Despite some unfortunate flaws in the section on fur, with Putting on the Dog: The Animal Origins of What We Wear (Trinity University Press, San Antonio, 2019), Montana poet Melissa Kwasny has produced a fascinating read and done a service by highlighting the continued importance of animal products in our lives.

Kwasny set out to “investigate the history and ongoing relationship forged between humans and the nonhuman animals whom we still depend on to clothe and adorn us.” In this quest, she says, “one of my goals has been to meet and learn from people who spend their lives working with these animals – hunters, trappers, farmers, ranchers and shepherds – and find out  what their experience can teach the rest of us in a broader sense about our place in nature.”

She also sought to explore the “time-consuming process of making and, therefore, interacting with the material these animals provide, by hearing from tanners, spinners, weavers, sewers, dyers, and artisans of all sorts.”

What does it mean, she asks, for us as consumers (and as individuals) to have lost connection with the source of our clothing, now that few of us make our own anymore?

Fascinating Voyage

“Putting on the dog” is an American expression meaning to get dressed up for a special occasion, perhaps derived from the stiff “dog collar” shirts once worn for formal events at Yale University. Kwasny finds it an appropriate title for her book because it reminds us that the materials animals provide “are precious, given that they often require the loss of an animal’s life and hours of care from those humans who have hunted it, raised it, and crafted painstakingly elegant and practical things from it.”

What follows is a fascinating voyage into the world of six important animal products: leather (including sheepskin), wool (including cashmere, angora, and mohair), silk, feathers (including down), pearls, and fur. Her voyage takes her – and us -- from Alaska’s tundra to sheep farms atop Montana’s Continental Divide, from silkworm farms in northern Japan to a mink farm on Denmark’s western coast, and to pearl beds in the Sea of Cortes.

Her first stop is a visit to a Yu’pik community in Alaska where she considers the aboriginal understanding of how animals “give themselves” to the hunter. “The worst thing is to not appreciate that gift or to turn it down,” she writes. For the Yupiit – like other aboriginal peoples -- making beautiful clothing from these gifts is a way to pay respect to the animals that provide them. As Barry Lopez wrote in his 1986 masterpiece Arctic Dreams, “It was the gift rather than the death that was preeminent in the Eskimo view of hunting.” (PETA take note!)

Kwasny then explores commercial leather production, tracing the process back from wholesalers and tanners, to the abattoir and cattle ranches, becoming aware of the skills, knowledge - and the animals - incarnated in that beautiful leather wallet, jacket, or pair of shoes.

"Green" Wool

The next chapter recounts the remarkable history of wool since the domestication of sheep some 8,000 years ago. As an indicator of the economic importance of wool in British history, Kwasny reminds us that the Lord Speaker of the UK's House of Lords "today literally sits on a sack of wool, the ‘Woolsack’.” The wool industry has also been good for sheep: there is now one sheep for every six people on Earth.

Kwasny visits people who are raising traditional breeds (including some that produce natural colour ranges, without dyeing), as well as artisanal spinners whose wool commands premium prices among knitters ready to pay the price to know by who and how their materials were produced. “They want to be assured their wool is ‘green’, that the processing of their wool has low impact on the earth. They like to think about what flock it comes from.” (Could that be a market trend for the fur industry to consider as we implement traceability with the International Fur Federation’s FurMark?)

At the other extreme, Kwasny exposes the impact of global demand for cheap cashmere. Over the past 50 years, the domestic goat population of Inner Mongolia has soared from about 2.4 million to more than 25.6 million, resulting in overgrazing and, in some cases, desertification of fragile grasslands.

Environment-Friendly Silk

The chapter on silk production tells a fascinating story that will be new to most of us. “No one who has heard the sound will ever forget the low all-night roar created by the munching of thousands of voracious silk worms in a Japanese mountain farm-house!” In one interesting section, producers respond to critics concerned that the silkworms - which are actually caterpillars of the silk moth - must be killed to extract their silk. About 150 silkworm cocoons are needed to produce a silk scarf or tie – and up to 9,000 cocoons for a single traditional Japanese lady’s silk kimono and undergarment. But if all the pupae were allowed to hatch into moths, silk farmers explain, there would not be enough mulberry leaves in the world to feed the next generation. In fact, after so many centuries of cultivation, silkworms have lost their ability to find food on their own, while the moths can no longer mate without help. “The silkworm is a human invention now.” Furthermore, sericulture is environment-friendly, using little energy and a fraction of the water needed to grow cotton, while mulberry trees produce oxygen and nutrients for the soil. In contrast, cotton – a vegan clothing material of choice - accounts for 3% of global water consumption and 7% of US pesticide use, Kwasny reminds us.

A chapter on the evolving use of feathers and down is equally fascinating. Ostrich feathers, Kwasny recounts, became hugely popular when Eugénie de Montijo, the last Empress of France as the wife of Emperor Napoleon III, wore one on her hat, and were worth nearly as much as diamonds (by weight) by the beginning of the 20th century. At the market’s height, in the 1890s, South Africa was feeding and plucking a million ostriches a year. (In an interesting parallel with the fur trade, more than 90% of the South African feather merchants were Jewish immigrants fleeing pogroms in Russia.) Most of these feathers went to England, centre of the global millinery trade, and when the Titanic went down in 1912, en route to New York, some 20,000 pounds of ostrich feathers sank with it. Kwasny also provides an interesting overview of modern down production, mostly for pillows and quilts but also for the lightweight coats and parkas that often include fur-trimmed hoods.

