minconline / CC

She may have won rave reviews for her role in Iron Man, but Gwyneth Paltrow is getting nothing but rotten tomatoes from animal lovers everywhere this week. Gwyneth recently put aside her scripts and picked up a few dead animal skins to model for the Tods fall collection, including a fur shawl.

PETA has written to Ms. Paltrow numerous times about the hideous cruelty on fur farms, including that animals are skinned alive and kept in tiny cages for so long that they exhibit stereotypical behaviors. However, it appears that she didn't get the memo.

Here's what PETA President Ingrid Newkirk had to say about Paltrow's latest hobby:

Gwyneth Paltrow won't be the apple of her daughter's eye if she flaunts the skins of once-beautiful animals. Promoting an industry that electrocutes animals, snaps their necks, and skins them alive is a shocking example to set for a young child. Apparently, Paltrow's beauty really is only skin deep.

Paltrow may like to live the glamorous life, but there is nothing glam about paying others to slaughter animals for your clothes.

Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky

i152 / CC

Our beloved Stella McCartney is rightly outraged over the misuse of one of her designs. It seems a sheer black bra from Stella's lingerie collection was used—without Stella's permission, of course—in an ad for a fur boutique.

Stella—who is totally dedicated to her anti-fur and -leather stance—only found out about the ad when she saw it in the latest issue of Vogue. There it was: one of her designs—partially covered by a ghastly mink coat and accessorized with a ghastly leather belt. Stella had lent the bra to a stylist for use in an editorial photo shoot, but the stylist had a mix up and used it for the advertisement instead—without asking for Stella's permission.

The story is that when Stella saw the ad, she "hit the roof and said that she planned to sue." Good for her! Stella doesn't want to support the cruelty of the fur industry. (Heck, I wouldn't like it if my second-grade finger-paintings were used to promote those animal killers.)

As for the fur boutique, they have already issued a "grovelling apology" and will not be using the ad again—which is quite a blow for them, considering that the ad would've cost £10,000 (about $19,000) to shoot in the first place—and about $50,000 to place in Vogue! That's a lot of money for a boutique to lose, even for one that regularly peddles $10,000 animal skins.

It's nice that the boutique has apologized to Stella. I don't suppose there's any chance that they'll next apologize to the countless animals who are caged, electrocuted, and skinned alive in the name of "fashion" … ?

Posted by Amanda Schinke

View behind-the-scenes footage of the photo shoot here.

Amanda Beard, the incredibly gorgeous U.S. swimmer, has posed naked for a brand-new anti-fur ad, just as the Olympics are about to kick-off in Beijing.

The Olympic gold medalist unveiled the stunning "Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin" ad just hours after Beijing officials stopped her from holding a news conference, reportedly for "safety" reasons. Hmm, what’s so dangerous about a naked lady?! So the swimmer simply moved her location and revealed the stunning ad to a swarm of reporters and TV cameras elsewhere.

Given that Beijing is hosting the Summer Olympic Games this year and the horrific conditions that have been documented on Chinese fur farms, now is a great time to remind folks that animals grow fur to protect themselves from the elements, not to cover 100-lb. fashionistas from paparazzi camera flashes.

The ad shows that she's comfortable in her own skin and doesn't need to steal anyone else's. During the shoot Amanda sat down with us and explained: "I'd much rather go naked than ever put a dead animal on my body." Well said, Amanda!

You can get on board by signing our pledge to go fur-free pledge.

Photos from Amanda's unveiling in Beijing:

Photo Credit: Patrick Alleyn

There's a lot of buzz on the interwebs about Eva Mendes' Calvin Klein ad that showed so much skin, it's been banned from U.S. television.

I just wanted to remind the world that before Eva revealed her smoldering body for CK (a designer who WON'T use fur, by the way), she bared it all for the animals. How hot is Eva?!?!

Not only do PETA and CK share a friendship with Eva and a dislike of fur—PETA has also had one or two ads banned from TV in our day. Heck, who are we kidding—we’ve had dozens. View our favorite banned ads here!

Today, pajama-clad PETA members paid a visit to Donna Karan at her Intimates and Sleepwear Fashion Show in New York, wielding signs that read, "We're Tired of Your Fur."

