Mink farmers were shocked and saddened recently by a leaked video showing Dr. Bonnie Henry, British Columbia’s Public Health Officer, laughing as she informed her federal and provincial counterparts that the court had rejected a suit seeking fair compensation for farms shut down on her recommendation.

It was the end of a conference call with Canada’s “One Health” committee, in May. As Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Theresa Tam, prepared to wrap up the meeting, Dr. Henry interjected for a final word: “On a positive note, we shut down mink farms in BC, as you may know,” she began with a grin. “Ontario be aware, you still have them,” she laughed. “And they launched a lawsuit against us that was just thrown out yesterday, so, hah hah,” she chuckled. (None of the other public health officers smile during Dr. Henry’s comments.)

This was the latest bizarre twist in the sad saga of the BC Government’s vendetta against the province’s mink farmers.

SEE ALSO : BC Mink Farming Ban: Government refuses compensation for devastated families. Truth About Fur, Feb. 1, 2022.

SEE ALSO: Canadian mink farmers will fight arbitrary ban by BC government. Truth About Fur, Nov. 10, 2021.

Danish Debacle Sets the Scene

The scene had been set in Denmark, in November 2020, where concerns about a new “Cluster 5” variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus traced back to farmed mink led the government to hastily order a mass cull.

It soon became clear that the risks had been overblown – the “Cluster 5” variant disappeared as quickly as it had emerged – and that the cull was ordered without proper legal authority.(1) The Agriculture Minister resigned, and the Prime Minister was forced to apologize to farmers and call a new election after a scathing report on her government’s mishandling of the issue. But the damage was done; animal activists jumped at this opportunity to fan fears and call for a complete ban on mink farming everywhere.

In British Columbia, a One Health Committee was established in October 2020, to coordinate efforts by animal- and public-health officials to monitor and manage potential Covid risks on mink farms. In December, the BC Centre for Disease Control judged that Covid on mink farms did not present an increased risk to public health.(2) In June 2021, a risk assessment found the probability of a dangerous variant emerging from BC mink farms to be “unlikely/very-unlikely”.

Nonetheless, after mink on three of the province’s nine farms had contracted Covid-19, on July 26, 2021, the Public Health Officer imposed a moratorium on new farms, and capped the number of mink at existing levels.

The farmers worked with the PHO to augment strict biosecurity measures: access to farms was limited; protective clothing, masks, and visors were used; and workers with flu-like symptoms did not enter the barns. The farmers felt they were working cooperatively with their Government to responsibly manage any possible risks.

Just a few months later, however, on November 5, 2021, the Government suddenly announced that mink farming would be “phased out” in BC, following “the recommendations of public health officials and infectious disease experts,” said Agriculture Minister, Lana Popham. “We believe the risk is too great for operations to continue as they were,” said Dr. Henry.(3)

By Order in Council, on November 26, farmers were ordered not to breed their mink, and were given 15 months (until April 1, 2023) to pelt or sell their remaining animals – destroying, with the stroke of a pen, the life-work and livelihoods of the province’s mink-farming families.

This harsh directive was suspect from the start because, while farmed mink in several US states had also tested positive for Covid-19, the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) determined that the risk to human health was low so long as farmers maintained good biosecurity protocols.(4) No other North American jurisdiction has followed BC’s decision to ban mink farming.

Influence of Animal Rights Groups Suspected

BC farmers suspected that the province’s militant animal-rights groups had unduly influenced the Government’s over-the-top response, and these concerns soon seemed to be confirmed.

In response to the farmers’ motion (February 15, 2022) for a judicial review of the mink-farming ban – seeking to have the Order in Council “suspended and declared to be of no force and effect”, the province refused to provide the full record of documents and other information that Cabinet had consulted. Full disclosure was not needed, government lawyers argued, because Cabinet was legally entitled to revise the fur-farming regulations as it wished.

On May 13, 2022, lawyers representing the farmers, with their provincial and national associations, formally petitioned for the full record of documents consulted by Cabinet. They argued that the farm ban was unreasonable because more responsive and less invasive measures were available to protect public health, including enhanced biosecurity.

Furthermore, it was blatantly illogical for the government to claim that a farm ban was urgently needed to protect public health while allowing live mink to remain on farms until April 2023.

Above all, it was unjustified to impose a permanent ban when there was no evidence that mink were playing a significant role in the spread of Covid-19 to humans.

Government Lawyers Resist Court Order

In response, on October 5, 2022, Justice Millman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered the Government to file the full record of documents with the court.(5) Government lawyers appealed his decision, but on July 31, 2023, the BC Court of Appeal upheld most of the lower court’s order.(6)

Rather than comply, the Government appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court of Canada, claiming Cabinet privilege – and there it still sits.

While the Government’s stable of in-house lawyers stalled the judicial review, the clock was ticking (not coincidentally?) through the two-year limit available for the mink farmers to claim compensation for their losses. In November 2023, therefore, to ground their compensation claim in a “cause for action”, five farms sued the Province (and the then-Minister of Agriculture, the then-Chief Veterinarian, and the Public Health Officer) for “misfeasance in public office”. The Province was also sued for “constructive taking”, a sort of de facto expropriation.

The farmers claimed misfeasance because, they argued, the mink farm ban did not serve any legitimate purpose related to the Animal Health Act (the legislation under which the Fur Farm Regulations are enacted), but rather was done for “improper collateral political, social, or public opinion reasons.” In other words, mink farming did not pose a serious or urgent threat to public health, and the Government knew it ... or should have known it.

In his May 7, 2024, judgement for the Supreme Court of British Columbia, however, Justice Francis deemed that, as a political body, Cabinet is entitled to make decisions based on political or any other considerations.(7) He found no misfeasance or constructive taking. This was the judgement that so tickled Dr. Henry’s fancy – but it would be troubling if governments could, indeed, act without regard to facts or their own publicly-stated intentions. The farmers will be appealing.

"Cruel and Cynical Game"

“It’s a cruel and cynical game the Government is playing,” says Rob Bollert, president of the Canada Mink Breeders Association. “Each time they drag out proceedings, the farmers have to find money to pay more lawyers.”

“We have to wonder why BC was the only North American jurisdiction to consider it necessary to ban mink farming, and why the Government has refused to provide the full record of how this decision was made. What was the role, access, and influence of animal-rights groups in the Government’s action? Is this what they are hiding? And why is the BC Government refusing fair compensation for the farmers whose livelihoods they so arbitrarily destroyed?"

“This tragic story raises important questions that should concern everyone in a democratic society,” says Bollert.

The questions are also timely because mink farming boasts some impressive sustainability credentials. Farmed mink are fed leftovers from abattoirs and fish-processing plants, the parts of food animals that humans don’t consume – recycling wastes into valuable products. Mink apparel and accessories are handcrafted by skilled artisans; they are warm, and long-lasting, and after decades of use can be thrown into the garden compost where they will biodegrade completely. If we are looking for sustainably produced clothing materials, mink checks all the boxes.

Mink farms in British Columbia were licensed by the provincial Government, and inspected to ensure compliance with responsible animal-welfare and biosecurity standards. In fact, the high-quality mink for which BC was known can only be produced when the animals are provided with excellent nutrition and care.

“Mink produced in British Columbia received some of the highest prices in international markets, reflecting generations of work to develop top breeding stock,” says Bollert. “Mink farmers generated millions of dollars in exports for British Columbia, and provided employment in rural communities. In good faith, they made substantial investments to ensure animal welfare and sustainable growth. Through no fault of their own, they are now saddled with debts they have no way to repay. The government's knee-jerk reaction to Covid concerns has created terrible emotional and financial hardship for these farm families.”

And what of the Government’s promise to help mink farmers “transition” to other agricultural sectors? “Nothing,” one farmer told me bluntly. “The contacts they gave us all went dead once we called for a judicial review. All they offered was grief counselling!”

Hypocrisy at Play

There seems to be a fair measure of hypocrisy at play. Despite real concerns about avian and swine flu, the BC Government doesn’t shut down chicken and pork production – although animal-rights groups want this too. Were mink farmers sacrificed to animal-extremist demands because they lacked the financial and political clout of these larger sectors?

Whatever the reasons – and whatever our personal opinions about mink farming – surely we can agree that if “society”, as represented by our elected government, chooses, rightly or wrongly, to shut down a well-regulated agricultural sector, and legislate hard-working farmers out of business, the least these families deserve is fair compensation for their losses.

With all due respect, Dr. Henry, this is really no laughing matter.

*  *  *

FOOTNOTES

(1) On Nov. 12, 2020, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control concluded that although people working directly with mink should take extra precautions, the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 mink-related variants was low for the general public, no different than other (non-mink) strains. The Danish public health institute Statens Serum Institut concluded in its May 2022 report that the risk was low that mink farming would lead to the emergence of variants of concern. "Overall, the probability can be characterised as low," it said. "and is assumed to be significantly less than the probability that these will arise in a world population of 7.9 billion people." One European study argued that governments should maintain mink on farms, not cull them, because the reduced lethality and infectivity of mink-specific mutations of virus may be useful as vaccine for humans! See: "SARS-CoV-2 mutations among minks show reduced lethality and infectivity to humans."