The chapter on pearls includes a short history of the industry and its current evolution, including concerns for sustainability. Who knew that pearls were the most valuable resource the Spanish found in South America, until they began mining silver in Bolivia and Peru? Or that one of the world’s most famous pearls is named La Peregrina - The Wanderer. Pear-shaped and the size of a dove’s egg, this extraordinary pearl was bought by King Phillip II of Spain (1527-1598), who designated it an official Spanish Crown Jewel. It later "wandered" to France, so gaining its name, and then England, until in 1969 it was purchased at auction by Richard Burton, for $37,000, as a Valentine’s gift for Elizabeth Taylor. In 2011 it sold for $11 million.

Grappling with Fur

The final chapter is about fur, and it is here that Kwasny clearly has the most difficulty.  The chapter begins with her visit to a Danish mink farm on the Jutland coast, where she sees for herself that the animals are well cared for. Nonetheless, while perusing fashion photos, Kwasny reflects that fur seems somehow too ostentatious; no one she knows wears fur. “Conspicuous consumption seems less relevant to our lives,” she observes. To her credit, however, she wonders “how much of my attitude has been conditioned by the advertising budgets of PETA.”

What constitutes an ethical relationship with animals? she wonders. "Do I sincerely wish that there were no more mink farmers like the Kvist Jensens? Am I ready to demand the extinguishing of all such rural knowledge, of this husbandry, passed between generations, of this culture of seasons, weather, tools, the farmers’ ‘gear and tackle and trim,’ and instead offer my homage to the chemists who make each day anew our pleather and polyester and faux fur?”

Kwasny is an honest investigator, but the fur cause is not helped when a fur farmer and then an auction employee – while admitting they know nothing about it - tell her they think trapping is cruel. And while Kwasny does quote biologists, the International Fur Federation, and even my own writings to explain the environmental credentials of fur as a sustainably produced natural material, her section on trapping is perhaps the weakest. Unlike the other sections, this one is based solely on secondary sources – including claims by anti-fur groups that are left unanswered. To her credit, Kwasny does clearly report the serious environmental problems of synthetics, including fake furs.

Kwasny acknowledges that when she began her book, she knew fur would be the most difficult chapter for her to write. Though we eat meat, and wear leather, wool and silk, “fur alone brings us face to face with the fact that we need to kill for it. Fur is the least transformed of all animal products.”

Interestingly, Kwasny ends her book with a call for moderation. Everything we use comes from nature, and, contrary to PETA’s claims, she recognizes that it is not possible to live on this Earth without using resources and harming other beings. The only ethical response to this dilemma, she proposes, is to consume less. Buy less but better-quality clothing, especially from natural sources – plants and animals – and care for them so they last as long as possible. Sounds like a great sales pitch for fur!

In summary, while parts of the fur section will cause people who know the industry – especially trappers - to squirm with frustration, Melissa Kwasny has produced an interesting and worthwhile read. She reminds us of the fascinating range of skills and knowledge maintained by people who work with animals, and the materials those animals provide. I only hope that a good trapper will invite her out onto the land to more fully understand that experience before she writes the second edition of Putting on the Dog.

***

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

The remarkable tale of one man's experiment in domestication is told in How to Tame a Fox (And Build a Dog) [University of Chicago Press, 2017], by Lee Alan Dugatkin and Lyudmila Trut. Photo: Institute of Cytology and Genetics archives.

In the Fall of 1952, a Russian scientist boarded an overnight train from Moscow to Tallinn, the capital of Soviet Estonia. It was the beginning of a remarkable adventure that would change our understanding of animal domestication.

Dmitri Belyaev, a geneticist by training, was a lead scientist at the Central Research Laboratory on Fur Breeding Animals in Moscow, working to help the many government-run fox and mink farms produce more beautiful and valuable furs.  Fur farming was an important source of foreign currency for the Soviet government after the war, which provided Belyaev with some protection for the daring experiment he was about to launch.

It was protection he needed, because while Russian geneticists had once been world-leaders, this important new field of study was under attack in Stalin’s Russia. Soviet science policy was dominated by Trofim Lysenko, a poorly educated peasant’s son who rose to power in the 1930s as part of Stalin’s glorification of the common man. Lysenko’s bizarre theories were eventually discredited, but meanwhile a generation of geneticists lost their jobs because their work would have exposed Lysenko as a fraud.  Some – including Belyaev’s own brother -- were imprisoned and killed.

Belyaev enjoyed a measure of freedom because of his success in developing valuable new genetic lines of mink. But the daring new project he was about to launch went far beyond his mandate to increase the value of fur production.

Belyaev was fascinated by the question of how animals had first come to be domesticated. The way farmers selectively breed domesticated plants and animals for desirable traits was quite well understood. But this didn’t explain how certain species had been domesticated in the first place. Or why so few species of plants and animals out of the millions on the planet had ever been domesticated - only a few dozen animals, mostly mammals, plus a few fish, birds, and insects such as silk worms and honey bees.

Scientists by now believed that dogs were the first species domesticated by humans, some 15,000 years ago, and that they had evolved from wolves. But no one really understood how wolves – animals that generally fear and avoid or act aggressively towards humans – developed into man’s best friend, an animal that is attracted to and trusts humans.