Why won't PETA let Karan rest? Because the flip-flopping designer once promised to stop using fur in her designs but has since broken that promise and now uses lots and lots of dead rabbits to line her coats. PETA wants Donna to return to her pre–bunny butcher days and opt for cruelty-free materials instead.

What happens to rabbits and other animals killed for their skin is simply hideous. Animals in the wild are trapped, drowned, or beaten to death, and animals on fur farms are killed by gassing, electrocution, or cervical dislocation (neck-breaking).

Donna's bunnies are probably from a source that does neck-breaking, but whatever the method, we're betting that it's no fun for the bun. And many poor bunnies are even skinned alive in a business that sees them as nothing more than trim and linings. Some people just don't get the horror of the fur industry until they see it for themselves, so please show this video to as many people as you can.

Many top fashion designers—including Calvin Klein, Stella McCartney, Ralph Lauren, and Tommy Hilfiger—are 100 percent fur-free. Gucci is on the way—they have agreed to not use seal fur (ask them to stop using all fur here).

If you didn't make it to the protest in New York, you can definitely still help PETA and our campaign to urge Donna Karan to stop using fur in her designs.

Big thanks to everyone who came out to the demonstration!

We at PETA have just heard that the organizers of a fashion show sponsored by the Pro Football Hall of Fame are planning to include real fur in the show. Now—ignoring the question of what football has to do with a fashion show in the first place—why would the Hall of Fame want to be associated with the cruelty of fur farms?

We're sure that the director of the Pro Football Hall of Fame will change his mind about fur once he reads our letter, which is printed below. I mean, the Hall of Fame isn't knowingly supporting the fur industry, right? We hope not!

Ron Dougherty, Interim Executive Director
Professional Football Hall of Fame

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

On behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I am writing to urge you to pull all real fur from this Friday's Pro Football Hall of Fame Fashion Show Luncheon.

Dozens of designers and retailers—including Stella McCartney, Calvin Klein, Marc Bouwer, Banana Republic, Tommy Hilfiger, Ann Taylor, and Jones New York—refuse to use or sell fur. Long recognized as a leader in fashion, Polo Ralph Lauren also recently announced that it would no longer use fur in any of its apparel or home collections.

You might be interested to learn that animals trapped for their fur can suffer for days in steel traps before dying of exposure, frostbite, shock, or infection. Mothers who are desperate to return to their young will even chew off a limb in a desperate attempt to free themselves. Trappers eventually return and strangle, stomp, or bludgeon the survivors to death.

On fur farms, animals spend their lives in barren, filthy wire cages, exposed to all weather extremes. They often go without adequate shelter, clean water, or veterinary care (even for severe injuries, including broken bones). Unable to escape and deprived of everything that is natural and important to them, animals often go insane from these conditions. Fur farmers use the cheapest killing methods available. Many animals are electrocuted by having rods inserted into their rectums or vaginas, and others are beaten, gassed, or suffocated to death. These crude killing methods aren't always effective, and sometimes animals regain consciousness while the skin is being ripped off their bodies.

Please take a few minutes to watch this brief video about fur production to see why fur is unacceptable.

No organization wants to be associated with blatant cruelty to animals. I think you'll agree that this is a serious matter that deserves your immediate attention. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dan Shannon, Assistant Director
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Posted by Amanda Schinke

mediabistro / CC

Ordinarily, fall is literally the biggest time of year for fashion magazines. But this fall, the season has a more … shall we say … literal meaning—as in, it looks like Anna Wintour is tumblin' down. Or at least her ad pages are! Yes, it seems that these tough economic times have hit even the fashion industry.

The September issue of Vogue will no doubt be full of the usual "fashions" and more animal skins than the Queen of Mean can count on her two grubby hands. But what will not be in the issue, at least not in the U.S. edition of Vogue, is the usual hefty number of advertisements.

According to this story, last year's Vogue had 50 more advertisement pages than the 2008 edition will have. Translation: dollar signs are not in season.

Earlier this year, we even offered financial help to Aretha Franklin so that she could keep her house—granted she hand over the furs. And now we’re trying to help bail Anna out. If she would like to accept one of our advertisements to help her fill those empty pages, we’re here. Perhaps our beautiful Eva Mendes ad? Or, maybe our racy Joanna Krupa ad or even our sexy Imogen Bailey ad! How about a little memorial of Anna Nicole Smith?