(2) “Neither the mutation nor the outbreak present an increased risk to human health at this time,” stated the BC Centre for Disease Control on Dec. 23, 2020.

(3) While Dr. Henry seemed eager to shut down mink farms, she was sometimes less enthusiastic about implementing internationally recognized measures to reduce Covid-transmission risks. From 2020-2022 she was criticized several times by public health experts for being slow to mandate the wearing of masks in the province’s schools and hospitals, and for lack of transparency about infection rates in those institutions. As recently as April 2023, BC’s Human Rights Commissioner, Kasari Govender, stated that Dr. Henry’s removal of mask requirements in BC medical settings “does not uphold a human-rights centred approach to public health.”

(4) “Currently, there is no evidence that mink are playing a significant role in the spread of COVID-19 to people,” said an updated CDC statement on Apr. 7, 2023. Another expert opinion was that of Dr. Anthony Fauci, then Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who told a webinar in November 2020, “It does not appear, at this point, that that mutation that’s been identified in the minks is going to have an impact on vaccines and affect a vaccine-induced response.” See also the reply by John Easley, DVM, Director of Research, Fur Commission USA.

(5) Canada Mink Breeders Association v. British Columbia, 2022 BCSC 1731.

(6) The Court of Appeal removed only the requirement to provide documents that had been “indirectly” consulted by Cabinet, e.g., studies or reports that may have informed documents reviewed by the Ministers. British Columbia (Lieutenant Governor in Council) v Canada Mink Breeders Association, 2023 BCCA 310.

(7) C&A Mink Ranch Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2024 BCSC 770.

I was just putting a salmon filet (marinated with mustard and maple syrup) into the oven when the phone rang. Nothing was farther from my mind than debating fur as the young man on the line asked if I would be renewing my support for Friends of Canadian Media. But when I explained that I never responded to phone solicitations, he chose instead to ask about my email address. Why was “fur council” in the domain name?

“It’s a non-profit association that supports the Canadian fur trade,” I said.

“Why would the fur industry have a non-profit?”

“Because the Fur Council of Canada is an industry association, not a business. It provides services including public education about why fur is a responsible and sustainable choice.”

“How can using fur be sustainable when animals are going extinct?” he snapped. The tone of the conversation had heated up a notch or two.

“Well,” I began, “there are two types of fur. If we begin with wild fur, one of Canada’s founding industries, …”

“Canada was founded on the genocide of aboriginal people and the destruction of forests,” he interjected before I could get any further. “Just because it’s foundational does not mean the fur trade is morally acceptable!”

“Fair enough. But we were talking about animals going extinct. The modern fur trade is very well regulated. All the furs we use are now from abundant species.”

“But we don’t need to kill animals for fur anymore. There are alternatives!”

“You mean fake fur and the other petrochemical-based synthetics in more than 60% of our clothing? Synthetics that we now know shed enormous quantities of microplastics into the environment …”

“Yes, plastics in the water, in the animals; that’s not right either," he conceded. "But it doesn’t justify killing animals for fur. We’re destroying nature.”

“Using nature doesn’t have to mean destroying it,” I said, trying to remain patient. “In any case, we can’t stop using nature, we are part of it. But animals and plants produce more young than their habitat can support. Most of this ‘surplus’ feeds others; that’s the real meaning of ecology: all life is intertwined. If we don’t want to saw the limb out from under us, we have to protect the habitat where plants and animals live -- and use only part of the surplus that nature produces each year. That’s the original meaning of sustainability -- ‘sustainable use’ is a concept coined by the World Conservation Strategy …”

Being a young man of his time, my interlocutor had found the World Conservation on the internet as I was speaking.

“Yes, I see that the World Conservation Strategy was published in 1980. Nice ideas, but I guess they’re not working because there are more animals than ever going extinct,” he proclaimed smugly.

“But not because of the fur trade!" I replied. "Beaver and other furbearer populations were seriously depleted in much of North America by the early 20th Century. But thanks to excellent regulations – and policies supported by trappers – all those populations have been restored. The modern fur trade is a real environmental success story … a true example of sustainable use.”

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story. Truth About Fur.

“That doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable to kill animals for frivolous needs!”

Ping-Pong Debate

“OK, that’s a different question.” I was trying to keep cool, but I hadn’t eaten dinner, and I’ve had too many of these ping-pong debates with activists who keep shifting the ground as soon as you answer one of their misconceptions.

“But how can we condemn using fur as ‘immoral’," I asked, when 95% of Canadians eat meat or dairy, and use leather, wool, and other animal products?”

“I’d say 100%,” he said, catching me by surprise. “I am vegan, but I sometimes sit on leather chairs or sofas …”

“Good point.”

“… and I am against vaccines that are made with eggs or tested on animals, but I work with the elderly, so I was vaccinated. I have arguments with other vegans about these things, but I am fact-driven, and the facts say there’s no need for trapping.”

Let’s talk about that when beavers flood your basement, I was going to say, or when rabies spreads to within 40 kilometres of Montreal, as it is again right now. But just then I remembered: the salmon! I tucked my phone under my ear, donned my oven mitts, and pulled out the Pyrex dish of sizzling, golden-brown fish.

“Gotta let you go – dinner’s ready. But if you want facts you should check out TruthAboutFur.com.” Saved by the bell, I’d had enough verbal sparring for one night. Heck, I’m supposed to be retired!

Why Bother?

We made an effort to say goodbye in a fairly civilized tone, but my adrenaline was pumping. That old familiar feeling. I wrote my environmental critique of the animal rights ideology more than 30 years ago, and since then have participated in countless debates, interviews, op-eds, websites, communications strategies … but the fur trade remains an easy target for activists, and a favourite scapegoat for society’s confused guilt trip about nature.

Why do I still bother talking with these people? I suppose because it was clear that my phone friend really cared, he was sincere in his belief that the fur trade is evil, and he was passionate – much like me.

I suppose I could have asked what humans are to wear if fur, wool, and leather are verboten, and he acknowledges the problems with petroleum-based synthetics -- and most cotton production is an environmental catastrophe. Talk about a naked ape!

SEE ALSO: What is "vegan fashion" and how true is the hype? Truth About Fur.

But none of my arguments would sway him because he doesn’t believe humans have a right to use animals at all. (Which begs the question of why humans are the only animals that shouldn’t use other animals. Are we part of nature or aren’t we?)

Of course, we don’t really need to convince dedicated vegans like my caller – although I could have told him that I know several vegetarian furriers.

The good news is that most Canadians (like Americans, Europeans, and people everywhere) do believe that humans have a right to use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes. To win their support, we have to do a better job explaining that the modern fur trade is well-regulated, responsible, and sustainable. We also need to explain the positive contributions that trappers make to wildlife management, habitat conservation, and public safety.

As the aboriginal peoples of North America understood long ago, using animals is not incompatible with respecting animals. Quite the contrary: recognizing how important animals are for our well-being provides the strongest incentive for protecting their habitat to ensure they will be there for us tomorrow.

Speaking of which, the salmon was delicious!

Dilan and Emmy share a passion for fur – a passion they are working to transmit to a new generation of consumers.

Emmy Gauthier is only 22, but her love of fur started very young.

“My dad would pick me up from day care and bring me to the shop,” she says. “By the time I was five I was making my own fur pom-poms!”

With a diploma in bookkeeping, and soon a BA in finance, Emmy has many career options, but she loves working with fur, and plans to join the business full-time when she graduates.

Emmy’s grandfather launched Fourrures Gauthier, an institution in the Saguenay region of Quebec, about 200 kilometres north of Quebec City, and her father now owns the business.

“I am a third-generation furrier,” she says. “And thanks to my father, I have learned every aspect of the furrier’s art: I can cut, sew, and finish a fur garment.”

Emmy can even pluck and shear mink and other furs, a skill not many furriers can boast. “It is especially useful when remodelling older coats for our customers,” she says with a smile.

Dilan Porzuczek shares Emmy’s excitement about fur, although he didn’t come from a fur family.

SEE ALSO: "Dilan Porzuczek shows fashion students the excitement of fur," Truth About Fur.

“I always wore fur hats and mitts; I had my first fur coat at 14,” he says.

“I was fascinated by fashion, and made clothing at home as a hobby. We had a year-end fashion show at my high school where most of the clothes were borrowed from local retailers, but I would have my own scene with four or five garments I had made myself.”

The call of the fashion industry was so strong that Dilan began working in retail at 12 years old. While still in his teens he was working with a major retail chain, doing presentations and helping to open new stores across Quebec.

“To tell the truth, I didn’t go to high school that much. I always wanted to work,” he confesses.

He was 17 when his real love affair with fur began.

“One day my mom asked me to take our coats to the local furrier for storage. I was a bit at loose ends at the time, and she suggested that I ask if they could use an apprentice.

“Because of my sewing skills, I learned quickly, and soon I was blocking skins, cutting and assembling garments, even sewing in linings. Because it was a small shop, I was able to do it all.”

Dilan had found his true vocation. A few years later, when his mentor was ready to retire, he took over Fourrures Léopold Martel, a respected name in the Saguenay region. At 28, he’s already an experienced master furrier, and loves sharing his passion for fur with his customers.

“The other day I brought a remodelled coat to a customer and we were both so excited about how great she looked in it that I had already driven away before I realized I had forgotten to ask her to pay!”

