Cutting off the entire fur industry is the sole way to ensure its lack of monetary success. 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. According to FICA, in 2014, the American fur industry made $1.5 billion, that number continuing in the billions from 1990 to today. 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..." 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. This treatment of animals cannot continue without consequences, and it is the consumer's responsibility to cut off the industry's revenue.
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.
[P1] Boycotting a particular industry at the consumer level helps protest against that industry's practices while cutting off much of its value and revenue if many individuals join into the cause. [P2] If the fur industry, a cruel and inhumane business that tortures and kills animals, is boycotted, a message will be sent and a significant portion of its revenue will be lost. [P3] The fur industry can only be combated through consumers' boycott of its products.
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.