Anti-fur protesters and animal rights activists are an elitist cult. Not only do they have opinions based solely on short-sighted emotion, and not on science, sustainability or ecology, but they also feel the need to seek out and harass people for not sharing those beliefs. That’s a special type of narcissism.

The word “cult” applies to a group with a set of ideologies that revolve around an excessive devotion toward a particular figure. For animal rights cultists this “God” figure is animals, and anyone who uses animals in any way is evil. Little do they know - or care to acknowledge - that in their quest to protect animals they are among the guiltiest of sinners, causing harm to the very critters they worship.

When anti-fur cultists are outside fur stores, attacking small businesses, spitting on Indigenous and Canadian heritage, and claiming to be animal saviours, they are dressed head to toe in synthetic clothing that will never biodegrade, and will pollute habitats and kill animals en masse for millennia. Do these activists care about the pollution caused in manufacturing their clothes then shipping them across the world? Or that their clothes are contributing to the dire situation with plastics in our oceans? Their choices suggest absolutely not.

SEE ALSO: "Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur", by Truth About Fur.

SEE ALSO: "It's time to say 'no' to anti-fur hate groups", by Alan Herscovici, senior researcher, Truth About Fur.

Environmental Impact of Fur Negligible

Fur is biodegradable, so when several generations of a family are finished using a garment, it can be composted.

Anti-fur protesters like to focus on the tanning agents used to preserve the fur as their argument against the environmental positives of fur, but the truth is that these agents are becoming increasingly environment-friendly, plus they are reused multiple times. The impact per garment is negligible and a moot point.

There is little to no long-term environmental impact from sustainably harvested fur, and in Canada the fur trade is tightly regulated to ensure that sustainability is achieved. Unfortunately when it comes to sustainability though, anti-fur protesters and animal rights activists have no foresight. Their thought processes seem incapable of grasping the real, long-term impacts of our clothing choices.

"Cruelty-Free" Has No Substance

Likewise, their thought processes don't consider a reality of nature, which is that wild animals don’t grow old and die peaceful, pain-free deaths.

Wild animals get eaten alive by other animals who have no regard for a humane kill. They lose their ability to hunt and die cruelly while they starve. They get overpopulated and die of disease and starvation. Anyone who would prefer that, over a quick and humane harvest where the animal gets put to good use in a way that is positive for the environment, can’t claim to be compassionate or care about animal welfare.

Animal rights cultists, who preach about being compassionate and “cruelty free”, are the same people who have threatened to dissolve my five-year-old daughter and I in acid. They have zero credibility.

“Cruelty-free” is now a popular buzz term that can pull on people's heart strings, but it has no substance. If we examine every stage in the production of “cruelty-free” clothing, from its inception to a thousand years after it has been discarded, the negative impact and scale of animal harm is staggering. These so-called "cruelty-free" clothes are usually made from oil or a plant material that requires thousands of hectares of land to be clear-cut. Both of these options contribute to animal harm.

Many “cruelty-free” clothing items are assembled by sweatshop workers, including children, in Third World countries. Then they are shipped across the world to consumers in far-away lands. Through this international shipping, animals like the endangered North Atlantic right whale are killed by ship strikes. Ships also emit an astonishing quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and we all know about the devastating impact of climate change on animals.

SEE ALSO: "Animal rights agenda anti-human, harms nature", by Larry Simpson, veteran of Canada's far north.

Once the clothing items are discarded, the “cruelty-free” vegan plastics permeate our landscapes and oceans and literally choke animals. These items will not decompose and they repeatedly victimize habitats and animals themselves.

The same principles apply to “cruelty-free” cosmetics. A makeup item may not have been derived from or tested on animals, but the ingredients have probably been tested on animals at some point. And what happens when the item is made overseas and then transported to consumers? Or when the plastic packaging is discarded? Or when the plastic mascara tube filled with “cruelty-free”/vegan product is thrown away after a few months of use?

Short-Sighted Choices Harm Animals

Wildlife is suffering planet-wide because misguided activists are using silly labels and short-sighted choices to make themselves feel better. It’s ironic that animal rights and anti-fur protesters who claim to speak for “voiceless animals” are actually physically preventing the animals from breathing because of their choices.

This is narcissism, hypocrisy and shortsightedness at its ugliest. Animal rights cultists put a tag line on their lifestyle to feel better about themselves, and it’s at the expense of our planet and all the creatures that inhabit it. These uninformed cultists cause more widespread harm to animal populations than any sustainable harvest or biodegradable products do.