Emmy agrees. “What I love about this business is that you experience the whole process. It’s not work, it’s creation!

“In most jobs you’re just one cog in a big wheel,” she says. “Here, I make a beautiful coat, from scratch, from beginning to end ... and then I get to see how great my customer looks in it, how happy they are!”

Dilan recently began sharing the atelier at Fourrures Gauthier, which allows these two enthusiastic young people to work together. So, how do they see the future of fur?

“Emmy and I share the same vision: our goal is to share the ‘wow!’ of fur that inspires us," says Dilan. "We love creating new fur styles adapted to how people live today. Fur is no longer just for going to church on Sunday; fur is practical and comfortable outerwear that people can enjoy every day.”

And where do they go from here?

“The sky is the limit,” says Dilan. “Our strength is that we’re 100% autonomous, we do all the fur processes ourselves, right here in our own workshop – whether it’s a remodel, a made-to-measure for a customer, or production for other retailers. We are already well known in the Saguenay region, but there is no reason why we can’t grow our market across Quebec, Canada, and beyond!

“With the unique beauty and versatility of fur and its extraordinary environmental story, we believe that the future is bright,” says Dilan.

SEE ALSO:

Dilan Porzuczek has a passion for fur -- a passion he’s now sharing with a new generation of talented young designers.

“I was first invited to do a presentation for the fashion program at Quebec City’s College Notre-Dame-de-Foy several years ago,” says the 28-year-old owner of Fourrures Léopold Martel, a well-established fur store in Jonquiere, about 200 kilometres north of the provincial capital.

“The students could relate to me because I am young, and coming from a retail fashion background I understood their creative interests.

“It is important that we go into fashion schools because the teachers often aren’t comfortable introducing fur in their classes; they don’t have the information they need to reassure students about their ethical concerns,” says Dilan.

SEE ALSO: The ethics of fur. Truth About Fur.

“Many of the students were anti-fur to start, but they listened when I explained how I had become uncomfortable with the ecological cost of ‘fast fashion’. The younger generation is very conscious and concerned about waste in the fashion industry.

SEE ALSO: What is "vegan fashion" and how true is the hype? Truth About Fur.

“They were really interested to learn about the environmental credentials of fur – that fur is responsibly-produced, natural, long-lasting and recyclable. And that after decades of use you can throw fur into the garden compost. Unlike fake fur or other petroleum-based synthetics that make up 60% of our clothing today, fur is fully biodegradable, it quickly returns to the earth. If we are looking for sustainable clothing, fur checks all the boxes!

SEE ALSO: The sustainability of fur. Truth About Fur.

“At the last seminar we did, in November, I was told that seven teachers but only five students had signed up for the two-day workshop that followed,” says Dilan. “But after my presentation, 30 showed up, so I guess we changed a few minds!

“We had set up blocking boards, and fur machines, and the Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires du Québec donated some coyotes, fox, beaver and other furs. [Ed.: A "fur machine", as it is known in the trade, is a fur sewing machine to the layman.] We also had some old coats to recycle.

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing. Truth About Fur.

“Gathered around a big table, I started by explaining how we use the different furrier’s tools. Then I had them work on their patterns, and that afternoon they were blocking skins and learning how to use a fur machine.

“The second day they were all working on their projects, cutting and sewing fur pelts. Some of the teachers even wanted to learn how to ‘let out’ pelts!

“They didn’t all manage to finish their pieces that weekend, but we followed up with Facebook. Some made accessories, or a small vest, even a bomber jacket ... My only requirement was that they make something different.

“That’s what’s so wonderful about fur – you can really get creative,” says Dilan. “I just love working with fur, and it’s very satisfying when you see young designers catching that excitement!”

There’s a bright future for the North American fur trade if the excitement of fashion students at the recent Montreal Fur Rendezvous is anything to judge by. This past Fall (November 2-3), leaders of the industry joined forces to bring marketing and design students from three of Montreal’s top fashion colleges a taste of new directions in the fur trade.

Saga Furs presented a collection of innovative fur apparel and accessories from their Fur Vision collection – modern creations that are definitely not your grandma’s old fur coat. Saga also brought hot young New York designer Romeo Hunte, who the students embraced like a rock star. They listened intently as Hunte explained his approach to working with fur, and were especially attracted to his giant blue fox Teddy Bear backpack, fur sneakers, and intarsia denim pants. The Saga Fur Vision team also demonstrated new fur-sewing techniques that greatly expand the designer’s palette.

Mink farmers Rob Bollert and Rob Dietrich manned the Canada Mink Breeders Association booth where students could see and touch some of the natural fur colours that have been developed (dyeing is really not needed!), and learn about the excellent animal care required to produce the quality of mink North America is known for.

SEE ALSO: Facts about fur farming. Truth About Fur.

“The students were very interested in learning that mink health and well-being is assured by strict codes of practice, and that Canadian mink farms are inspected and certified to ensure compliance with those standards,” said Rob Bollert. “It was very encouraging to see how open they are to using fur if they are confident that it is produced responsibly.”

Canadian trappers and wild fur were represented by Doug Chiasson of the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), and Howard Noseworthy of Fur Harvesters Auction (FHA). Montreal manufacturers and wholesalers in attendance included Mitch Fazekas of Mitchie’s Matchings, and Christina Nacos of Natural Furs.

The Montreal Fur Rendezvous was also supported by M-Mode, the Quebec fashion industry “Grappe” (industrial cluster), and CEO Mathieu St-Arnaud was there with several members of his team. Other participants included Écofaune boréale, a research program focused on environmentally sustainable leather tanning and fur dressing, in partnership with First Nations; Fibreshed Quebec, which promotes local textiles following a “soil-to-soil” philosophy; and Mercury Leather, a Montreal-based manufacturer of leather garments.

More than 400 fashion marketing and design students attended the Montreal Fur Rendezvous over the two-day event, while some 50 members of the fur trade attended a cocktail on the first evening, which included a presentation by Saga North America’s Charlie Ross about the current state of world markets.

Saga joined with FHA, the FIC, the CMBA, Mitchie’s Matchings, and other local brokers to donate a collection of dressed pelts to the colleges, to help students experiment with fur.

“It was very exciting to see how enthusiastic these young fashion students are about working with fur, and how interested they are in learning about how the industry is regulated and fur is now certified to ensure that production is sustainable and responsible,” said Ross.

“This was a wonderful event because it is designers and fashion marketers who bring fur to the consumer," said the FIC’s Doug Chiasson. "This was an extraordinary opportunity to build bridges with tomorrow’s fashion leaders,”

When I was a child, in the 1950s, my father would sometimes bring me down to my grandfather’s fur atelier, on St. Helen Street, in Old Montreal. In the lobby of the grey-stone building, my father greeted Frank, the elevator man, who crashed shut the heavy metal-grate doors, and swung the wood-handled lever to guide our clunking steel cage up to the fourth floor.

In the hardwood-floored factory, men in white smocks were busy with the many intricate tasks required to handcraft fur garments. At long, fluorescent-lit work tables, muskrat, otter, mink, and Persian lamb pelts were matched by colour and texture into “bundles”, each with enough pelts to make a single coat or jacket.

The fur pelts were dampened, stretched, and nailed onto large “blocking” boards, to flatten and thin them. When they were dry, a skilled “cutter” traced the outlines of heavy brown construction paper patterns (two front pieces, the back, sleeves, collar) onto the pelts, and sliced off the excess with his razor-sharp furrier’s knife -- carefully setting aside the fur scraps that would later be sewn together into “plates” from which other garments would be made. Nothing was wasted!

Even more precision cutting and sewing was involved when “letting out” mink and other furs. Because fur pelts are shorter than needed for a full-length coat, several rows of pelts can be sewn one above the other (“skin-on-skin”). But for a more elegant, flowing look the pelts are “let-out” with dozens of diagonal slices; each slice is shifted slightly downward before the pieces are reassembled into a longer, narrower strip. The long strips are sewn together into wider panels, wet, stretched, and nailed leather-side-up onto the blocking board. When dry, like full pelts, they can then be trimmed to the pattern.

An “operator” then assembled the trimmed front, back, sleeve, and collar sections with a “fur machine”, delicately pushing the fur hairs apart with his fingers as he fed the leather through two geared wheels that joined the pelts edge-to-edge -- rather than overlapping, like a regular sewing machine, which would make the seams too thick.

Once the fur sections were assembled, it was time for the “finishers” (almost always women) to sew in the silk lining, buttons, and other accessories, by hand. After a final cleaning and brushing, the new fur garment was ready to be shipped to the retail fur store.

That is how fur garments were made long before I visited my grandfather’s workshop, and it’s the same way they are made today. Whenever I bring someone into a fur atelier – even people who work in other sectors of the clothing industry – they are amazed that this sort of meticulous and highly-skilled handcraft work is still done.

Europe's Loss, Montreal's Gain

My grandfather had learned his fur-crafting skills from his own father, in Paris, where the family had fled from pogroms in Romania at the end of the 19th Century. He arrived in Montreal as a young man, in 1913, and – with thousands of other Jewish immigrants – helped to make Montreal one of the foremost clothing manufacturing centres of North America.