Belyaev was also intrigued by the fact that so many of the changes that occur in many different domesticated species were so similar. As Charles Darwin had noted, they often had patches of different colours on their coats. And they often retained physical traits from childhood that their wild cousins outgrew as they matured: floppy ears, curly tails, shorter snouts and babyish faces – neotonic features that make young animals so “cute”. But why would breeders have selected for these traits? Farmers received no benefit, after all, from cows with spotted hides or pigs with curly tails. So why had they emerged?

Belyaev had a theory that domestication – with all the qualities that distinguish domesticated animals from their wild cousins -- might be triggered by selecting for just a single trait: tameness. It had been suggested that dogs evolved from less aggressive wolves – individuals that would have been low-ranking in their own packs but were tolerated close to human settlements, where they gained access to a more reliable source of food and thrived. Belyaev wondered if this process might be replicated by repeatedly selecting the least aggressive foxes on fur farms for breeding.

Floppy Ears and Curly Tails

One of the well-known features of domesticated animals – dogs, cats, cows, pigs -- is that they can breed several times a year, not just once like most of their wild ancestors.  If farmed foxes could be bred more than once a year there would be a clear economic benefit – and this was Belyaev’s cover story as he approached a trusted colleague in Estonia that fateful day in 1952. Nina Sorokina was in charge of some 1,500 silver foxes on a large government-owned farm in a remote forest hamlet. She was surprised by Belyaev’s proposal, because silver foxes were generally quite fearful and aggressive towards people, but she agreed to begin selecting and breeding a group of the least aggressive animals.

The foxes Sorokina bred in Estonia provided the nucleus for a much larger project that Belyaev launched at a new research centre in Siberia as Lysenko was finally repudiated after Stalin’s death. The results soon followed, validating Belyaev’s ground-breaking theories of domestication. Within ten generations – barely a blink in evolutionary time -- foxes were being born that were noticeably tamer. These puppy-like foxes had floppy ears, piebald spots, and curly tails. Some of these pups eagerly approached humans with their tails wagging, behavior never seen before in foxes. As scientific knowledge of hormones evolved, it was confirmed that these newly domesticated foxes had far lower levels of stress hormones. In the next stage of the research, several of the tamest foxes actually lived in a house with one of the lead scientists, Lyudmila Trut, and soon acted very much like dogs.

The speed with which these changes in the physiology and behavior emerged confirmed Belyaev's radically new understanding of the process of domestication. Since Darwin, scientists had assumed that change could occur only in small increments over long periods of time, driven by a gradual accumulation of useful but random genetic mutations. The speed with which these new domesticated foxes evolved, however, suggested to Belyaev that the changes revealed a range of genetic variation that already existed within the original fox population.

This would explain why such a small number of plant or animal species has ever been domesticated. Wild horses, for example, must have had a wide range of genetic variation within their populations, facilitating domestication, while zebras – which have sometimes been somewhat tamed, but never domesticated – do not.

Belyaev was ahead of his time in proposing that important changes to physiology and behaviour might result without the mutation of genes, but rather through the activation or deactivation of existing genes in response to new environmental pressures -- in this case, the selection for tamer foxes. The disruption of long-established systems of genetic stability could provoke a complex suite of changes (curly tails, spotted coats, shorter snouts, etc.) in surprisingly few generations.

Belyaev’s ground-breaking ideas were, in fact, originally sparked by his observation of farmed mink, where he saw new colour strains – pastels, sapphires, violets, pearls – emerge less than 30 years after wild mink were brought onto farms.

Not least interesting, Belyaev’s work puts the lie to activist claims that farmed mink and foxes are “wild animals” that should not be kept in captivity. These species have been selectively bred on farms for more than 100 generations, resulting in significantly different colours, size, and behaviour. These are no longer "wild" animals.

The full story of this extraordinary research project has now been told for the first time in a wonderful book, How to Tame a Fox (And Build a Dog), co-authored by Lyudmila Trut and Lee Alan Dugatkin. Trut heads the research group at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, and continues to lead Belyaev's fox project to this day. Dugatkin is a professor of biology at the University of Louisville and a science writer. Fur farmers and anyone interested in animals and domestication will find it a fascinating read!

FURTHER READING: How humans domesticated themselves. National Public Radio, October 31, 2020.

***

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

Recent proposals to ban the sale of fur in several US cities and states are based on a fiction – a dangerous fiction – the origins of which can be traced back more than 30,000 years. That’s when, as Yuval Noah Harari recounts in his popular book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, a remarkable mutation occurred in the brains of one of the six human-like species that then existed. That mutation, scientists speculate, allowed our ancestors to do something no animal had ever done: live in an imaginary world.

To understand the importance of this breakthrough, consider money, nations, and human rights, to name just a few vital elements of our civilization. Unlike rocks, trees and other things we see around us, these important concepts exist only because we believe in them and act accordingly.  Money, for example, has value only because we all agree that it does -- so people will give us stuff for it.

The ability to act as if such “fictions” really exist is central to what makes us human. It gives sense to our lives and allows us to work together in large groups for common purposes. But our fictions can also lead us seriously astray: think of Nazism or Communism. Both promised a better life but delivered only misery, not least because they were based on erroneous ideas about humanity: Aryans are not a superior race, and central planning is not efficient. A similar disconnect with reality lies at the heart of recent proposals to ban the sale of fur products in certain US cities and states. Let’s take a closer look.