When all the non-renewable resources are used up and the vast majority of animal habitats are clear-cut for farms, the San Franciscos and LAs of the world that want to ban fur sales will be kicking themselves for contributing to this destruction, as they shift back to relying on the abundant renewable resources and biodegradable clothes that they shuttered.

Meanwhile, those of us who understand the importance of using sustainable, renewable resources like fur are years ahead of the curve. We are already following a lifestyle that others will have no choice but to return to.

SEE ALSO: "Proposals to ban fur sales are anti-ecological", by Alan Herscovici, senior researcher, Truth About Fur.

In Canada we are fortunate to still have the connection to our lands and resources that Hollywood knows nothing about. Whether animal rights activists want to admit it or not, almost everything they do, in fact, negatively impacts animals. Their labels and misguided choices may help them sleep better at night, but that doesn’t translate into the same for the animals that are dying thanks to their ignorance.

Animal rights cultists live in glass houses and shouldn’t be throwing stones.

***

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.

Anti-fur protesters today are an established part of our autumn scenery, like falling leaves or the southbound migration of Canada geese. But, in fact, all of the problems that originally triggered such protests have been addressed and resolved. So are the current crop of anti-fur protesters rebels without a cause? Or worse, are their protests now just a pretext for intolerance, a smokescreen for imposing on others a radical new form of militant vegetarianism?

Is it time to say “enough with the anti-fur protesting”?

A quick review of the history of anti-fur protesters raises serious questions about why they still exist.

Early Anti-Fur Protesters

Organized opposition to fur trapping began in 1925 when American adventurer and spy-turned-diplomat Edward Breck founded the National Anti-Steel Trap League after an encounter with a trapped bear during a visit to Nova Scotia. This was the peak of the “Roaring Twenties”, when raccoon, beaver and other wild furs were the rage. Fur prices were high and, with few government controls, fur-bearer populations were depleted in some regions. The two key themes of anti-fur protesting had emerged: concerns about the humaneness of trapping methods (animal welfare) and the need to ensure that trapping did not deplete furbearer populations (conservation/sustainability).

The Great Depression and World War Two swept away the exuberant fashions of the 1920s, and by the 1950s wild species represented barely 25% of North American fur sales. Concerns about trapping receded.

But in the 1960s – in an effort to expand the market beyond mink, Persian lamb and other classic farmed furs – the fur trade reintroduced wild species as “fun furs”, an initiative that received a major boost when Jackie Kennedy bought a leopard-skin coat in 1962. Ironically, this was the same year that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published, heralding the birth of the modern ecology movement.

Protest was in the air. In 1965, a film broadcast by Radio-Canada raised conservation and animal-welfare concerns about the northwest Atlantic seal hunt – a hunt that was then still little known and largely unregulated.

SEE ALSO: Ten lessons from 30 years battling animal rights.

And while trapping was now carefully regulated in North America, full international controls were not yet in place: the US Endangered Species Act would only be passed in 1969, while the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was not implemented until 1975. This was the context in which Cleveland Amory launched his Fund for Animals in 1967, and his first major campaign was against the use of fur from leopards and other endangered wild cats.

Celebrities, Media and Fake Fur

In his book Man Kind? Our Incredible War on Wildlife (1974), Amory recalled that his anti-fur campaign was sparked by a visit from a representative of fake-fur manufacturer E.F. Timme & Son. The company offered to give $200 and a fake fur coat to any “socialite” who would publicly denounce the wearing of furs from endangered species. Amory suggested that they up the ante to $2,000 and proposed the names of several well-known actresses who would decry the wearing of any wild fur. As members of his board, they could also be counted on to hand over the cash to his Fund.

With Doris Day, Mary Tyler Moore and others, the Fund for Animals became the first animal protection group to take a page from the ad man’s book and use “celebrities” to attract media attention. Long before Greenpeace brought Brigitte Bardot to the seal hunt (1977) and PETA promoted a string of models and B-list actresses to declare that they “would rather go naked than wear fur," Amory understood that “the medium is the message."