In the past, our ads have not been welcome at Vogue. Anna is far too friendly with the fur industry which anally electrocutes animals and bodies wrapped in fur skinned off the backs of fully conscious animals to accept them, but perhaps the downturn in the economy will mark the upswing of the moral code at Vogue?

Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky

entertainmentwise / CC

Even though I never had the kind of looks that could stop traffic—unless the traffic was really slow to begin with—now that I'm *mumblety-mumble* years old, I must admit to having seen the effects of aging on my appearance. So I can only imagine what it must be like for people who are still youngish whose beauty has been the basis for their career.

It must be hard to reach that point in your life where whenever your name hits the media, it's preceded by the words "former supermodel." You might become upset enough to freak out on a plane or throw a phone at your maid. Why, it's enough to make you want to pull your hair out.

Fortunately for former supermodel (see, I told you) Naomi Campbell, her hair seems to be falling out all on its own. We recognized an opportunity for some good old-fashioned consciousness-raising. Here's PETA Europe's note to Ms. Campbell:

Dear Ms Campbell,

Please don’t get angry and throw something, but I hear that you are going bald. If this is true, then you understand what it’s like to lose your hair. Of course, for animals raised and killed for their fur, the problem isn’t just that their looks suffer (have you seen a skinned fox?! Check out FurisDead.com for a quick peek) but that the skin is ripped off their bodies – sometimes while they are still conscious.

If you are balding, please seize this opportunity to make up for promoting cruelty to animals in the fur trade by promoting faux fur and natural fibres. You would look lovely in a synthetic hairpiece and/or a pretty cotton, elegant satin, practical linen or other hat made without harming a living soul. PETA would be pleased to provide you with examples of all of the above.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid E Newkirk

Posted by Jeff Mackey

Burberry representatives denied entry to Bruce Friedrich this morning, an action that we believe clearly violates the rules that govern publicly traded companies. Bruce, appearing as a proxy, had registered in time, confirmed his registration, and showed proper identification and a copy of his proxy voucher card to officials—but to no avail.

One might suspect that the problem here is that Friedrich is an outspoken opponent of the use of fur in Burberry’s clothing, and they don't want their shareholders to hear what he has to say.

Bruce was slated to speak and urge shareholders to end the company's use of fur, as stated in the shareholder statement that PETA Europe had sent directly to Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts as well as their chair and chief designer. Included with the statement was video footage showing fur-bearing animals caught in traps, animals chewing off their own limbs to escape, and animals on fur farms crammed in tiny, filthy cages until they were killed by gassing, anal or vaginal electrocution, or having their necks broken.

Since Burberry is based in the United Kingdom, where cruel fur farms are illegal, they have resorted to importing animal pelts from Finland. Says Friedrich, "Burberry might not want its shareholders to hear about the company's support for cruelty to animals so extreme that if the practices it supports were conducted in the United Kingdom, they would be illegal, but it has no right to shut out debate".

Posted by Sean Conner

gdargaud / CC

Today, we've got great news for seals and bad news for the people with the spikey-tipped sticks! According to the Daily Mail, the EU has announced that a fur import embargo will be drawn up in the next few weeks. Yippee!

So, thanks to all of you who responded to PETA's call to action and contacted the EU about this issue!

That's another 27 countries that will most likely cut ties with an industry that bludgeons and skins baby seals alive. With European ports closed to seal fur, Canada's barbaric annual seal hunt may just come to an end. Kinda makes you want to sing "Another One Bites the Dust," doesn't it?

We are confident that EU leaders are finally starting to turn away from the annual torture of defenseless baby seals on Canada's ice floes each spring just to benefit Canadian fishers. Well, the whole world's watching you now, Canada, and the next move will be yours.

Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky

itvt / CC

Anyone out there who loves to shop without getting off the couch and also hates to see animals suffer will love the fact that the Home Shopping Network (HSN)—which reaches 90 million U.S. homes—has adopted a permanent fur-free policy. In a letter to PETA, HSN CEO Mindy Grossman wrote, "We and the customers of HSN share your concern about the treatment of animals in the making of fur products. As such, we no longer purchase any product that uses real fur, a strict policy that went into effect in the first quarter of this year."