Justifications for Banning Fur

There are only two possible justifications for banning fur. The first would be if fur were not produced responsibly. Most of us believe that it is morally acceptable to use animals for food and other purposes so long as species are not depleted (sustainability) and the animals are raised and killed with as little suffering as possible (animal welfare). As documented throughout the TruthAboutFur website, the modern fur trade satisfies these moral requirements: both wild and farmed furs are now produced at least as responsibly and sustainably as other animals we use for food,  leather and other purposes. *

But if fur is produced responsibly, the only remaining rationale for banning it would be to claim that any killing of animals is wrong. This idea has been elaborated over the past forty years by Peter Singer, Tom Regan and other “animal rights” philosophers. Simply put, they argue that the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of “non-human animals” deserve the same respect as those of humans. Just as discrimination against people of colour is now denounced as Racism, and discrimination against women is rejected as Sexism, Animal Rights philosophers propose that using animals for food, clothing or other purposes should be condemned as “Speciesism”. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk famously charged: “There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” **

At first glance, this proposal can seem compelling. Just as the idea of extending rights to all races, classes and genders (Human Rights) was once scoffed at, Animal Rights philosophers argue that it is time to extend our moral circle to include all animals. But all social and moral constructs are not created equal. Human Rights is a highly functional “fiction” because human society is clearly strengthened when each member feels that their personal rights and needs are secured. Animal Rights offers no such benefits.

Animal Rights is, in fact, completely out of synch with how the natural world really works. Like it or not, life eats life. Animals only survive by eating other living organisms, plants or other animals. But animals do not usually eat members of their own species. Contrary to the claims of animal rightists, there’s nothing arbitrary or hypocritical about humans eating other animals but not (usually) each other.

The evolutionary logic for not killing members of your own species is evident, especially for humans. If you kill me, my kids come for you, then your kids come for my family, and on it goes – not very conducive to social cooperation or stability. Killing and eating other species provokes no such complications.

Problems with Animal Rights Logic

Most worrisome, the logic of Animal Rights may actually threaten human (and animal) welfare. Activists argue that no one needs real fur anymore because fake fur provides a “cruelty-free” alternative. But fake furs (and most other synthetics) are made from petrochemicals that are not renewable or biodegradable. New research reveals that these materials also leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways and marine life each time they are washed. Cruelty-free indeed!

By contrast, using fur in a well-regulated fashion is fully compatible with an ecological (i.e., ethical) relationship with nature. Farmed fur animals are fed left-overs from our own food production, the parts of pigs, chickens and fish that we don’t eat and would otherwise clog landfills. Fur farm wastes – manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses – are composted to produce organic fertilizers, renewing the fertility of the soil and completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. There is no natural farming system that does not include animals.

The production of wild furs is also based on ecological principles: most wildlife species produce more young each year than their habitat can support to adulthood. The sustainable use of this natural surplus is promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other conservation authorities.  In fact, many wildlife populations would have to be culled even if we didn’t use fur, e.g., to prevent damage to property (flooding caused by beaver dams), to protect livestock (coyote predation), and to control the spread of dangerous diseases (rabies in overpopulated raccoons).

Living Outside Natural Reality

All this was clear so long as most North Americans still had family on the land who understood the realities of nature. But now, for the first time in human history, most people live in cities. When your food comes from supermarkets, while animals dance and sing on your TV screen, and the live animals you know are surrogate children that sleep in your bed, it is easy to believe the killing of animals is as morally reprehensible as abusing human rights.

Due to our highly developed brains, we all live to a certain extent outside the biological-natural reality. All legislation is a human construct, and different societal “fictions” constantly compete for public acceptance. Animal Rights activists have been very adept at using sensationalist tactics to convey their stories through both traditional and powerful new social media. As PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk says: “We’re complete media sluts; we didn’t invent the game but we learned to play it!” But stories that win mass appeal do not always end well if they are not grounded in reality.

Animal Rights seems to some to represent a more gentle relationship with nature at a time when pollution and the spectre of global warming are exposing the dangers of rampant consumerism. But as this brief analysis suggests, basing public policy on the ideas promoted by Animal Rights advocates can have unexpected consequences. The Nazis’ fascination with Animal Rights will be the subject of a future essay. For now, suffice to say that encouraging the use of petroleum-based synthetics is not the way to protect our planet for future generations. Using natural, renewable, long-lasting and biodegradable materials like fur makes environmental sense. Politicians take note.

FOOTNOTES:

* In addition to sustainability and animal welfare, two further requirements for ethical animal use could be proposed: animals should not be killed for frivolous purposes, and most of the animal should be used (no waste). For a fuller discussion, see The Ethics of Fur, TruthAboutFur.

** While the Animal Rights philosophy opposes any use of animals, fur is often seen as an easy target; no city or state is proposing to ban the sale of meat or dairy products. Note, however, that Peter Singer, the intellectual godfather of the Animal Rights movement, wrote in his 1975 landmark book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, that it is hypocritical to criticize fur-wearing while most people are still eating meat, which requires the killing of far greater numbers of animals.

***

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

With the start of a new school year, many of us think about bringing accurate information about the sustainability of fur into our children’s classrooms. This can be a difficult challenge. The first problem is that school curriculums have become so demanding that teachers now have little time for guest presentations. And if you do gain access to a classroom, what information should you share with students, assuming you have the communications skills to capture their attention at all? Luckily, help is available to overcome all these obstacles. Sound interesting? Read on!