Amory also took up the animal-welfare side of the fur debate. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (CAHT) had sent him a seven-minute film they claimed was “filmed on the trap-line,” although it was later revealed that many scenes had been staged in a compound. It was called They Take So Long to Die, a line from an old National Anti-Steel Trap League poem. Amory sent the film to CBS Evening News, and on March 21, 1972, 20 million Americans watched animals struggling in leg-hold traps. Amory appeared on the program to demonstrate a quick-killing Conibear trap, which he presented as a more humane alternative.

It is important to note that Amory and the CAHT were arguing for more humane and sustainable trapping, not for a ban on trapping or fur use. The CAHT had made its film to pressure the Canadian government to seriously research improved trapping methods, and when the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping was set up in September 1973, the film was withdrawn from circulation. [For a full history of trap research and development, read our interview with humane-trap champion Neal Jotham.]

As legitimate conservation and animal-welfare concerns were being addressed, however, a new kind of anti-fur campaign was emerging.

Reformers Lose Their Way

The pioneering work of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping was taken up by the newly-formed Fur Institute of Canada, in 1983, and this continuing research has resulted in significantly improved trapping methods, trapper education, state and provincial regulations, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. But while the CAHT had withdrawn They Take So Long to Die, some of the footage was incorporated into Canada’s Shame, a new film produced by the Vancouver-based Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals (APFA).

While condemning the Fur Institute’s world-leading trap research program as a sham, APFA founder George Clements was unable to suggest how it might be improved when he was questioned under oath by the Parliamentary Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, on June 5, 1986. “If you are really serious, then I would really have to go back home and think about that,” Mr. Clements confessed. When another MP pointed out that “it is very easy to criticize and belittle certain things but [MP John Parry] asked if you had a game plan or a solution to this particular problem,” Mr. Clements was contrite: “I have been put in my place,” he said.

Now known as The Fur-bearers, the APFA has since abandoned any pretense of seeking more humane trapping. It now claims that “there is no such thing as a humane trap,” and calls for the complete abolition of “the commercial fur trade, including trapping and fur farms.”

From Leg-hold Traps to Fur Farms

As the popularity – and prices – of fur reached record levels through the 1970s and 1980s, protest activity intensified. Large, rowdy, anti-fur demonstrations became a common sight in many cities. And even when fur prices and sales retreated with the crash of the stock market in 1989 and the economic recession that followed, the protests – and political lobbying – continued, with leg-hold traps as the main target.

As they did with the seal-hunt, activists zeroed in on the European Parliament as a weak link in the political chain. The European Economic Community had banned the importation of furs from young (whitecoat and blueback) seal pups in 1983, although there was no conservation or animal-welfare justification for doing so. In 1991, the EEC adopted Council Regulation 3254/91 which “prohibits the use of leg-hold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leg-hold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards.”

Anti-fur activists thought this meant the end of the wild-fur trade, because “international humane trapping standards” did not exist at that time. But they were wrong. With the implementation of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards in 1997, it became clear that animal-welfare concerns about trapping were being seriously addressed, much as conservation and sustainability problems had been addressed by national and international regulations in the 1970s.

In response, anti-fur protesters shifted their focus to fur farming. Over the past decade, activists have released a series of undercover videos to bolster their claim that mink and fox suffer on fur farms. In fact, a wide range of government regulations and industry codes of practice ensure that farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care. Farmers have every reason to abide by these codes, because there is no other way to produce high-quality fur.

But in commercial-scale production, there will always be a few sick or injured animals; farmers often keep these in a special section of the shed where they can be easily observed and cared for. But activist videos don’t explain that. Nor do they explain that mink will appear agitated when disturbed in the middle of the night by strangers carrying cameras and bright lights. And as if that were not enough, the camera can always focus on manure under the pens (where it is supposed to be), or the voice-over can ominously inform us that these animals are being “raised in small cages” only to be "slaughtered and skinned for their fur.”

Rebels Without a Cause?

As this quick history reveals, the original anti-fur protesters were motivated by legitimate animal-welfare and conservation concerns. Over the past 50 years, however, these concerns have been addressed. Trapper training, new regulations, and continuing scientific research ensure that trapping in North America is now conducted responsibly and sustainably. Farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care, as required by government regulations, industry codes of practice, and the demands of a highly competitive international marketplace.

In fact, anti-fur protesters are no longer driven by real conservation concerns. Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature do not protest the fur industry because they do not consider it an environmental problem.

