” peta.org (accessed Apr. 6, 2023)
- Gauthami Penakalapati et al., “Exposure to Animal Feces and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Proposed Research Priorities,” Environmental Science & Technology, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Sep. 19, 2017
- New York State Department of Health, “The Facts About Ammonia,” health.ny.gov, Mar. 2011
- Respect for Animals, “Fur Is Not Green,” respectforanimals.org (accessed Apr. 6, 2023)
- Danuta Witkowska, Joanna Słowik, and Karolina Chilicka, “Heavy Metals and Human Health: Possible Exposure Pathways and the Competition for Protein Binding Sites,” Molecules, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Oct. 2021
- Peter Feng, “Neovison Macrodon Sea Mink,” animaldiversity.org (accessed Apr. 7, 2023)
- Fur Free Alliance, “Impact on Biodiversity,” furfreealliance.com (accessed Apr. 7, 2023)
- Jenni Avins, “There’s Actually a Way to Feel Good About Wearing Fur,” qz.com, Mar. 6, 2015
- Molly Cleaver, “How Nutria Took Over Louisiana, and What Locals Have Done to Stop Them,” hnoc.org, July 9, 2021
- Renee Cho, “Why Fashion Needs to Be More Sustainable,” news.climate.columbia.edu, June 10, 2021
- Emma Ross, “Fast Fashion Getting Faster: A Look at the Unethical Labor Practices Sustaining a Growing Industry,” studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu, Oct. 28, 2021
- Kenneth P. Pucker, “The Myth of Sustainable Fashion,” hbr.org, Jan. 13, 2022
- Truth About Fur, “Fur Farming Is Humane,” truthaboutfur.com (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- Pam Lewison, “Lawmakers Should Not Ban, Criminalize Ethical Fur Farming, washingtonpolicy.org, Jan. 11, 2023
- Truth About Fur, “Types of Traps,” truthaboutfur.com (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- Michael Schulson, “In a World That Still Traps Animals, Can Science Limit Suffering?,” undark.org, Jan. 10, 2022
- Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, “Best Management Practices: Humane Trapping Standards,” dec.ny.gov (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animal Welfare Act,” aphis.usada.gov (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- DSS Management Consultants, “A Comparative Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Fur and Faux Fur,” fureurope.eu, Oct. 2012
- Truth About Fur, “Nothing Is Wasted,” truthaboutfur.com (accessed Apr. 5, 2023)
- Sustainable Fur, “Environmental Impact,” wearefur.com (accessed on Apr. 7, 2023)
- Laura Beaulne-Stuebing, “How Indigenous People Are Strengthening Fur Traditions in an Anti-Fur World,” cbc.ca, Jan. 28, 2023