The Fur Council of Canada has produced a school program that has now been thoroughly tested in hundreds of classrooms with an overwhelmingly positive response from both teachers and students. Called Furbearing Animals: A Renewable Natural Resource, the program includes a 14-minute video, a teachers’ activity guide, and amusing educational materials for students. The core program was originally developed by educational experts at the Quebec Ministry of Forests, Wildlife and Parks in collaboration with Quebec trappers (Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires de Québec). After funding (and refining) in-class presentations in the Montreal region for many years, the Fur Council produced the video and other tools to allow this extraordinarily successful program to be shared across North America and beyond.

Curriculum-Based Program Assures Teacher Buy-in

One of the most important features of the program is that it is built around key ecology concepts that teachers are already obliged to teach. In Quebec and most other jurisdictions, these concepts are part of the natural science curriculum for Grade 6. This is the main reason the program has been so well-received in schools; rather than taking time away from teachers’ busy schedules, Furbearing Animals actually helps them do their jobs. And rather than promote the fur trade – which would be self-serving and controversial – the program provides a science-based understanding of animals, nature, and sustainable use.

The video begins by explaining in simple language that “natural resources” are materials produced by nature that can be used to satisfy human needs. Water can be used for drinking or transportation. Plants and animals can be eaten or used to make clothing. Petroleum powers our vehicles but can also be used to make a wide range of plastic products, including clothing.

The video then explores the difference between “renewable” and “non-renewable” natural resources. With lively animation, students are shown that snowshoe hares, for example, are a renewable resource: even if you eat some hares for dinner, there may be as many or even more hares next year. Petroleum, however, takes so long for nature to produce that when we use it, it’s gone.

Using foxes and beavers as examples, the video then shows how animals are adapted to different habitats. The beaver’s round body and dense underfur allows it to thrive in water, a semi-aquatic habitat, while the fox’s longer, sleek body allows swift movement on land, a terrestrial habitat.

Similarly, the beaver is a herbivore, with self-sharpening teeth and other adaptations that allow it to cut trees and chew bark, while the fox is a carnivore, with the speed and pointy teeth needed to capture and devour its prey.

A well-illustrated explanation of why some habitats can support more animals than others (“rich” and “poor” habitats) leads to an understanding of “carrying capacity”. Students learn that nature is all about balance: depleting wildlife populations will deprive future generations of important resources, but overpopulated wildlife can be equally problematic, resulting in disease, fighting for territory and starvation. Overpopulated beavers flood property and may “eat out” local vegetation to the point where a habitat may support no beavers at all for many years. Students can now understand why part of the surplus produced by nature can be used by humans without depleting wildlife populations. This is called "sustainable use", a core principle of modern conservation policy – and an important element of the ethical justification for the responsible and well-regulated use of animals, for food, clothing and other purposes.

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource. Truth About Fur.

The Fur Council of Canada has also produced a Teachers’ Guide to accompany the video, available in downloadable PDF format in English and French. The Guide includes follow-up activities, handouts, and in-class quizzes to reinforce key concepts presented in the video.

Also available on the Fur Council's website are a number of other educational publications that can be distributed to students during classroom presentations. One of the best is EcoNews, a cartoon-format brochure that illustrates key fur messages in an entertaining and easily-understood way. An accompanying activity booklet for teachers provides question-and-answer teaching tools and subjects for in-class debates, based on information presented in the EcoNews cartoons. Printed copies of EcoNews are available in English and French from the Fur Council.

Bringing the Program into the Classroom

Once you have reviewed the video and other program materials, you are ready to contact your local school. You can inform your child’s teacher or the school principal or science coordinator that you would like to present a program that explains important ecology principles from the curriculum, i.e., renewable and non-renewable resources; adaptation of animals to their habitats; carrying capacity of different habitats; and the sustainable use of renewable natural resources. (Check with school authorities to verify the grade when these principles are taught in your jurisdiction.) 

The 14-minute video is designed to be shown to the class before inviting questions and interactive discussion. If possible, bring beaver and fox pelts – and other furs – to illustrate the differences between terrestrial and semi-aquatic animals, as explained in the video. Passing these furs around the classroom is always a hit with students.

Even better, bring beaver and fox skulls too, to show the different dentition of herbivores and carnivores. Ask your fur association to purchase a few professionally-prepared skulls that members can borrow for school presentations.

You can also bring sample fur products to show how fur is used, and any other props that may illustrate your own involvement in the fur trade.

Before leaving, you can circulate copies of EcoNews or other materials to the students, and leave the Teachers’ Guide and EcoNews quiz with the class teacher. You should also leave your contact information, in case the teacher has follow-up questions. The Fur Council of Canada and the Fur Institute of Canada both have excellent educational materials that you can order for classroom presentations.

The Fur Council of Canada’s school program has been successfully tested in hundreds of classrooms to help you deliver the fur trade’s responsible-use messages. Feel free to contact the Fur Council for more information about using this effective program in your region. And if you have school presentation ideas or resources to share, please leave a comment at the end of this article. Together we can help to ensure that the next generation has a better understanding of the sustainable-use principles which underpin the modern fur trade’s environmental ethic.

***

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

Progressive politicians in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now New York City are trying to ban the sale of fur in their jurisdictions, claiming furbearers die for products we no longer need. New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson has proposed a ban "because I felt like it was the right thing to do in my heart." But is it the right thing to do?