And anti-fur protesters are not really driven by animal-welfare concerns either. Animal-welfare groups (like the CAHT) that accepted the responsible use of animals but worked to improve the humaneness of trapping, have been superseded by media-savvy “animal rights” groups, like PETA. And while PETA distributes videos that it claims show animal-welfare abuses – and it will always be possible to find a bad apple somewhere – its publicly-stated objective is the elimination of any use of animals, even for food or vital medical research.

But when 95% of the population still eat meat and wear leather, it is disingenuous to claim that it is immoral to use fur that is produced responsibly and sustainably.

So the question remains: Is there still any justification for anti-fur protesters doing what they do? Is protesting against fur now just a way to attack "the establishment", or a smokescreen for promoting a radical “animal-rights” agenda? Or perhaps they have simply lost their way.

As American philosopher George Santayana said so succinctly, “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”

Now that recent actions by White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis have sparked discussion about the importance of tolerance in a modern, multi-cultural society, perhaps it is time to denounce another type of increasingly aggressive hate group: animal-rights extremists.

I can hear animal activists choking on their tofu stir-fry, but the facts speak for themselves: their campaigns – like those of other hate groups – almost always involve a direct attack on the rights, reputation and livelihoods of other people.

Hate groups are usually defined as organizations that promote discrimination against specific groups of people based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It’s time we added "employment" to that list.

Think about it: animal activists are not satisfied with expressing their opinions or exercising their right to wear cotton, hemp and synthetics, rather than fur or other animal products. Instead, they seek to impose their views on everyone.

While they call for compassion, they often seem to be driven more by anger and hatred of people who don’t share their views.

They use sensationalist and misleading videos of dubious origin to smear the entire fur industry and everyone associated with it – the same sort of tactics employed by other hate groups. The Nazis, of course, pioneered the use of staged films to fan hatred against Jews and others.

And if propaganda doesn’t work, animal extremists – like other hate groups – aren’t shy to employ intimidation. Despite decades of misleading activist campaigning, fur is now being sold in a wider range of stores than ever, in designer collections, as trim on outerwear, in fashion accessories. If consumers agreed with the activists’ condemnation of fur, stores wouldn’t be selling it. But animal extremists do not think that consumers and retailers have a right to make such decisions for themselves.

Their response is rowdier demonstrations. Fur-wearing consumers are harangued as they enter or leave stores; they are followed down the street by angry activists. Stores are warned that the demos won’t stop until they drop fur from their offerings. Under cover of darkness, store windows are broken and locks are glued. So much for the respectful exchange of views.

The animal extremist message is clear: "Do as we say, or face the consequences." Like a mafia protection racket. Or a chilling echo of the threats and intimidation used against businesses that resisted segregationist thugs in the early days of the US Civil Rights Movement.

Elevating Animals, Degrading People

The aggressiveness of animal-extremists is fueled by their fundamentalist “animal-rights” philosophy. If you believe that killing a mink (or a cow, pig or chicken) is the moral equivalent of killing a fellow human, it is easy to justify the most radical of actions.

SEE ALSO: Why Animal Rights Activists Are Becoming More Aggressive

Unfortunately, rather than elevating the moral status of animals, such beliefs easily lead to the degradation of other people. Once again, the Nazis provide a stark warning: not only were Hitler and several of his top henchmen vegetarians, but the Third Reich was the only national government in history to implement a complete ban on the use of animals in medical research. Dr. Josef Mengele used Jews instead for his cruel experiments.

In fact, most people in our society accept the responsible use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes. As designer Karl Lagerfeld has said about activists protesting his use of fur: “For me, as long as people eat meat and wear leather, I don't get the message.”

We have shown in a previous article, "Why fur is the ethical clothing choice", that the modern fur trade fully satisfies the four criteria required for most people to accept the use of animals as ethical. The wild-fur trade is well regulated and sustainable. Research and standards promote animal welfare for both wild and farmed fur-bearers. Fur animals are fully utilized with minimal waste. And the fur trade supports rural and remote communities while providing a valuable and long-lasting natural clothing material.

I know that most "animal-rights" advocates will be shocked at being labelled as hate mongers; they will claim that they are promoting justice, not discrimination. But every hate group claims to be promoting justice for their own particular cause. Having a cause does not justify attacking the reputations and livelihoods of people who do not share your beliefs.

It is time that the people of the fur trade were recognized for their knowledge and skills in maintaining this remarkable heritage industry, and for developing one of the most responsible and sustainable animal-use industries in the world.

