Many generations of woman in the United States favored fur coats. For decades, fur was fashionable, and a status symbol. Furbearing animals were regarded as natural resources. The anti-fur campaign changed the way most people regarded furbearing mammals. No longer are they to be considered a natural resource, but rather creatures that deserve moral considerations and legal rights previously only assigned to humans.
Of course, most of the contemporary people that abhor fur clothing do not believe in legal rights for animals, although many do. They do, however, agree with moral considerations and no longer consider furbearing mammals to be natural resources.
Interestingly, many who abhor fur clothing; do not object to leather. The rationale is important for hunters to understand – leather is usually a byproduct of meat. Many non-hunters approve of hunting for meat, but strongly oppose hunting for trophies, and/or “sport”. A smaller number of non-hunters also approve of hunting to remove problem animals or reduce overpopulation.
Of course, most of the contemporary people that abhor fur clothing do not believe in legal rights for animals, although many do. They do, however, agree with moral considerations and no longer consider furbearing mammals to be natural resources.
Interestingly, many who abhor fur clothing; do not object to leather. The rationale is important for hunters to understand – leather is usually a byproduct of meat. Many non-hunters approve of hunting for meat, but strongly oppose hunting for trophies, and/or “sport”. A smaller number of non-hunters also approve of hunting to remove problem animals or reduce overpopulation.
- High Public Approval: Hunting for meat
- High Public Approval: Leather derived as a byproduct of food production. Leather clothing such as gloves, shoes, coats, and belts derived from cattle, swine, lamb, and even deer and kangaroo is not shunned. Leather derived from reptiles does not hold widespread public approval. Meat byproduct leather holds public approval, but leather from reptiles does not.
- Low Public Approval: Hunting and trapping to manage populations or nuisance animals
- Extremely Low Public Approval: Hunting for sport and/or trophies
- Extremely Low Public Approval: Fur
- When fur was viewed as a natural resource, it was not very controversial. Leather, except reptile leather; is still viewed as a resource as it is a byproduct of livestock slaughter for meat. That is why some people are okay with livestock leather but not fur and reptile leather.
- Most non-hunters indicate they approve of hunting for meat, but not otherwise.
- Trapping and hunting furbearers has a small amount of public support, under the rationale it is an effective tool to reduce conflicts between people and animals.
- Support for meat hunting is high. Support for animal management is low. Support for trophy and/or sport hunting is extremely low.
- Because leather is a byproduct of food production, most people, including many who abhor fur and reptile leather; do approve of the use of leather derived from livestock.
- As the anti-hunting campaign succeeds in disassociating game meat with hunting, game animals are not viewed as natural resources and less people support hunting.
- Here is the Take Away: In the eyes of the vast majority of American citizens: Hunting for meat is akin to livestock leather… Hunting for other reasons is akin to fur…