“Progressives” pride themselves on supporting government action to promote social justice, equality, and, increasingly, protection of our natural environment. But the modern fur trade embodies many of the principles that progressive politicians claim to support.

Let’s look at some of the reasons why progressive politicians should be promoting fur, not seeking to ban it.

1. Fur Products Are Handmade by Skilled Artisans

In this age of industrialized mass-production, fur apparel and accessories are still cut and sewn by skilled artisans. These people maintain remarkable craft skills passed down from parents to their children through generations.

Because of the high value of the raw materials and the specialized skills required, fur products have never been made in the sweatshops that continue to plague parts of the apparel industry. Fur garments are one of the few things we buy that are still made individually, by hand. In fact, each fur piece is really wearable art, often involving 30 hours or more of skilled work to produce.

This remarkable heritage industry should be valued and protected by everyone who appreciates the cultural and human value of craft traditions.

SEE ALSO: Heritage products to warm the body and soul. By Brenda Dragon, president. Aurora Heat.

2. Fur Is Produced on Small Family Farms

More than half of the fur produced in the US (closer to 80% worldwide) is now produced on family-run farms. Fur farms are viable in regions where poor soil or harsh weather make other forms of farming difficult, and provide much-needed employment and income in many rural communities.

Industry standards (now being certified by third-party auditors) ensure that farmed mink receive excellent nutrition and care, in part because there is no other way to produce the high-quality fur for which North America is known. Farmed mink are fed left-overs from human food production - the parts of chickens, pigs and fish that we don’t eat, that otherwise might clog landfills. Mink manure, straw bedding and carcasses are composted to provide organic fertilizers to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

Support for rural communities and sustainable agriculture are two important contributions of fur farming that progressive politicians should embrace, not scapegoat.

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

3. Trappers Maintain Land-Based Knowledge and Lifestyles

Trappers are, in a sense, the last of the Mohicans. They are among the last people on Earth who maintain the hunter/gatherer skills and knowledge that ensured human survival for 99% of our existence as a species. They are among the few who go into nature alone, continually studying animals and their environment.

We all care about nature, but most of us now  live in cities; it is trappers who sound the alarm when wildlife and their habitat are threatened by poorly-planned industrial activity. Trappers report eagle nests so loggers can avoid disturbing them. Like canaries in the mine, changing fur harvests can signal problems like mercury pollution harming mink reproduction.

We would need trappers even if we didn’t use fur. Regulated trapping protects land from flooding by over-populated beavers. It also protects human health (e.g., from rabies spread by over-populated raccoons) and livestock (e.g., from predation by coyotes) and endangered species (e.g., sea turtle eggs from foxes, raccoons and coyotes); and the list goes on.

Trapping in North America is strictly regulated by state, provincial and territorial governments to ensure that only abundant furs are taken and that the most humane trapping methods are used.

Especially in Canada, trapping also provides food and income for many First Nations communities.

Protectors of our land-based heritage and our natural environment, trappers should be recognized as true guardians of nature. The furs they produce should be respected and treasured by progressives. They should be purchased and worn with pride to support these unique lifestyles - not boycotted.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur website.

4. Fur Is Sustainable, Durable, Recyclable and Biodegradable

The massive over-production of inexpensive but poor-quality clothing is becoming a serious environmental problem. “Fast fashion” unfortunately also means “fast disposal” of increasing quantities of clothing that is only worn briefly. And as much as 80% of it is made of petrochemical-based synthetics, basically another form of plastic bags.

In landfills, synthetics do not biodegrade like fur and other natural fibres. And each time they are washed, they leach millions of plastic micro-fibres into our waterways that are now turning up in marine life - including species we eat, like oysters - and even in our drinking water.

SEE ALSO: The great fur burial. Truth About Fur proves fur biodegrades.

Intensive production of cotton, the second most common clothing material, is also causing environmental damage in many regions.

It is becoming clear that the only sustainable solution to this clothing crisis is to buy less of it, while ensuring the items we do buy are better quality and last longer with proper care. This sustainable future will include fur. Good-quality mink and other fur garments are often worn for 30 or more years, and unlike most clothing, can be taken apart and completely “remodelled” as fashions change. Fur is often passed down from mother to daughter, or granddaughter. Old furs can also be made into vests, pillows or other accessories.

And after many decades of use, fur can be tossed into the compost to return to the soil. Once again, we see that fur should be appreciated and promoted by environmentally-conscious progressive politicians, not banned!

Progressive politicians who are sincere about wanting to promote social justice, craft traditions, rural communities, and protection of our natural environment, should be asking how they can better protect and promote fur and our remarkable North American heritage industry. They certainly should not be seeking to ban it.

***

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

Finally! The infamous “skinning fur animals alive” video has been exposed as a complete fraud, orchestrated and paid for by animal activists to discredit the fur trade. There is probably no single animal-rights lie that has done more harm to the reputation of the fur trade than this video, first released by a Swiss animal-rights group in 2005.

Entitled "The shocking reality of the China fur trade", the video shows two men in a dusty Chinese fur market town, beating and then skinning an Asiatic raccoon that is clearly still alive. The video went viral and was subsequently repackaged by PETA and many other animal-rights groups around the world as “proof” that animals are abused in the fur trade. It is the centrepiece of campaigns to convince designers to stop using fur, and politicians to ban fur farming or even the sale of fur products.