By the mid-1950s, there were hundreds of small fur-crafting ateliers like my grandfather’s in Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg -- and Jewish furriers were increasingly assisted by a new wave of immigrants from Kastoria and other mountain villages of northern Greece. Kastoria (from the Greek kastori = beaver) had been a fur production centre as long ago as the 14th Century; many homes there now had fur machines and these Kastorian furriers had honed their sewing skills since they were children.

French Canadians (with Italians and others) also worked in the Montreal fur trade. Many would open retail fur shops across the province, where their fur-working skills allowed them to provide repairs and restyling, as well as custom orders. Unlike most fashion retailers, many fur stores still have an active workshop in the back.

By the 1970s and 1980s, with beaver, coyote, lynx and other wild furs trending in fashion and fur sales booming, Montreal fur manufacturers began exporting to the US, Europe, and around the world, while continuing to service their domestic Canadian markets. The Montreal NAFFEM (originally the North American Fur & Fashion Exposition in Montreal) became the most important fur apparel trade show on the continent, attracting hundreds of international buyers to the city each Spring.

Markets never stop evolving, however, and in recent years consumers have been offered an increasingly wide range of cold-weather clothing options, including down-filled parkas, “puffer” coats. and other lightweight, relatively inexpensive products. Fur apparel (like other clothing) could now also be made more cheaply in low-labour-cost places like China – a country  with its own long fur-working heritage.

With increasingly difficult business conditions (exacerbated by aggressive animal activists) and an aging labour force, the Montreal fur-fabrication sector (like the rest of the city’s once-formidable clothing industry) is fast declining. So, I was very happy when my friend Claire Beaugrand-Champagne – a respected Quebec documentary photographer – said she wanted to photograph Montreal’s fur artisans.

Montreal is a city with deep roots in the fur trade. Montagnais hunters traded furs here with Iroquoian farmers long before Europeans arrived. From the 17th Century – because rapids at the west end of the island prevented ocean-going ships from sailing further upstream -- Montreal became the hub of a growing international fur trade that has been well documented by historians. The story of Montreal’s fur fabrication industry, however, has been largely overlooked.

Claire’s photos are a beautiful tribute to the people of Montreal's fur manufacturing industry, and an important documentary record of this remarkable craft heritage.

*   *   *

Claire Beaugrand-Champagne is a highly respected Quebec documentary photographer whose work reveals the individuality and humanity of her subjects. She was the first woman in Quebec to be an accredited newspaper photographer. You can see more of Claire’s work on her website.

Revised Jan. 11, 2024.

There have been some dramatic changes in the fur auction scene in the last few years, so we thought it was time to make sure everybody – not just trappers and fur farmers, but anyone with an interest in the fur trade -- is up to speed.

In the most general sense, there has been considerable continuity. Most North American fur is still sold at public auction, although more wild fur is now bought from trappers by small- and large-scale collectors who then sell directly to domestic or foreign brokers or manufacturers.

Where there has been dramatic change is in the faces of the major players.

Rewind Just Five Years

Until very recently, North America boasted three important fur auction houses: North American Fur Auctions (NAFA) with its main facilities based in Toronto; American Legend Cooperative (ALC), headquartered in Seattle; and Fur Harvesters Auction (FHA), a trapper-owned cooperative in North Bay, Ontario.

The largest of these was NAFA, the successor to the fur auction business of the Hudson’s Bay Company, a company that once controlled more than half of Canada, and -- founded in 1670 -- is one of the oldest, continually operating joint-share corporations in the world. Owned by the trappers and farmers who shipped to it, NAFA handled both wild and farmed furs, although farmed mink accounted for the largest share of its business in dollar terms.

With farmed mink, NAFA was in direct competition with ALC, a cooperative owned by US mink farmers, and holder of the “Blackglama” brand, arguably the most recognizable fur label in the world. FHA was NAFA’s main competitor for wild fur.

Then the seemingly stable fur auction scene began to change, and fast!

The first shock came in 2018, when ALC announced it was winding down. NAFA bought significant ALC assets, including the Blackglama label, while other assets went to the New York-based Tax family. With a long history of involvement in the fur trade as brokers, the Tax family quickly moved to set up a new US auction specifically for farmed mink, American Mink Exchange (AME).

Then, the very next year, in 2019, squeezed by a cycle of falling fur prices after several years of record highs and rapid expansion, NAFA closed its own doors after filing for creditor protection. Within just a few years, North America had lost its two largest fur auctions, and gained a brand new -- although much smaller -- one.

Which brings us to today. Who are the main players now, and how is North American wild and farmed fur brought to market?

FHA continues its role as an important seller of North American wild fur, and is the only auction house now doing so. FHA has always also sold some farmed pelts, especially foxes -- they now handle most of the farmed fox pelts produced in Canada and the US -- but their offerings of farmed mink have remained quite small.

Since the demise of NAFA, more North American wild fur is now also bought and sold by collectors and dealers, notably Illinois-based Groenewold Fur and Wool. GFW also buys small quantities of farmed fur, mostly third-section goods in both Canada and the US.

Some North American farmed mink is sold at auction – or in “private treaty” sales -- by AME, which has also leased the licence for the Blackglama label.

But the majority of Canadian and US mink production is now handled by Saga Furs North America, an American subsidiary of Saga OJY, the Finland-based auction company created in 1938 by the Finnish Fur Breeders. North American mink is processed and graded at Saga’s new facility in Milton, Wisconsin, before being shipped to the auction sales in Helsinki.

In Europe too, there have been some major changes.

European Development

When NAFA closed its doors, it was only to be expected that more North American farmed mink would head to Europe – home to the world's largest fur auction house, Kopenhagen Fur, in Denmark, as well as Saga Furs.

But then came another upheaval. Until 2020, Denmark was the world's leading producer of farmed mink, and Kopenhagen Fur's main role was to sell the production of the Danish Fur Breeders' Association – supplemented by farmed fur from elsewhere, including North America.. Then Covid-19 struck and the Danish government made the hugely controversial and ultimately illegal order to cull the country's entire mink herd, claiming (erroneously) that this extreme measure was needed to protect public health. It was a PR disaster for the world's fur industry, and a crippling blow to Danish mink farmers, only a few of whom have expressed interest in re-stocking their farms.

As a result of this politically induced catastrophe, Kopenhagen Fur is now winding down operations. With millions of mink pelts in storage, it will continue holding auctions through 2024, but this will probably conclude its offerings.

This leaves Saga Furs as the world’s largest fur auction house. Saga deals only in farmed furs, primarily mink, fox and finnraccoon, and with the demise of both NAFA and Kopenhagen Fur, has increasingly been handling North American farmed mink. Although the auctions are held in Finland, Canadian and US mink are sold under a separate North American catalogue, and all the mink are certified by the Canada Mink Breeders Association (CMBA) or Fur Commission USA.

As this brief survey shows, the last five years have been a rough ride for fur auction houses. For fur farmers, trappers, and others in the trade too, as revenues declined considerably from the record high mink prices registered barely a decade ago – a contraction magnified by the shutdown of important Chinese retail markets during Covid.

But with world mink production now considerably reduced and markets in China and elsewhere bouncing back, there are already signs that demand (and prices) for both wild and farmed furs are once again improving.

Not least important, as society becomes more concerned about environmental sustainability, fur checks all the boxes: natural, long-lasting, recyclable, and ultimately biodegradable.

The fur trade has survived many crises in its long history; it will be interesting to see what the next years will bring!

SEE ALSO: After years of crises it's clear: Fur auctions are the only way to ensure fair prices. By Mark Downey, Fur Harvesters Auction, for Truth About Fur, Feb. 26, 2021.

Calvin Kania and Panos Panagiotidis are on a mission to share their passion for making beautiful fur apparel and accessories, one student at a time! Their secret weapon: “Seal/Fur Workshops” at FurCanada’s headquarters on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and in First Nations and other communities across Canada.

“We realized that many designers and crafters would love to use fur in their collections, but don’t have the knowledge or fur-working skills,” says Calvin, founder and CEO of FurCanada.

Though raised on a trapline in the rugged BC interior, Calvin wasn’t a trained furrier either, so he teamed up with someone who was.

SEE ALSO: Trapline Tales: Ski doos and marten scent. By Calvin Kania for Truth About Fur.

Enter Panos, who learned the furrier’s art from his father in Kastoria, the legendary fur manufacturing village hidden away in the mountains of northern Greece. After earning his degree at Kastoria’s fur school, Panos gained invaluable practical experience working with a master furrier in Germany for eight years, before returning to teach in Kastoria in 2005.

From 2015 to 2018, Panos assisted Vasillis Kardasis, a distinguished professor at the Royal College of Art in London, England, to launch the Fur Summer School in Kastoria. With support from the International Fur Federation, international auction houses, and the Hellenic Fur Association, the Summer School provided an introduction to the full fur-production process for designers, journalists and others from around the world.

SEE ALSO: Master furrier Panos Panagiotidis to head new FurCanada workshop. Truth About Fur.

Not Only Designers Are Interested

At Calvin's invitation, Panos arrived in Canada in 2019, and in March 2020 they hosted their first Seal/Fur Workshop.

