Oi! Only just, you cheeky chappie! 
By coincidence, I was looking at a 1941 photo of my two dads and their mother, who's attired in a 3/4 length fur jacket. I don't think it was mink, it might have been beaver or some other 'fashion fur' of the time. She was the first 'lady driver' of Portsmouth (drove a Lagonda for Fred Jane, the founder of Jane's Fighting Ships, etc., for whom she worked), so our families enjoyed a rather better standard of living than many in those 'olden' days. My mother's aunt Louie had all kinds of furs, and while none of our family has the slightest huntin', shootin' or fishin' background, there was no sense then that the use, for fashion, of animals' skins might be unethical. So interesting that, after centuries of fur use, a couple of generations can swing such a huge change of outlook.
I suppose we've got to keep some fur-wearing in some perspective, though. In the West, it's been for fashion or 'status', whereas to the Inuit it's still essential to their existence. I guess if you hunt seal to eat, then using sealskins for warmth is just a byproduct. I imagine some Russian winters are still bitter to the bone, and fur-wearing is still an everyday occurrence, while our UK ones are dwindling down to mostly annoying rain, rather than the six feet of snow still experienced up to the early 1970s.
I think it'll be a long time before we can prise leopardskins away from being worn for tribal rituals in Africa - it would be nice to think that a paramount chief would find an acrylic version a grand enough substitute, but I don't see that happening any time soon, unless his country bans the practice. It's a strange old world, isn't, it - wearing animals' hides signals social standing in some countries, whereas in others it's still the best way to fight the freeze?
