A fur boycott is the only way to stop the industry

The argument

Cutting off the entire fur industry is the sole way to ensure its lack of monetary success, proponents of this position argue, because the industry answers to revenue and to very little else. The scale of what that revenue funds is the first part of the case. The buying of real fur products today contributes to the widespread torture and slaughter of thousands of innocent animals like mink, chinchillas, foxes, and rabbits; more than 340 million rabbits have been bred and killed in the EU alone. The tactics of harvesting such fur is infamously cruel, and the details are enough to turn stomachs worldwide. According to Animal Defenders International, "The animals meet their end through gassing, decompression chambers, neck-snapping or electrocution through the mouth..." Methods of that kind persist, on this account, because they are cheap and leave the pelt intact — which is to say they persist for as long as the trade remains profitable. And it remains profitable. According to FICA, in 2014, the American fur industry made $1.5 billion, that number continuing in the billions from 1990 to today. An industry earning at that level can absorb criticism indefinitely so long as the sales continue, which is why proponents regard appeals to the industry itself as futile. What can move it is demand, and the legislation that follows demand. The UK banned all fur farming in 2003, and many animal rights activists believe that, if the public boycotts all real fur products, many other countries of the world, including the United States, will follow suit. The sequence they envisage runs from consumers to markets to law: once buying collapses, the political cost of prohibition falls with it. This treatment of animals cannot continue without consequences, and since the only lever that reaches the industry directly is its revenue, it is the consumer's responsibility to cut that revenue off. Because a fur boycott is the only way to stop the industry, wearing fur is wrong.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A simple boycott of the fur industry will not necessarily ensure their loss of revenue. Yes, as more people individually boycott the industry, its value will decrease, yet major fashion companies are intrinsically tied to the fur trade; an individual boycott of real fur is not as significant of a blow as a whole, multi-million dollar corporation's boycott. Many would argue that lobbying against those larger fashion companies, instead of a boycott on the consumer's level, would cause the most damage to fur farmers. Additionally, food products like chicken, beef, and pork are all farmed in similarly cruel ways, but many draw some distinction between fashion and food. A boycott is certainly one way to protest against the animals' treatment, but it is not necessarily an effective way of cutting off sizable revenue to fur farms.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Boycotting an industry on the individual consumer level does not necessarily take away a large proportion of its revenue. [Rejecting P2] The fur industry is largely financially supported by major fashion companies, so the individual boycott of those products will not guarantee a monetary cutoff of those fur farms. [Rejecting P3] Boycotting is not the only way of opposing the fur industry financially.