The answer is no.
When we think of the different factors that make up the animal exploitation system of the world we live in today, even more immediate than animal agriculture, people will identify the problems with leather industries. We feel that if you were to ask the majority of this generation, responses to wearing leather would be very similar, and significantly against it. In an age where the pelt of another animal isn’t necessary for our survival, these treated animal skins resort to our living room couches, leather belts, and occasional wool sweaters. No longer do we have to rely on another animal to keep us warm. However, even with the cultivation of new fabrics, cloths, and materials, we as humans have still deemed it necessary-in fact obligatory-to continue using animal leather.
Annually, the global leather industry slaughters over a billion animals for leather goods. Its victims are not just those animals slaughtered by factory farms for meat production. That means that on top of the farming industry, we are also plagued with the ethical consequences of the leather industry. <source: http://www.care2.com/causes/the-shocking-truth-about-leather-no-its-not-a-meat-byproduct.html>
In order to progress as a race, it starts with eradicating the barbaric practices we still use to capitalise on the backs of defenceless animals. The sad truth is that these three facts, are just that. They are a mere fraction of the horrifying truths out there about what occurs in the fur industries. And as the accessibility to information increases, so should our awareness. Accepting the status quo means we are knowingly continuing a system which is corrupted with suffering and abuse.
Your decisions in this world as a consumer, as an individual who is impressionable upon others, and whose actions directly affect the lives of millions, face the difficult decision of whether or not you choose to stand behind a horrendous industry, or oppose it.
Because the heart beats under a covering of hair, of fur, feathers, or wings, it is, for that reason, to be of no account?