“Covid made things difficult at the start," recalls Calvin, "but we are now doing a one-week workshop every month at our atelier, with students coming from across Canada, the US, and as far away as Peru and Australia.

“Many of our students are designers, but many trappers are now also interested. Instead of selling their pelts to a fur buyer or through the auction, they have their pelts dressed by small local tanneries and are making their own fur vests, mitts, hats, and other accessories and home décor items.

“And we are taking our workshops on the road; Panos did a workshop in the Inuit community of Inuvik, NWT, last year, and he just did another in Yellowknife.”

“It was quite a shock stepping out of the airplane in Yellowknife in February," recalls Panos. "it was minus 32 Celsius!

“Cold weather but warm people! There were 16 Indigenous craftspeople in our workshop, and they were wonderful.”

"They Questioned Everything!"

The latest six-day workshop was organized by NWT Arts, a program of the Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Tourism and Industry, with students flying in from surrounding communities.

“Over the six-day workshop they completed three fully-finished projects: a fur pillow, a sealskin vest, and a beaver with lynx vest,” says Panos.

“It was a pleasure working with them because they were so interested in the furrier’s techniques I showed them. And because they were already experienced sewers, they questioned everything!”

So what sort of things did they question?

“One of the first steps in working fur is to wet the pelt, stretch it out, and tack it on a board to dry," explains Panos. "This is called ‘blocking’ the pelt, and one student wanted to know why she should do that. She often made beaver mitts and had never done this.

"So, I asked, 'How much fur do you use to make a pair of mitts?' Two beaver pelts, she said. I laid her pattern out on the board to show that when the beaver was stretched and blocked, she would only need one pelt to make the same pair of mitts. When she saw how much fur and time she would save, she was convinced!

“Another student asked why she should learn to use a fur-sewing machine when she had been sewing fur by hand all her life. I told her, ‘OK, you sew a pair of mitts by hand and I will sew a pair on this machine.’ My pair was done in about 10 minutes and she worked on hers for the rest of the day. When she had finished, I said: ‘Now, look at the two pairs, what do you think?’ ‘Yours is much better, the stitches are more regular,’ she said with amazement.

“It was wonderful working with people who were so engaged and interested. They were challenging me all the time, and they really appreciated what we were bringing them: how we measure the fur we’ll need, how we cut pelts to the pattern with a furrier’s knife – all the European fur-working skills that they could marry with the traditional designs and sewing techniques they had inherited,” says Panos.

Now We Must Teach Teachers

“The workshops have been such a success that now more communities want to participate, more than Panos can do himself," says Calvin. "We will have to teach teachers who can bring this knowledge to more communities.”

Meanwhile, Panos is hitting the road again with a workshop scheduled in Sudbury, Ontario, later in April, and another with the Mi'kmaq First Nation, in Nova Scotia, in June.

“Lots of creative young people are interested," says Calvin. "We give them a taste of how they can work with fur, and they go home and practice and perfect their skills, and then they bring exciting new fur products to a new generation of consumers. It’s a whole new future for fur that’s opening up, and we are so happy to be helping it along!”

Neal Jotham, the leading light of humane trap research and development, died in Ottawa on February 2, 2023. He was 88. In honour of his extraordinary contributions, we are reposting the following interview conducted by Truth About Fur in 2016.

***

Neal Jotham has played a central role in promoting animal welfare through Canada’s world-leading trap research and testing program for the past 50 years. From his first voluntary efforts with the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (1965-1977) and as executive director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (1977-1984), to chairing the scientific and technical sub-committee of the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping (1974-81) and ISO Technical Committee 191 (1987-1997), to serving as Coordinator, Humane Trapping Programs for Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service (1984-1998), and his continuing work as advisor to the Fur Institute of Canada, Neal has been a driving force. At times mistrusted by animal-welfare advocates and trappers alike, he always remained true to his original goal: to improve the animal-welfare aspects of trapping. Truth About Fur’s senior researcher Alan Herscovici asked Neal to tell us about his remarkable career as Canada’s most persistent humane-trapping proponent.

Truth About Fur: Tell us how you first got involved in working to improve the animal-welfare aspects of trapping.

Neal Jotham: It was 1965, the year the Artek film launched the seal hunt debate. I was concerned about what I saw and wrote a letter to the Fisheries Minister. A colleague – I was an architectural technologist – suggested that I send my letter to a group concerned about trapping methods, the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (CAHT). I was invited to one of their meetings and met some wonderful volunteers including the legendary Lloyd Cook, who was then president of the Ontario Trappers Association (OTA).

Lloyd was a kind and gentle man, mentoring boy scouts about survival in the woods and introducing the first trapper training programs in Ontario. Once he rescued two beaver kits from a forest fire and raised them in his bathtub until they were old enough to release into the wild. He invited the CAHT to set up an information booth at the OTA annual convention, and he took me onto his trap line, near Barrie, Ontario.

Lloyd and I discussed how great it would be to do some proper research about how to minimize stress and injury to trapped animals. I thought it would be quite a simple matter. Little did I know that it would occupy the better part of the next 50 years of my life.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur.

TaF: So you got involved with the CAHT?

Jotham: I was asked to serve as voluntary vice-president of administration, in charge of publicity and communications. Our main priority was to make the governments, industry and the public aware of the need for animal welfare improvements in trapping, because very few people were even talking about trapping at the time.

TaF: How did you go about raising awareness?

Jotham: We produced brochures explaining the need for improvements. We never called for a ban on trapping – we recognised the cultural, economic and ecological importance – but we were honest about the suffering the old traps could cause and the need for change.

In 1968, because governments and industry were still not engaged, CAHT joined with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS) to establish the first multi-disciplinary trap-research program at McMaster University (to look at the engineering aspects of traps) and Guelph University (to investigate the biological factors).

In 1969, we were contacted by an Alberta trapper and wildlife photographer named Ed Caesar. He had ideas for new trap designs and also wanted to make a film about trapping that he hoped could be televised. CAHT asked if he could film animals being caught in traps, which he did.

CAHT purchased three minutes of this film and I showed it at a federal/provincial/territorial wildlife directors conference in Yellowknife, in July 1970. That resulted in an immediate $10,000 donation to the CFHS/CAHT pilot project from Mr. Charles Wilson, CEO of the Hudson’s Bay Company, then based in Winnipeg, and some smaller donations too.

TaF: But the governments still weren’t involved?

Jotham: No, so we went public. CAHT added narration and sound to the film, titled it They Take So Long to Die, and showed it on Take-30, a CBC current affairs show. That got attention, all right! In 1972, we were invited to a Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference where we were criticized for “hurting trappers”. We explained that we just wanted to make trapping more humane, we had only broadcast the film because government wasn’t listening.

TaF: How did trappers feel about your efforts?

Jotham: Many trappers understood what we were saying. In fact, Frank Conibear, a NWT trapper, had been working on new designs since the late 1920s, and by the 1950s produced a working model of the quick-killing trap that still carries his name. He got the idea from his wife’s egg-beater, the concept of “rotating frames”: if an animal walked into a big egg-beater and you turned the handle fast enough, it would be there to stay, he figured.

The Association for the Protection of Furbearing Animals (APFA) paid to make 50 prototypes of Conibear’s design and, in 1956, Eric Collier of the British Columbia Trappers Association supported field testing and promoted the new traps in Outdoor Life magazine. Lloyd Cook was another trapping leader who wrote positively about the new traps, and the CAHT offered to exchange old leg-hold traps for the new killing devices, for free.

In 1958, Frank Conibear gave his patent to the Animal Trap Company of America (later Woodstream Corporation), in Lititz, Pennsylvania – for royalties – and a light-weight, quick-killing trap became widely available for the first time. The Anti-Steel Trap League (that became Defenders of Wildlife in the 1950s) had been sounding the alarm about cruel traps since 1929, but it was trappers who did much of the earliest work.

TaF: So trappers associations supported efforts to improve traps?

Jotham: Several did. In the old days, trappers had been very jealous about guarding their secrets; you could only learn the tricks of the trade if you found an older trapper to take you under his wing. But with the emergence of associations, trappers began to share more information. They realized that everyone could benefit if trapping methods were improved. Effective quick-killing traps improved animal-welfare, of course, but they also prevented damage to the fur sometimes caused when animals struggled in holding traps. And trappers did not have to check their lines every day, like they did with live-holding (foothold) traps.

TaF: And you finally succeeded in getting the government involved?

Jotham: Yes, we did. In 1973 the creation of the ad-hoc “Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping” (FPCHT) was announced.

A five-year program was launched in 1974, with work to be done at McMaster University, in Hamilton, and at the University of Guelph, where our CFHS/CAHT pilot project had started.

I was asked to act as executive director and to chair the Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee, because we had already made some real progress in developing methodology and technology to evaluate how traps really work. For example, measuring velocities and clamping forces and other mechanical aspects of traps. In fact, at McMaster we made some important improvements to Frank Conibear’s rotating-jaw, quick-kill traps that are still used today.

TaF: And what happened to your film?

Jotham: When the government committed to funding the FPCHT we cancelled plans to distribute our film more widely. Meanwhile, we learned that Ed Caesar had staged some of the “trap line” scenes; he indicated in a letter that he had live-captured some of the animals and placed them into traps so he could film them.