Ready for even more good news? HSN has also agreed to donate any furry items leftover at the end of the year to PETA so that we can use them in our anti-fur campaign.

Way to go, HSN!

Although dozens of companies have adopted fur-free policies—including Polo Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, and the Gap—some callous companies still insist on using the fur of tortured animals to make their products. One of these companies is ShopNBC. Take a few seconds (literally, like 10 seconds) to send ShopNBC an automated message urging them to follow HSN's lead by dropping fur once and for all.

Posted by Matt Prescott

dailymail / CC

Ever wonder if those people who are really horrible can't help it? Well, we're starting to think that maybe that's the case with Sharon Stone. She wears fur, feet, and feathers without a care in the world, despite our best efforts to reach her. Then there was that whole horrid China comment.

So in an effort to find out if Sharon is cruel because of a brain glitch, PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk sent Stone a letter volunteering to "pay for a scan of the prefrontal region of [her] brain to determine if comments and actions that seem to demonstrate a lack of empathy are the result of a physical defect."

Will she respond to the offer? And if so, will we find out that Sharon's thoughtlessness is the result of being dropped as a baby or that she's cruel because the "empathy gene" skipped a generation? And most importantly, will she seek professional medical help if the results show that her cruel mindset is actually a medical problem? We'll keep you posted! ConnieTalk has more on this story and one really fantastic picture!

Posted by Jeff Mackey

From the "turnabout is fair play" department—and from an Israeli Web site called PetKaput.com—comes a video that dares to imagine what would happen if some role reversal were to happen in the notorious Chinese fur trade. The result is somehow creepier than all the Saw and Hostel films put together—and yet weirdly funny too. Not David Cross or Amy Sedaris funny, but—well, I can't really explain it; you just have to watch:

Ouch! Admittedly, it's a little disturbing, but keep in mind that it's only animation, so no one was actually hurt in the making of it (unfortunately, the same can't be said for the video that inspired it).

Posted by Jeff Mackey

You might be surprised to learn about Switzerland's involvement in the cat-fur industry. Switzerland is the only country in Western Europe that still legally allows cats to be hunted for their fur. Swiss law even states that cats that wander 200 yards or more away from their homes can legally be killed—and their fur can be made into jackets, coats, and bed blankets.

It's really no coincidence that most people don't know about Switzerland's cat-fur trade. If you were to step inside a fur store in Switzerland and raise questions about cat fur, chances are the store would deny any involvement or pretend it does not know anything about the industry.

But undercover investigations conducted by television crews last year exposed Switzerland's cat-fur trade. And caught on film were the same tanners and furriers who, when questioned, denied any involvement. You can read the details here.

The footage caught on film from hidden cameras caused an uproar from Swiss citizens and animal rights groups. Longtime animal rights advocate Brigitte Bardot has thrown her support to the cause, and SOS Chats—Switzerland's pro-cat lobby—is now working to ban the cat-fur trade and cat hunting.

Ironically enough, Switzerland actually banned all cat-fur imports from other countries in 2006 because of concerns about the animals' treatment during slaughter—a move that is proving to be as useless as the cat- and dog-fur ban that the European Union will be adopting later this year.

It's a little hard to be neutral when you're contributing to this, Switzerland. Don't you think?

—Jen

Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky, Membership Correspondence Coordinator

I'm not quite sure what Sag Harbor Village, New York—a self-proclaimed "spiritually oriented" town—is thinking by welcoming Donna Karan into their peace circle. But they have, and they are allowing her to set up shop near the wharf. So amongst the yoga shops and raw-food eateries, there will soon be Urban Zen, DK's yoga-inspired store, which plans to sell DK's fashions, amongst other things. Catch the details here.

The nagging question on deck is: Why would someone so relentless in the promotion of fur and the killing of innocent animals for their skins have any interest in associating herself with yoga and its quintessential beliefs? One just doesn't seem to go with the other. Yoga is, after all, a spiritual awakening and a practice of love and nonviolence. (Forgive me for getting all "hippie" on you, but it is.)

Somehow, I just don't think the practice of yoga will cleanse the karma of a desperate, bunny-butchering fashion designer who continues to use real fur in her collections when there are so many great alternatives out there. There's no violence in yoga, DK. And there definitely isn't any peace for animals who are skinned alive and anally electrocuted for your clothes. However, we do have a suggestion for you to turn your bad karma good: Stop killing animals! I know, you've never heard that before, right?

