The Lusk Herald And The Lusk Standard

FURS AND AGONIES

If women who wear furs could see one furry animal caught in a trap, struggling to tear itself loose, and see it die slowly of cold, thirst, hunger, fright or injury, or all these agonies together, they would cease calling fur garments beautiful.

If they could see a trapped animal which had only a stump instead of a leg or a tail, proving that it had been caught before and had torn itself loose or had bitten its leg off getting loose, they would know that furs are obtained by ghastly cruelty.

Furs are beautiful on their original owners, the wild free animals. When made into garments and trimmings for decorations, they cease to be truly decorative because they mean agony and death.

There are plenty of fabrics for warmth, quite as warm as skins before they are padded. But the excuse of needing furs for warmth has been openly abandoned by the wearing of summer furs and by the wearing of bands and small trimmings of furs.

Foolish excuses are given by wearers of furs. They say they are not to blame because they didn't kill the animals. They refuse to know that the buyer, however remote from the trap in the snow, is the real cause of the killing.

They say the animal is already dead, so they might as well wear it because it can't be brought back to life. They refuse to know that the one fur sold must be replaced by another. Buying a fur sentences another animal to die in a trap.

They say I didn't buy this - it was given to me. But wearing a gift fur helps keep the fashion going, and encourages other people to buy and wear other furs. The final buyer and the wearer are responsible for all the traps and trappers, and all the long agonies.