Some people were disappointed that we had withdrawn our film, and the Association for the Protection of Furbearing Animals (APFA) decided to continue their campaign: they used Caesar’s staged images to make a new film, Canada’s Shame, narrated by TV celebrity Bruno Gerussi. The APFA (aka: FurBearer Defenders) has given up any pretense of working to improve trapping methods; they now oppose any use of fur. Their current position brings to mind the comment by American philosopher George Santayana: “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

TaF: So what did the FPCHT research program achieve?

Jotham: It was 1975 by the time it really got rolling, and the final report was made in June, 1981, in Charlottetown. Over that period, not only were existing traps evaluated, but a call went out to inventors to submit new trapping designs. 348 submissions were received, over 90 per cent of them from trappers! All these ideas were evaluated and 16 were retained as having real humane potential. But the FPCHT was still an ad hoc project; it was becoming clear that a more formal body would be needed to direct on-going trap research and development. So, in 1983, the federal and provincial governments agreed to create the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), with members from government, industry and animal-welfare groups.

TaF: How did you get involved with the new Fur Institute of Canada?

Jotham: In 1977, I had become the first full-time Executive Director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), where I had a wide range of responsibilities, but of course I remained very interested in trapping. So I was pleased to serve on the founding committee of the FIC, and then to be hired by the Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada) to manage the government’s funding contributions to the FIC’s newly established trap research and testing program. Initially, the Government of Canada committed $450,000 annually for three years to get things started, and this was matched by the London-based International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF).

TaF: What was new about the Fur Institute of Canada’s program?

Jotham: First, we established of the world’s first state-of-the-art trap-research facility in Vegreville, Alberta, which includes a testing compound in a natural setting. All our testing protocols were approved by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), the same group that approves animal research protocols in Canadian universities, hospitals and pharmaceutical laboratories.

In 1995, another dramatic breakthrough was made. The researchers had collected enough data to develop algorithms that allowed evaluation of the humane potential of traps without using animals at all; we can now analyse the trap’s mechanical properties with computer simulation models. This made it unnecessary to capture, transport and house thousands of wild animals – while saving millions of dollars.

TaF: Did this research help with the formulation of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS)?

Jotham: Canadian research was vital for the AIHTS. We had begun working on trapping standards as early as 1981, with the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), and by 1984 we had the first standard for killing traps. But with calls growing in Europe for a ban on leg-hold traps – and because virtually every country in the world uses trapping for various purposes – the CGSB suggested that there was a need for an international standard. To this end, ISO Technical Committee 191, of the International Organization for Standardization, was established in 1987, with yours truly as the first Chairman.

Our timing was good; by 1991, a EU Directive was being proposed that would not only ban the use of “leg-hold” traps in Europe, but would also block the import of most commercially-traded wild furs from any country that had not done the same. Because the stated goal of the legislation was to promote animal welfare – and because all EU member states permit the trapping of animals with methods basically the same as those used in Canada – Canadian diplomats succeeded in having the EU Directive amended to admit furs from countries using traps that “meet international humane trapping standards”.

The problem was that no such standards existed yet, and animal activists on ISO Technical Committee 191 refused to allow the word “humane” to be used in our documents. The deadlock was resolved by agreeing that ISO would develop only the trap-testing methodology, leaving it to individual governments to decide what animal-welfare thresholds they would require.

In 1995, the governments of the EU and the major wild-fur producing countries (Canada, the USA and Russia) developed the AIHTS, which was signed in 1997, and ratified by Canada in 1998. (For constitutional reasons, the US signed a similar but separate “Agreed Minute”.) The AIHTS explicitly requires that ISO trap-testing methodology must be used to test traps.

TaF: What are the main contributions of the AIHTS?

Jotham: The AIHTS is the world’s first international agreement on animal welfare, I think we can be very proud of that. Concerns about the humaneness of trapping that had been raised since the 1920s, are now being addressed seriously and responsibly. And, of course, the Agreement kept EU markets open for wild fur; Article 13 states that the parties will not use trade bans to resolve disputes, so long as the AIHTS is being applied. In other words, science and research, not trade bans, will be used to promote animal welfare. This is a very positive development.

TaF: And how do you feel about the Fur Institute of Canada introducing a new “Neal Jotham Award for the Advancement of Animal Welfare”, in 2015?

Jotham: It is wonderful that the trapping community has embraced animal-welfare so strongly. And the award is very gratifying personally, of course, especially when I remember how suspicious some trappers were when I first arrived at the FIC. They were convinced that I was an activist mole, while many of my old animal-welfare friends thought that I had “sold out” to the fur industry. But whether I was with the CAHT, the CFHS, the CWS or the FIC, I was always pursuing the same goal: to make trapping as humane as possible. It was a long road, but we succeeded in bringing all the stakeholders to the table to seriously address this important challenge. I think we can be very proud of what we have achieved together.

***

In 2016, Neal Jotham won a Nature Inspiration Award for Lifetime Achievement from Canada's Museum of Nature.

Raised by humans for more than 150 years, farmed mink are significantly different from their wild cousins and are now clearly domesticated, despite animal activist claims to the contrary. This is important because the claim that farmed mink are not domesticated, but rather are “wild animals kept in captivity”, sits at the heart of activists' critique of mink farming.

Activists argue that, because wild mink travel and hunt over large territories, it is impossible to satisfy their fundamental needs on farms. Therefore, they claim, mink farming cannot be humane or ethical, and should be banned.

SEE ALSO: The ethics of fur. Truth About Fur.

But is it true that mink farmers are keeping “wild animals” in captivity?

To support their claim that farmed mink are wild, activists point out that they have been raised by humans for only a short time compared with cattle, chickens, pigs or other farm animals. As a result, they say, farmed mink maintain much of their “wildness” – often they can only be handled wearing gloves – and are “biologically unchanged”, so they can survive if released (accidentally or intentionally) into the wild, and can even interbreed with wild mink.

Let’s look more closely at each of these claims.

How Long Does Domestication Take?

It is true, of course, that mink have been raised by humans for much less time than many common farm animals. Mink were first bred and raised in captivity in North America as early as 1866, but the ancestor of our domestic chickens, the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), was domesticated some 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in India and China. The domestic pig, derived from the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), dates from around the same time.

It is worth noting, however, that for most of their history, domesticated chickens, pigs, and other farm animals were raised mostly outdoors. The time these animals have been raised indoors, in more confined cages or pens, is not really that different from mink.

The more important question is how long is really required for an animal to become domesticated? And to answer that question, we must ask what domestication really means.

Animal scientists and biologists consider that domestication involves directional selection that produces morphological, physiological (or functional), and behavioural changes in the animal – changes that allow the animals to successfully adapt to husbandry conditions, and to better satisfy human needs.

Like other domesticated animals, selection for various traits in mink may be “active” (e.g., farmers selecting breeding pairs to develop new fur colours, or to produce larger animals with more fur per animal), or “passive” (e.g., physiological or behavioural changes that emerge because mink are no longer subjected to the natural selection pressures of finding food and mates, or avoiding predators).

Selection Brings Changes

Following are some of the changes observed in farmed mink that show they have, in fact, undergone a process of domestication through active and passive selection.

CHANGES IN SIZE AND PHYSIQUE

Such changes are a common result of domestication. For example, chihuahuas and bulldogs are very different from wolves. Similarly, farmed mink can be twice the size of wild mink – the result of many generations of selecting for larger animals that produce more usable fur per animal.

CHANGES IN FUR COLOUR

Many domesticated species of mammals and birds show a range of fur and feather colouration that is either rare or unknown in the wild. Wild mink are usually dark brown, but farmed mink have been selectively bred for a wide variety of consistent colour phases, ranging from pure white to jet black. Paler-coloured mink also tend to be larger than darker strains, and more docile.

CHANGES IN MUSCLE AND FAT FORMATION

Farmed mink have more subcutaneous fat than their wild cousins. This fat is rendered into mink oil, for waterproofing and conditioning leather. The increased fat appears to be a secondary effect of selecting for larger animals.

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES

Farmed mink are fertile over a longer period than wild mink, and they also have larger litter sizes. Wild female mink produce an average of two to three kits, while farmed mink average five to six, and sometimes as many as 12. Farmers sometimes select breeding stock for larger litter size, but there is evidence that the (passive or active) selection for less aggressive behaviour (“docility”) may also result in increased fertility and larger litters.

CHANGES IN BRAIN SIZE

It is well known that the brain volume of domesticated animals is generally smaller than in the wild animals from which they are descended. This can range from a reduction in volume of about 14% in domesticated ducks and guinea pigs, to as much as 25-34% in sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, and ferrets. Similarly, when corrected for body size, the brains of farmed mink are about 20% smaller than those of their wild cousins. The heart and spleen of farmed mink are also smaller, which had also been observed in other domesticated animals. Reduced brain volume and other changes are likely the result of the removal of natural selection forces including the need to find food and flee predators.