Most recently, this vicious lie was repeated in support of a proposal to ban the sale of fur products in New York City, notably by the proposer of the ban, NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson, and actress Angelica Huston, in an opinion piece published in a New York paper.

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry.

But now, an investigation by the International Fur Federation (IFF) has revealed – and documented with filmed confessions and signed affidavits -- that the horrible scenes shown in that disgusting video were, in fact, intentionally staged by professional activists who paid poor Chinese villagers to perform these cruel acts for the camera.

People in the fur trade have known from the start that the scenes shown in the video did not represent normal practice. In 2016, TruthAboutFur published “5 reasons why it’s ridiculous to claim animals are skinned alive”. That article attracted enough attention that it generally pops up first on Google if you search for “skinning animals alive for fur". But pictures speak louder than words, and shocking videos are grist for the Internet mill. What was needed was absolute proof that this video was staged – and now we have it.

Road to Shancun

The IFF sent an investigative team to China to search for the men shown in the shocking video, and they found them – in the dusty market town of Shancun, a few hours drive south of Beijing.

In a new documentary video released by the IFF, the men testify that they were bribed by a woman, who they now understand was a professional activist, to carry out the horrific stunt.

The two men provided sworn affidavits about that fateful day - damning evidence of a calculated conspiracy to mislead the public and damage the fur industry.

Even now, after so many years, every time I think about what we did it makes me uncomfortable.

The two men, Ma Hong She and Su Feng Gang, were working in the Shancun fur market when they were approached with a bribe. “We were working that day and a man and a woman approached us,” said Mr. Ma in Chinese. “They had a camera and were filming. We asked 'What are you doing?’, and the woman said her grandfather had never seen a raccoon skinned alive. She asked if I would do it, and she’d like to film me doing so.

“I told her we can’t do that because the animal might bite us. She said she’d buy us a good lunch, or she’d give us a few hundred Yuan to buy our own lunch. After we finished the skinning we felt uncomfortable. It was cruel for the animal. Even now, after so many years, every time I think about what we did it makes me uncomfortable. It is something we regret. This video was posted on-line. When we saw the video, we felt unwell just to realise that we had been used by these people.

“I worked in the skinning area for two years. We’d never skin animals alive, and I’ve never seen anyone skin an animal alive,” said Mr. Ma.

"Rag-bag Package of Lies"

Mark Oaten, IFF CEO, said: “We have endured 13 years of lies and smears against our industry but we have finally ended this once and for all. We aim to explode the myth with irrefutable proof that the animal rights movement is behind a cynical stunt to discredit our industry.

“We do not skin animals alive and animal rights activists are aware of this,” said Oaten. “This is why they have had to stoop to bribery to try to damage our industry. We want to send a clear signal to anyone who seeks to deny consumers the freedom of choice by these quite wicked and, frankly, twisted tactics – if we find you out, we are coming for you and we will expose you. And if you repeat this behaviour, we will sue you for damages.

“Our industry is no longer prepared to sit back and allow these fanatics to march into the boardrooms of designers and bandy around a rag-bag package of lies and prejudice about our business. My team has gathered a solid dossier and we look forward to challenging every animal rights group which continues to use this staged video,” said Oaten.

Sick, But Not the First Time

So now we know: the cruel actions shown in this video were intentionally staged to make a vicious anti-fur propaganda piece. It’s a sick thing for anyone to do – hard to even believe – but it’s not the first time animal activists have stooped this low to falsely claim that animals are “skinned alive”.

The film that launched the first anti-seal hunt campaigns, in 1964, showed a live seal being poked with a knife by a hunter – “skinned alive!” the activists cried! But a few years later the hunter, Gustave Poirier, testified under oath to a Canadian Parliamentary committee of enquiry that he had been paid by the film-makers to poke at the live seal, something he said he would otherwise never have done. [For more on this, see my book, Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (CBC 1985; General Publishing, 1991), pg 76.]

Now, more than 50 years later, we finally have proof that this more recent claim of “skinning animals alive” is also a complete fabrication, based on another staged video.  The IFF has exposed the truth; now it’s up to each of us to share this link to its documentary every time this malicious activist lie is published.

***

HELP EXPOSE THIS BIG FAT ACTIVIST LIE! Please share this blog post, or copy this link to IFF's video every time you see activists claim that fur animals are "skinned alive", in news reports or comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6joIOEk6JU&feature=youtu.be.

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

New York furriers are fighting back against a misguided proposal to ban the sale of fur products in New York City – a proposal that would destroy thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity generated by one of the city’s founding industries.

150 furriers and fur workers protested outside New York City Hall on March 28, as the fur ban proposal was presented to City Council by Speaker Corey Johnson and several other council members. The proposal was referred to the Committee on Consumer Affairs and Business Licensing for further discussion.

SEE ALSO: 6 reasons why banning fur sales is a very bad idea.

Family Businesses, a NYC Heritage

“We have to fight because this is a threat to so many people’s jobs. There are more than 1,500 people working in the fur trade and affiliated businesses in New York City,” says Maria Reich, the dynamic CEO of ER Fur Trading, Oscar de la Renta Furs, and Reich Furs, who was a spokesperson at the demo.

