MSNBC

Prince Charles may have a bear of a visit to the U.S.

The future King of England is coming to the States for the first time since his wedding in April, and an animal-rights group plans to hound him every moment he’s here.

A protester from PETA dressed in a bear costume and waving a sign that reads “Save My Skin” is gearing up to greet the prince at each stop he makes — starting today. The protest is an effort to convince Buckingham Palace to use fake fur instead of bearskins to make the Place Guards’ hats.

“Prince Charles is known to be a staunch defender of the environment, so it would make sense for him to oppose the slaughter of black bears for something as frivolous as a ceremonial hat,” says PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. “The Prince’s wife, Camilla, has recently undergone a fashion makeover, and it’s time for the Palace Guards to get one, too.”
-------------------------------
COMMENTS

I agree with PETA's complaint though not necessarily how they convey their views (a guy in a bear suit is fine, and maybe a couple of sign carriers. Nothing more than that).

The idea of killing a bear just to make a hat is an abomination.

It should be pointed out that the army claims the bearskins come from authorised culls in Canada. If they didn't use the skins the bears will still be killed to stop their numbers becoming too large and threatening other species.

Also, fake fur is all very well, but not without its own environmental downside - it doesn't biodegrade like the real stuff does (so I hear).

It is also said that they use less than 100 pelts per year compared with many thousands killed by licenced hunters. With a population of over a million bears one cannot say they are an endangered species. The following article says why synthetic furs are not yet used.

About a previous demonstration by PETA on same subject

We wear leather shoes, animals are used for that too.

Most fake fur is made of acrylic, a petroleum based product who's production causes any number of problems for the environment. The use of fake fur is, in my opinion, no more socially conscious than the use of real fur. In fact, the environmental impact from acrylic far outweighs that of the killing of a relatively small number of a non-endangered species. And as the article Sue posted mentions, the properties of synthetic furs are not the same as those of real fur and may simply not be a viable option. Real fur is supremely useful, even for ceremonial hats. (And frankly, if I were made to stand perfectly still outside in all manner of weather, I'm guessing that hat becomes far more than just ceremonial!)

I see no reason to shoot a bear or any animal for it's fur. That said, I don't like the tactics of PETA and few other of these animal rights groups.

I would actually mostly agree with you, Mikey, although I don't seen any moral difference between using leather and using fur, without bringing the farming aspects of either into play. In most cases, there's no good reason to use fur. In this country, or in other industrialized countries which have other means of keeping warm in winter. I certainly have no justification for using fur. But there are areas of the world where wearing fur is still part of survival, and I wouldn't even question it.

If an animal is being killed soley for the leather than I would agree. But since we eat cows and other animals I see no need to waste anything.

I also don't agree with shooting any animal for sport.

Well, some animals ARE killed just for the leather, but that IS a key difference in my opinion between fur and leather as well. And I don't agree with sport hunting either, although I don't consider hunting for food to be sport hunting, even if you aren't starving. I am quite fond of venison sausage and jerky, and know a lot of hunters, that being a common thing here. None of the hunters I know kill animals just for the sake of doing it. That is what I consider sport hunting. I know a number of people who would disagree with that, though.