CHANGES IN BEHAVIOUR AND TEMPERAMENT

While most farmed mink must still be handled with gloves, they are considerably less fearful or aggressive than wild mink – as anyone who has visited a farm can attest. When we enter a barn, most mink will come to the front of their pens to see who’s there; they show curiosity rather than fear or aggression. While farmers have selected mink mostly for size, fur colour and quality, and sometimes for litter size or maternal instinct, there is also a degree of active and passive selection for tameness. This is because highly fearful or aggressive animals do not thrive in a farm environment, are more difficult to handle, and may not reproduce as readily. The codes of practice for raising mink in both the US and Canada include provisions for selecting against fearfulness and abnormal behaviours (sterotypies). Increased fertility, larger body size, reduced brain volume, and certain paler colour phases are also correlated with increased tameness.

Animal Activist Arguments

This brief summary shows that farmed mink clearly exhibit a number of morphological, physiological and behavioural traits commonly associated with domestication. But what about the issues animal activists raise to argue that farmed mink are not domesticated?

For example, take what happens when animal activists raid a mink farm and release the animals. Usually they remain close by and are easily recaptured, if they are not killed by passing cars first. But some can survive in the wild, and even interbreed with wild populations. Activists cite this as “proof” that farmed mink are really “wild animals”, but we know that cats, pigs, and other indisputably domesticated species are also able to survive, and breed, in the wild. Dogs, for example, can interbreed with wolves and coyotes.

Activists also claim that wild mink are agile (hard to handle), carnivorous, solitary, and shy in nature, and therefore not good candidates for domestication. However, other carnivorous animals – like cats and ferrets (a close cousin of the mink) – are also agile, solitary and shy in the wild, but have clearly been domesticated.

When pressed, activists argue that mink simply have not been raised on farms long enough to be domesticated. But the experiment conducted by Dmitri Belyaev and Lyyudmila Trut, in Siberia, famously demonstrated that selecting for just one trait – tameness – in farmed silver foxes was sufficient to produce dramatic physiological changes and dog-like behaviours in only 20 generations. Mink have been raised on farms in North America for about 150 years – that's 150 mink generations -- more than enough time for active and passive selection to have induced changes normally accepted as domestication, as summarised in this article.

What Scientists Say

Much of the information in this brief summary is taken from two scientific papers: “Is the mink domesticated?” by Prof. Eddy Decuypere [Physiology Research Group, Faculty of Bioengineering Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, 2005], and, “The welfare of farmed mink as compared to other farmed animals, and the question of domestication of farmed mink”, by Prof. B.M. Spruijt, [Animal Welfare Centre, Veterinary Faculty, Utrecht University, 1999]. Those interested in this subject would do well to consult these papers, as well as the extensive scientific references they cite to support their observations.

Prof. Spruijt concludes: “Farmed mink are surely a domesticated species, as evidenced by certain defined characteristics of domestication present in mink, like changes in fur colour, physiology and behavior brought about by selection.” While acknowledging that ”docility” is one aspect of domestication that seems less pronounced in mink (and that he thinks is worthy of further research), he reports that “Given the relatively short history of mink breeding, the welfare assessment of farmed mink suggests that mink have adapted reasonably well to captive conditions,” and that “Compared to the welfare of other farmed animals, there is no reason to suggest that their level of domestication presents an unacceptable welfare problem.”

Prof. Decuypere similarly concludes that, “based on a number of typical domestication characteristics such as changes in fur colour, the lengthening of the mating season, the reduction in brain volume and behaviour changes, and by analogy to changes in these characteristics in animals known to us from time immemorial, the bred mink is unmistakably a domesticated animal."

It should be noted that while we have focussed on farmed mink in this survey, many of the same arguments for domestication – e.g., on-going selection for increased size, new colour phases, more docile temperament – can also be made for farmed foxes.

Of course, none of this will satisfy activists who subscribe to the extreme “animal rights” philosophy. For them, animal welfare concerns like those raised by the domestication debate are just a smokescreen, because they know that most people do not share their belief that humans have no right to use animals at all, for any purpose.

The claim that farmed mink are not domesticated animals is just the latest Trojan Horse that animal activists are wheeling out to insinuate their no-animal-use agenda onto consumers, the media, and politicians. Like so many activist claims, it is not supported by the facts.

***

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.

A major new public opinion poll shows that, despite decades of aggressive and misleading activist campaigning, most Canadians are still fine with wearing fur and other natural clothing materials -- but are increasingly worried about the environmental costs of petroleum-based synthetics that activists love to promote as “vegan”.

The survey of 1,500 Canadians was commissioned by the Natural Fibers Alliance, and conducted in August 2022 by Abacus Data, a leading public affairs and market research consultancy.

SEE: Canadian Public Opinion on Mink Farming and Fur Use, and Public Opinion on Fur & Mink in Canada. By Abacus Data, August 2022.

The research completely contradicts animal activist claims that fur is no longer socially acceptable. In fact, two-thirds (65%) of Canadians believe that wearing fur is acceptable so long as the industry is well regulated and animals are treated humanely. Only one in five (21%) of Canadians do not agree – with just 10% saying they “strongly disagree”.

More than three-quarters (77%) of Canadians also believe that wearing fur is a matter of personal choice – putting the lie to activist claims that the public supports their call for fur bans. (Politicians take note!)

Seven in ten (71%) Canadians also agree that warm clothing is a necessity in many countries, and that natural fur is a sustainable warm clothing choice.

It is fascinating to see that, despite years of activist propaganda against mink farming, 35% of Canadians have a positive view of the sector while 25% are “neutral”, and only 21% have a negative view – of which only 10% are “very negative” – about mink farming. (18% feel they don't know enough to form an opinion.)

Encouraging for Mink Farmers

Mink farmers will also be encouraged to learn that younger people tend to have a more positive view of their sector: 41% of 18-29-year-olds have a positive view of mink farming, compared with 35% of 30-60-year-olds, and 25% of those over 60. Again, these findings completely contradict activist claims that the future is theirs.

Strong pluralities of Canadians also believe that the mink farming sector supports rural communities (41%; versus 8% who disagree); that it is environmentally sustainable (38%; versus 12% who disagree); and that it takes care to maintain animal health and welfare (37%; versus 16% who disagree.) About one in five Canadians are “neutral” about these questions, while the balance don’t feel they know enough to state an opinion.

More broadly, this study completely debunks activist claims that the public is buying into their no-animal-use, vegan agenda. Despite all the hype we see these days about vegan products and vegan menu choices, 96% of Canadians are still open to eating animal products like eggs and dairy, while 90% think it’s OK to eat meat. So much for the vegan wave!

SEE ALSO: What Is "Vegan Fashion" and How True Is the Hype? Truth About Fur.

Consumers Worried by Synthetics

Three-quarters (74%) of Canadians also say they are comfortable with people wearing clothing or accessories made from leather, fur, wool, down, or other animal-derived natural fibres. (15% are “not too comfortable” with such choices, while only 7% of Canadians say they are “not at all comfortable” with animal-derived clothing materials.)

In fact, it is not fur or other animal-derived natural clothing materials that have consumers worried, but petroleum-based synthetics. 83% of Canadians are concerned that such synthetics – now in more than 60% of all our clothing – don’t biodegrade. 86% worry that synthetic fibres pollute our waterways and poison aquatic life. 83% are concerned about microplastics in our food and water.

SEE ALSO: The Great Fur Burial. Truth About Fur.

Because of such concerns, most Canadians (87%) now feel we should strive to use fewer synthetic fibres in our clothing (58%), or phase them out completely (29%).

Two-thirds of Canadians, in fact, now believe that “fast fashion” is contributing to an ecological crisis – and 60% of consumers feel that an environmental fee should be applied to all non-renewable clothing materials, because of their impact on the environment!

Again, completely contradicting activist claims, most consumers (77%) believe that natural fur is a more environmentally sustainable clothing choice than synthetics. Nearly two-thirds (64%) also believe that fur is a more socially responsible choice, while 59% consider fur to be a more ethical choice than synthetics.

SEE ALSO: Is It Ethical to Wear Fur? Truth About Fur.

Important Lessons

Bottom line, this new research provides some important lessons for the fur trade, the fashion industry, consumers, politicians, and the media:

1. The Fashion Industry: Designers, manufacturers, and retailers should listen to their consumers. Contrary to activist claims, most Canadian consumers do want to buy and wear fur, leather, wool, and other animal-derived products, so long as they are produced responsibly and sustainably. In fact, consumers today are more comfortable with responsibly produced animal-based clothing products than they are with petroleum-based synthetics.

2. Politicians: This research puts the lie to activist claims that Canadians want mink farming banned. In fact, more Canadians have a positive impression of mink farming than a negative impression, and more believe that the sector respects animal welfare and environmental sustainability. The research also completely debunks activist claims that the public want the sale of fur products banned. Quite the contrary, an absolute majority of Canadians believe that it is morally acceptable to use fur, and more than three-quarters believe that wearing fur should be a matter of personal choice. (The father of the current Canadian prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, once famously said that “the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”.  It’s time to remind politicians that they shouldn’t be in our clothes closets either!)

3. Consumers: Those who appreciate its warmth, comfort, and beauty can wear fur with confidence, knowing that most Canadians agree that wearing fur is morally acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and a matter of personal choice.

4. Media: With this research at hand, journalists should stop giving a free ride to fraudulent activist claims that “consumers no longer accept that wearing fur is ethical”, or that “80% of Canadians want fur farming banned.” This research shows clearly that it is petroleum-based synthetics that have Canadians worried, and that most think that fur and other responsibly-produced animal-based clothing materials are a better environmental choice.