—Jen

Posted by Jennifer Cierlitsky, Membership Correspondence Coordinator

InklingBlog / CC

Here’s the quote, which came after a Chinese reporter asked the increasingly irrelevant Stone what she thought about the recent earthquakes in China:

"Well you know at first I thought I'm not happy with the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans ... and I've been concerned with should we have the Olympics because they're not being nice to the Dalai Lama who's a good friend of mine. And then all this earthquake and stuff happened and I thought, 'Is that Karma, when you're not nice and the bad things happen to you?"

A lot of bloggers have been justifiably outraged by her insensitivity to a national tragedy, though given her vocal support for turning anything that so much as meows into, say, a lapel pin, I can’t say that I’m all that surprised at her inability to empathize with the suffering of others.

Which raises a couple of somewhat disturbing questions: 1) Isn’t it just a wee bit dangerous for someone who’s responsible for the excruciating torture of countless foxes, rabbits, and unsuspecting viewers of Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction to be talking about karma? And 2) If karma really does catch up with her after this, will that mean that her days of dragging that dead beaver out in public will be finally at an end?

‘Cuz that’d be a real disappointment for her five remaining fans.

-Jack

This coat didn’t originally belong to Lindsay … or Masha Markova

Update: E! online has the story

I don’t know whether or not LiLo actually stole some rich chick’s fancy fur coat, as the blogs have been suggesting this week, but I can tell you that a lot of the stories about this seem to have missed the real crime here. According to The Superficial, which is where I get pretty much all my important news nowadays, this girl called Masha Markova is accusing Lindsay of running off with her $10,000 fur coat after a party. Apparently, Masha only found out that this was where her coat had gone when she saw pics of Ms. Lohan sporting it in OK magazine. As soon as I’d gotten finished weeping about poor Masha’s terrible experience, I asked PETA Vice President Dan Mathews what he knew about the story, and he forwarded me a copy of this e-mail that he sent to Masha Markova this morning. It makes for pretty good reading:

To: Masha Markova, c/o Merrill Cohen

Dear Ms. Markova,

We at PETA have read with interest about your distress over Lindsay Lohan supposedly stealing your fur coat. Has it ever occurred to you that neither you nor Lindsay are the rightful owners? That coat belonged to dozens of animals who were electrocuted, gassed, strangled, drowned or beaten to death just so you could try to appear wealthy. Ms. Markova, people who wear fur simply show that having money and style don’t go hand in hand. Please take 5 minutes to watch this video, hosted by former fur wearer Martha Stewart, who had a change of heart about wearing real fur when she saw what the animals go through. Perhaps you, too, will find your conscience and consider donating your fur coat to PETA, as have Mariah Carey, Kim Cattrall, and hundreds of others who don’t want animals to be fashion victims. We give them to the homeless, and you would even receive a tax credit for the donation. We look forward to your reply.

Dan Mathews
VP, PETA
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=martha

P.S. I just realized that I missed an opportunity for a bunch of “Lindsay Lohan showing off her fur in public” type jokes. Please accept my humble apologies for dropping the ball on that.

Donna Karan had a bit of an unpleasant surprise at the Yoga Journal Boston Conference on Saturday, in the form of naked PETA members doused in fake blood and crouched in yoga poses. Just our subtle way of saying, “Hey, DK, how about a little less with the nonviolence speeches and a little more with the not skinning bunny rabbits to make clothes?” Except, like without the confusing sentence construction.

The Boston Herald has the story.

There are two things I really like about the story that hit the wires this week reporting New York’s recent ban on anal and genital electrocution of animals for fur. The first thing’s kind of obvious: Animals on fur farms in New York won’t be electrocuted any more (they’ll still suffer, but their deaths will now, hopefully, be just a bit less painful). In case you haven’t kept up to date on electrocution techniques, this isn’t like sticking your finger into a wall socket: The fur farmers attach one electrode to the fox’s or raccoon’s ear or muzzle and stick the other one in the animal’s anus or vagina. The result is a dagger-like heart attack without loss of consciousness. On one fur farm we investigated, the farmer plugged the chinchillas into the wall socket and timed it by listening to a song on the radio—then skinned them without checking to see if they were dead.