And it is time for the media, political leaders, and the general public to take a much harder look at the misguided and irresponsible actions of animal extremists – and to say "no" to hate groups of all stripes.

Here is the fourth installment of our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing the celebrities and professionals whose anti-fur arguments have a lot of holes in them. Today we are talking about the Senior Fashion Editor of the British edition of Cosmopolitan magazine, Sairey Stemp. An email response of hers to a fur company was recently published in the Huffington Post. She had c.c.'d her email to PETA, which she suggested as a good source of information on "this highly cruel and unnecessary industry."

“I'm afraid this email has really upset me," she told the fur company. "I think you need to be aware of the extremely barbaric practices of the fur industry. I cannot and will not tolerate an industry that sees fit to torture, skin alive, electrocute and castrate innocent animals so their pelts can be used for 'fashion'.”

Now, let’s not focus on the problem that the supposed journalist didn't bother to have her work fact-checked. We all know that animals are NOT skinned alive for their fur, and PETA has even admitted that this is not a normal practice. We also won’t focus on the fact that Cosmopolitan features tons of cheap “fast fashion” clothing on its pages, clothing made under highly questionable working conditions in the Far East, from (usually petroleum-based, synthetic) materials that are filling our landfills and polluting our waterways. That is a topic for another day. This article’s about the hypocrisy of denouncing fur while featuring lots of other animal products in your magazine.

The Hypocrite: Sairey Stemp, Senior Fashion Editor of the British edition of Cosmopolitan magazine, a publication that does not feature real fur but promotes lots of other “dead animals”.

The Hypocrisy: Stemp’s anti-fur rant, published in the Huffington Post, was one of the silliest articles we've read in a long time. Devoid of facts, she spews inflammatory (and hypocritical) garbage like this: “The fur industry is one of the most barbaric, hideous, cruel and bloody industries. The reason it continues is simply because of money. If people didn't buy and wear fur, if the fashion industry didn't use and support it, then it would cease to be a viable commercial industry and the fur farms would close.”

Stemp denounces fur, but guess what her Cosmo suggests for winter coats: leather, wool and sheepskin! “But they're by-products of the food industry!” she'll cry. Someone should tell her PETA also opposes the production and eating of meat animals!  (And, funny, now that we think about it, we’ve never seen sheep on the menu in England, only baby sheep.) So it’s OK to kill farmed cows and sheep for clothing, but not mink? And how about the bags and shoes that Cosmo features? Many of them are made of leather and suede, a.k.a. dead animals. Yup, according to Stemp’s Cosmo, it’s “obscene” to wear fur but you look “Stunning in Shearling.”

What they say:  According to HuffPost, Stemp’s article was an “epic response” to a fur company.

What we say: Her article was a load of hypocritical drivel, with lots of copy-and-paste from a PETA press release.

Sairey, we respect your decision to dislike fur, you have every right to do that. You don’t have to wear it, no one is forcing you. You also have the right, as a Fashion Editor, to decide not to put fur on the pages of your magazine. But, please, don’t write insulting articles about the fictional horrors of the fur industry while you happily promote other apparel that is also made from “dead animals”.

If your only knowledge of fur farming comes from PETA, you don’t know anything about it. (And by the way, did you check the welfare standards of the animals used by the leather brands you promote?) Please explain why fur is so terrible, but leather and sheepskin are totally fine. Last time we checked, animals died for both, so the real question should be how responsibly the animals are treated.

Bottom line, you have a choice: you can be a shallow-thinking hypocrite or you can act like a professional journalist. If you think it’s wrong to kill animals for clothing, then stop promoting leather and sheepskin too. But if you can’t do that (because the leather companies pay your salary with their ads), then at least stop parroting PETA’s hateful drivel about fur. You can’t have it both ways!

ALSO IN OUR FUR HYPOCRITES SERIES: BRIAN McFADDEN, PINK, STELLA McCARTNEY.

Hello 2016! Here's our roundup of the fur in the news from the month of December. While many of us were busy shopping and eating turkey, there were still a lot of news stories featuring the subjects that are dear to our hearts: trapping, farming, fur fashion, and cute animals. Let's start with farming!

This article, entitled You call it sustainability; I call it farming and ranching, explores how a "nation’s understanding of farming and ranching is shaped by polarized headlines, stereotypes and lack of information." We agree!