5. People of the Fur Trade: This research provides a powerful and timely response to anti-fur propaganda — but it is only useful if it is seen by others. It is up to people in every sector of the fur trade – trappers, farmers, designers, manufacturers, and retailers – to make sure this important information is widely circulated. Share this summary with your local and regional politicians. Use these statistics to respond whenever you see activist lies reported in the media — and to reassure customers, friends and neighbours.

Charles Dickens’ classic novel A Tale of Two Cities begins with the wonderful sentence: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” This describes very well the situation of the fur trade today. Clearly the industry has been seriously damaged by decades of activist bullying and lies. At the same time, the growing public concern for protecting the environment provides a golden opportunity for the fur trade: when it comes to responsibly and sustainably produced clothing, fur checks all the boxes. We have long known this, and now we have the statistics to prove that many Canadians understand it too.

It’s now up to everyone in the trade to share and promote this important news!

SEE ALSO: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the First Round of Negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty. By Olivia Rosane for EcoWatch, Dec. 9, 2022.

***

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.

Fur is under attack like never before. Hardly a week goes by without news of some brand dropping fur, or a jurisdiction proposing to ban its production or sale. This tsunami of negativity fuels a self-reinforcing cycle: As major retailers (Saks, Neimans, Holt Renfrew) stop selling fur, successful brands (Canada Goose, Moose Knuckles, Mackage) have less incentive to stand up to relentless activist pressure – and, with less business at stake, it becomes harder for politicians to resist activist pressure for production or sales bans. Worse, the barrage of negative news can create the false but potentially self-fulfilling impression that “society” has decided it is no longer ethically acceptable to wear fur.

This cycle of negativity cannot be broken with the fur trade always on the defensive. Our rational and reasonable responses to fur ban proposals or fur-free brands – if we get a chance to respond at all – are buried deep in media reports where few people see them.

Two proactive fur trade initiatives are the International Fur Federation’s sustainability and FurMark campaigns. Both programs include important communications and consumer-reassurance tools. But, alone, they are not enough to push back the tsunami now engulfing our industry.

What is desperately needed is a bold strategy to move the North American fur industry off the back foot and into attack mode. We must aggressively reclaim control of our own story, to support designers, retailers, and politicians – and to give consumers the “social license” to buy and wear fur.

A Strategic Approach

For much of the 20th century, movie stars and other celebrities provided an extraordinary media profile for the romance and glamour of fur. But while Jennifer Lopez, Madonna, Rihanna and other celebs continue this tradition, many others now choose to avoid the controversy that activists have created around fur. We can’t expect celebs, or brands, or anyone but ourselves to fight our battles.

A major challenge for the fur industry, of course, is that we lack the human and financial resources required to mount the large-scale advertising and PR campaigns that bigger industries use to manage such problems. Instead, we should take a leaf from the activist handbook: We must start using the news media to carry our messages, by providing “stories” that journalists cannot resist.

PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once said: “We’re media sluts. We didn’t invent the game, we just learned to play it.” PETA understands that the media are content-devourers. Journalists need stories, lots of stories, the more sensational the better, and activists learned to provide them.

It’s time for the fur trade to generate more newsworthy stories of our own. And because the fate of the fur industry does not interest most people, the trick is to show how anti-fur campaigns actually threaten the interests and welfare of Joe (and Josie) Public.

The good news is that a strong “Fur Fights Back” campaign can become a media story in itself. This approach was road-tested when we launched Furisgreen.com, a decade ago. We “seeded” the campaign with some billboards in major cities and a few paid ads in national papers, and the phone began ringing. Our claim that “fur is green” was so unexpected, that it was “news”. (Note: “Fur is Green” is now a registered trademark in Canada and the US, belonging to the Fur Council of Canada.)

The thing to understand is that it’s not the media’s job to broadcast our messages, no matter how intelligent or worthwhile they may be. Their job is reporting “news”. If we package our messages into a “campaign” that provides a new perspective on a controversial and timely issue, the media will report on it – especially if we include an emotional element. And remember: despite how discouraging media coverage of our issues can be, most journalists are not animal activists. Activists have just done a better job playing the media game.

The “Stories”

So what kind of fur stories might be exciting enough to be considered “newsworthy” by journalists? Here are a few ideas to start the ball rolling:

1. Anti-fur campaigns undermine wildlife management programs that protect property, livestock, and human health. Wildlife biologists and trappers should warn the public that over-populated raccoons (and other species) can spread rabies and other dangerous diseases. Increasingly abundant coyotes prey on livestock, pets – and now sometimes even attack humans. Over-populated beavers can flood homes, roads, and natural habitat. Raccoons, foxes, and other predators kill ground-nesting birds, sea turtle eggs and young, and other endangered species. The truth is that wildlife populations will still have to be managed, even if we don’t use their fur. (Does a child have to die from a rabid raccoon bite before the important role of trappers is recognized?) If activists succeed in destroying consumer markets, then tax-payers will end up footing the bill for managing wildlife. Without the market incentive provided by companies like Canada Goose, for example, governments will have to reinstate bounties to manage coyote populations – as they did not so many years ago. So coyotes will still be killed, but they will be left to rot in the woods and the fur will be wasted. Is this really a more ethical treatment of wildlife?

2. Campaigns against mink farming are an attack on rural communities, the people who feed and clothe us. Mink farmers should encourage mainstream agriculture – including vets and scientists – to denounce the current attack on mink farming as the thin edge of an orchestrated activist campaign to undermine family farms and animal agriculture. The same activist groups that have long targeted the fur trade are now openly campaigning against eating meat and wearing leather and wool. While calling for full veganism, they also push for “reforms” that raise costs for farmers, to make animal agriculture less viable – but it is consumers who will pay the higher prices for meat, eggs, dairy, and other animal products. Mink farming is a small sector but plays a key role in the agricultural cycle: recycling wastes from other sectors (the parts of pigs, chickens, and fish that we don’t eat), while composted mink farm wastes provide valuable organic fertilizers to restore the fertility of the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

3. Anti-fur activists use Mafia “protection racket” tactics of harassment and intimidation to force brands and retailers to drop fur: “Do as we say or we will destroy your business!” This should be a concern to anyone who believes in democracy. Canada Goose and other brands are not dropping fur because consumers don’t want to buy and wear these products; our cities are full of young people wearing fur-trimmed parkas each winter. These companies stop using fur because store security and brand reputation costs become too high. Is this the kind of society we want, where aggressive minorities impose their beliefs with intimidation? Surely we all have a right to make our own decisions about the appropriate use of animals. This is not a “fur issue”; it is an issue that should concern all citizens, journalists, and politicians, whatever their feelings about fur!

4. Anti-fur campaigns threaten our health and undermine efforts to develop “greener” economies. The apparel industry is the second-biggest contributor to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As the fashion industry confronts the tremendous waste caused by throwaway “fast fashion”, environmentalists say we should be buying less but better-quality clothing, and keeping it longer. Seen in this perspective, using fur makes more sense today than ever! Fur is, in fact, an excellent example of the responsible and sustainable use of renewable, natural resources, as promoted by the World Conservation Strategy. Where are activist campaigns leading us? Sixty percent of our clothing is already made from non-renewable, non-biodegradable petrochemicals; we now know these clothes shed vast quantities of micro-particles of plastic into our air and waterways – plastics that are now being found in marine life, and even in foetuses and breast milk. Cruelty-free indeed!

5. Anti-fur campaigns are insulting and unfair to people who live closest to nature: thousands of farm families, First Nations and other trappers, skilled fur artisans maintaining unique heritage craft skills, and many others. Activist campaigns are not a victimless crime! They attack the livelihoods, cultures, and reputations of real people – people who work hard and do not have the time (or inclination) to perform media stunts for publicity! These are decent people with families – not the monsters they would have to be if the things activists say about the fur trade were true. The sensationalist lies that activists shamelessly spread about the people of the fur trade would not be tolerated if any other race, religion, or lifestyle were so viciously targeted. Simply put: animal extremists have degenerated into politically-correct hate groups, with the people of the fur trade as their number one scapegoat. But intolerance and bullying are never cool; it’s time that anti-fur activists were called to account for their hate-mongering.

Reclaiming Our Story

Each of these “stories”, and others, should be delivered by the most credible and well-trained spokespeople we can find in the industry: First Nations and other trappers, farm families, skilled craftspeople. Women should be well represented, and young people who know how to get our stories out on Instagram and TikTok!

We should also remember that emotion trumps logic in the media. Activists have exploited this well, but fur people have emotions too. Activist campaigns are unfair and insulting to real people. They put people’s livelihoods and cultures at risk. And when they prevent trappers from responsibly managing wildlife, they put public health and safety at risk as well!

Not least important, anti-fur campaigning works against current efforts to improve sustainability in the apparel industry. And activist bullying tactics threaten democracy and our right to make our own ethical choices. These are not just fur issues, these are issues that should concern everyone who believes in a free and open society.

As this brief summary shows, the current attack on the fur industry is an attack on a range of important societal values and interests. But no one else will tell these stories if we don’t. It’s time for a coordinated fur industry communications strategy.

***

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.