A frustrated Gregg Schumacher said it best recently about tactics used against his store by an animal rights group bent on ending his fur and leather sales to customers.

“Where does this insanity stop?” Schumacher asked the Oregonian newspaper after a proposed city-sponsored mediation between the fur store and the animal rights group showed what a mockery this process is when absurd rhetoric is involved.

What happened here is a strong warning that should catch the attention of the agricultural industry.

Who could blame Schumacher for how he felt after his business, which was established in 1895, has been targeted by an animal rights group who will use any tactic it can to hurt that business?

Matt Rossell, director of Northwest In Defense of Animals, has helped lead protests for more than seven months on Saturdays to disrupt people who try to shop at Schumacher’s store in Portland.

According to the Oregonian, protesters outside the Schumacher Furs and Outerwear store yell chants and repeat catcalls of “shame on you” and have used “toy animal masks, hoops to twirl and protest signs.”

They have even brought a TV on a wagon to show a video of animal brutality that Rossell claims he took undercover at an Illinois fur farm in 1997.

The Schumachers complained to police and city council about these protests and threats against their family and employees, but the police believed the animal rights group had not broken any laws.

The mayor proposed the mediation to satisfy the protesters and keep the business in the city and the Schumachers have “filed an intent to sue the city,” said the newspaper.

Mediation depended on Rossell presenting a written list of proposals they could then discuss and Schumacher said they needed to be reasonable and enforceable.

Rossell’s proposal, according to the Oregonian, was that labels be attached to each leather and fur item sold in the store and say: “The animals used to make this fur garment may have lived in inhumane conditions and may have been killed by the following methods: anal electrocution, painful clubbing, crude gassing, neck-breaking, poisoning, or may have been skinned alive.”

This isn’t a consumer label. It’s propaganda and spreads the misinformation campaign of animal rights activists.

Schumacher called the label untruthful, inaccurate and “absolutely ridiculous” in the article.

He said, “Would restaurants have to begin providing the same warning on meat and produce? Will Nordstrom have to put the same alert on its shoes? Where does this insanity stop?”

Bingo, and kudos to Schumacher for taking on these protesters but also highlighting what potential consequences may emerge if he gave in to this ludicrous label idea.

Even if this fur store gave in to this label – and there is no way it should be forced to do so – this battle would only give animal rights groups more ammunition in spreading their propaganda elsewhere.

Worse, which agricultural activity would be its next target?

Animal rights groups have targeted farms, research facilities, restaurants and other businesses in the past for what they believe are inhumane production practices.

They paint with a wide brush all agriculture and make farmers look like cruel torturers of animals.

Farmers care about the animals they raise and sometimes make personal sacrifices in their own standard of living so that their animals and birds can be well-fed, healthy and safe to later feed consumers.

The USDA sets standards on animal transportation and slaughter methods and seeks the most efficient and humane ways to do so.

Ironically, the clothes worn by protesters against fur and leather may have been made in countries that treat people worse in their factories than these fur-bearing animals may have been treated in their lifetimes here in the United States.

Agricultural organizations should take note of what is happening in Portland and be prepared to fight when they become the next target for such consumer labels about their production practices.