And speaking of not understanding, it always comes as a surprise to us when farmers have to explain that "smells" are part of life near farms. This Canadian mink farmer is proud of what he is doing, despite the smell (see photo above.)

An important story from the other side of the pond is this one from Denmark, where mink farmers are dealing with a scary outbreak of Aleutian Disease.

Cold weather brings lots of fur-clad celebrities, and we love the way singer Miranda Lambert showed off the fur coat her grandmother gave her (photographed above), despite upset from some of her activist fans.

Hockey player PK Subban looked amazing in the fur coat made for him by the sisters behind Montreal-based brand Eläma.

Boy band member Brian McFadden also looked great in a fox fur collar by Charlotte Simone, but he probably should have thought twice about posing for an anti-fur campaign for PETA. Hypocrite!!

Speaking of PETA, this family is suing them because they kidnapped and euthanized their dog. Let's send them positive vibes and hope they win their lawsuit! And PETA's Christmas fur campaign was offensive in more ways than one, it seems like PETA promotes violence against women (see the film still above) and that is not acceptable!

Huffington Post hired yet another poorly informed "writer" who penned a piece about Canada Goose. He eats meat and claims that it is ok for his friends to hunt, but somehow it is not ok for trappers to live off the land. Hmmm ... Sounds as ridiculous as it is. Although we can never count on activists to be very sane or smart, here's a story about one who is threatening to kill people who consume or use animal products.

Sounds like the Chinese are to thank for boosting the hunting and trapping industry. Here is a very interesting piece about how Chinese are the main buyers of polar bear fur, but the trade is no threat to the animal population.

And the seal industry is also benefitting from the Chinese consumers, as they are big fans of this beautiful, natural fur. Us fur people are all big fans of seal fur and we support the hunt, but not everyone does, so here's 10 facts to share with anti-hunters, just to remind them what it is all about!

Let's end the roundup with a list of some of the other fur in the news articles and graphics we loved this month:

• Santa wears fur - but that's no surprise, he is from the North Pole!
• Mali Mo, a Kuwaiti luxury brand, is making some very nice fur!
• Skunk fur: beautiful but not popular. One of our writers explores why: Skunk Fur, Why Have We Forsaken You?
• This awesome Canadian grocery store sells seal pelts.
• Don't worry if the lake is frozen, this guy has found a new way to use his boat.
• Bad news for vegans: plants can feel when they are being eaten!
• And of course we like to end our round ups with a cute animal: here is a lovely arctic fox on the hunt!

This is the second installment in our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing influential figures whose anti-fur arguments are full of holes. Today we're talking about pop singer Pink, a PETA spokesperson and meat-eating "vegan" who loves wearing leather shoes.

The Hypocrite: Pink, pop singer, "vegan", and current model in PETA’s “Rather Go Naked” anti-fur campaign.

The Hypocrisy: Pink helps the animal rights organisation PETA to campaign against fur. PETA, not coincidentally, also promotes veganism. So, depending on the day of the week, Pink describes her diet as "mostly vegan".

And what does this mean? It means she "occasionally eats chicken and fish," and can even "eat entire buckets of chicken wings." She can also eat "an entire cheesecake in one sitting." She may love wheatgrass smoothies and tofurkey, but at the end of the day, she's just an omnivore like the rest of us.

On the subject of fur, Pink entreats us in her PETA poster to "Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs." But she has no problem with a cow losing its skin so she can wear suede boots.

What they say: PETA says, “P!nk has become known for being super-comfortable in her own skin—so comfortable that she teamed up with PETA and photographer Ruven Afanador to make her point perfectly clear: She wants animals to keep their own skin.”

SEE ALSO: HYPOCRITE PROFILE: STELLA McCARTNEY

What we say: Pink, your suede boots are lovely, but they're made from animal skin. So stop asking the rest of us to let animals "keep their own skin" while wearing it yourself.

Also, your diet of mostly veggies, but with chicken, fish and cheesecake thrown in, sounds great, but don't call yourself "mainly vegan", or even a vegetarian, just because you think it sounds cool (or because PETA told you to). You're an omnivore.

You and PETA are clearly a mismatch, so please stop endorsing them immediately.

We’ll eat our steaks, and you can wash down your chicken with a wheatgrass smoothie.

We’ll wear our fur, and you can wear your suede boots.

And we'll all refrain from telling each other what to do and how to live our lives. Fair enough?