But the thing that should be really remarkable for most people reading this story is not the fact that New York has banned electrocution—but the implication that this is still legal everywhere else. That’s right. New York is now the only state where anally and genitally electrocuting fur-bearing animals (fur farmers do it this way so they won’t damage the pelts) could get you into trouble.

As my friend Melissa put it when she was interviewed for the AP piece, "Anal electrocution is common practice in fur farms across the world. A lot of these methods aren't effective and these animals will wake up while they are being skinned."

That’s all. I just wanted to drive home that point. It’s awesome that New York is leading the way here, and hopefully other states will soon follow suit. But this is also a good opportunity to store away that little tidbit about anal and genital electrocution being 100 percent legal in 49 out of 50 states—just in case anyone ever tries to tell you that wearing fur is anything other than reprehensible.

In case you missed it, there’s a Battle of the Divas going on in the media right now. Mothra Madonna is evidently trying to throw down with Mariah Carey to see who’s the most popular. Which means that it’s time to either take sides or get out of the way … and I want to take this opportunity to officially throw the weight of the world’s largest animal rights organization (that’s us) behind our girl Mariah, with whom—to use the immortal words of Ol’ Dirty Bastard (RIP)—we go back like babies and pacifiers. Here’s my argument for why Mariah blows Madonna out of the water in this competition:

1. When a Russian tycoon gave Mariah Carey a pair of outrageously expensive fur coats in a misguided attempt to show her what a big fan he was, she immediately donated the coats to PETA for us to give to the homeless. Roughly around the same time, Madonna was photographed trouncing around London in about $70,000 worth of dead chinchillas.
2. A whole lot more people are buying Mariah’s new album than are buying Madonna’s. Which kind of settles it, just in case my first point didn’t do the trick for you.

So there you have it. The forces of good prevail, while the groovy soundtrack of “Touch My Body” plays in the background. If you know of any other Diva competitions that need a’refereeing, just let me know. I’m always happy to help out.

Image credits: DailyMail, the-planets / CC

… So say a number of Canadian consumers, who have just filed a formal complaint against the Fur Council of Canada (FCC) with the Competition Bureau of Canada. The complaint—which has been signed by representatives of animal protection groups from British Columbia to Nova Scotia—alleges that the FCC has attempted to gain an unfair competitive advantage by using preposterous claims that fur production is “Eco-Friendly” and that people who choose fur alternatives are damaging the environment because of the energy that’s required to make faux fur.

In fact, the opposite is true. Not only are fur garments treated with toxic chemicals to keep them from decomposing, but fur production—which government agencies around the world have identified as a major pollutant—poisons waterways and consumes resources at an alarming rate. It is estimated that it takes 15 times as much energy to produce a fur coat from ranch-raised animals as it does to produce a faux-fur coat. Not to mention the pain and suffering and the existence of natural fibres like cotton, etc.

And it’s against the rules to lie in order to gain a competitive advantage. So the FCC needs to stop it. I’ll let you know how that goes.

You can take action on this issue here.

Model and designer Kimora Lee Simmons, whose Baby Phat ads and clothes were once disturbingly furry, has had a big change of heart over the time we have known her. Contact Music published an article yesterday about Kimora’s reasons for giving her branded Barbie doll a faux-fur coat accessory. Kimora says wants kids to know that faux fur is both compassionate and stylish, saying of the doll:

"She has a faux-fur chinchilla coat, because I want to show kids that synthetic fur can be fabulous, too. She's everything a Barbie is supposed to be."

So, thanks to Kimora for helping to spread the word. In the meantime, I’m trying to come up with some other Barbie dolls that will be equivalently effective as educational tools for kids. So far, I’ve got “Seal Hunt Protest Barbie” (artist’s rendition below), and “Runway Takeover Barbie”. If anyone else has any suggestions, let me know.

TableandHome / CC

But don’t take it from me, take it from Kathie Lee! She reminded people that they can donate their old furs to PETA on the Today Show this week. There’s more info on how to go about it here. We give the furs to homeless shelters, wildlife rehabbers, and activists (who use them in anti-fur demonstrations). Many thanks to Kathie Lee for the plug.

FoxNews / CC