“This is also a direct threat to our freedom of choice,” she told me when I contacted her after the demo. “It is sad and worrisome that our local government could think they should dictate how we dress, what we eat, how we live. If the sale of fur can be banned by politicians, so can any other legitimate industry. Speaker Johnson thinks it’s his mission to save animals, so what’s next? Wool? Leather? Meat?

“What’s encouraging is how everyone in the trade has come together to fight against this completely unjustifiable proposal. With support from the Fur Information Council of America (FICA) and the International Fur Federation (IFF), we are signing petitions, calling and writing to our council members, speaking to the media, and getting the word out to the rest of the industry and the public about what’s happening,” she says.

“I have all my social media sites referring people to ShoppersRights.org, where they can easily let New York council members know what they think of this crazy proposal. People are being very engaged and supportive -- they want to help get the word out that people’s jobs are being threatened here, for no good reason.

“The modern fur trade is one of the most sustainable industries; the production of fur is well regulated and we are implementing full traceability with the new FurMark program. It’s just crazy that the council would even think about attacking this quintessentially New York industry. The fur trade is part of New York’s roots, going right back to the Native American people who lived here, and then the Dutch settlers and traders in the 17th century.

SEE ALSO: "Fur is a sustainable natural resource" on TruthAboutFur's website.

“Our company was started by my late husband’s grandfather, Charlie Reich, who arrived here from Poland in 1938, fought in World War II, and then returned to start Reich Furs. His great-granddaughter, Samantha Ortiz, is now president of the company. I am a single working mom, and small businesses like ours are the heart of New York. We are a design-driven company and we directly employ 20 people, but we also work with - and provide work for - many other New York Garment District companies: designers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers.

“It is really shameful that the councilman Johnson, who is supposed to represent the Garment District, is the one presenting this crazy proposal to shut down small family businesses and destroy the livelihoods of hard-working New Yorkers,” she says.

Fur Ban Is an Attack on Small Businesses - the Heart of NYC

Nick Pologeorgis is another leader of the New York trade; he also serves on the boards of FICA and the IFF. His father, Stanley, started Pologeorgis Furs in 1960, after arriving in New York from Crete. He apprenticed in a fur workshop without pay and became a master fur craftsman. He was one of the first furriers to forge relationships with top international designers, collaborating with Pierre Balmain from 1970. Nick joined the business when he finished college in 1984. His sister, Joan Pologeorgis, who graduated from the Fashion Institute of Technology, serves as vice-president in charge of production and is co-owner. It has been a family-owned and operated business for over 60 years.

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion.

“We love fur; not everyone has to like fur, but that doesn’t give them a right to ban it. There are real people’s jobs at stake here. This is the trade they know; they support their families,” says Pologeorgis.

“There are more than a thousand direct fur-trade jobs in New York, but our industry now also works closely with many other sectors. Fur is used for accessories and for home furnishings. Fur is used to make felt for hats, and for rugs.

“Think about it: more than $3 billion in economic activity would be lost over the next ten years if this ban was passed – that’s $3 billion taken from New Yorkers’ pockets, from New York families. And for what?

“New Yorkers are upset about all the jobs that were lost when Amazon decided to pull out of our area. More jobs stand to be lost in fur manufacturing with the proposed ban. They want to destroy jobs and small businesses like ours when they should be supporting us and fostering growth in NYC.

"The elected council members don’t really understand all the issues here. They say they want to save animals but what about people and their livelihoods?

“It’s a slippery slope from fur to many other products. What is next?” he asks. "I coach my son’s baseball team and we use leather-covered baseballs and leather mitts. So, is it also unnecessary and cruel to use baseball mitts?

“What is important now is that everyone in the trade – and everyone who supports consumer freedom of choice – should get involved and make their voices heard. You can go to ShoppersRights.org, and everything is there to make it easy to send a message to the city council members. FICA also has a social media tool kit that’s easy to use.

“Many people are working very hard to fight this terrible ban proposal, and we can succeed, but we need everyone’s help. It's time to speak out -- to defend our jobs and our rights!” says Pologeorgis.

*  *  *

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:

1. Go to www.ShoppersRights.org to send a message to NYC council members. (You can also send messages about ban proposals in San Francisco and Los Angeles.)

2. New York residents: Encourage your friends and family in NYC to get involved by visiting the website of Fur NYC.

3. Everyone: Follow the Fur NYC campaign on Twitter.

4. Share this TruthAboutFur blog post on social media. And also share our other posts: "6 reasons why banning fur sales is a very bad idea" and "Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion".

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

Recent proposals by Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now New York city councilors to ban fur sales should not only worry furriers who risk losing their jobs and businesses. These proposals should be a matter of grave concern to anyone who values living in a free, fair and tolerant society.

There are so many things wrong about the proposed bans on fur sales that it is hard to know where to begin, but let’s look at six of the most important problems:

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry.

1. These proposals to ban fur sales are a flagrant example of arbitrary government infringement on fundamental human rights. No one is forced to wear fur, and animal activists are free to campaign against the fur trade, but this does not give them the right to impose their personal beliefs on others. After decades of anti-fur campaigning, many people still clearly want to buy fur. The activist response is to seek legislation that would take away our right to choose for ourselves. This should have alarm bells ringing on all sides of the political spectrum!

2. It is illogical and discriminatory to consider banning fur sales when 95% of Americans eat meat and wear leather. Of course, PETA and other “animal rights” groups that are lobbying to ban fur sales are equally opposed to any use of animals, even for food.  But most North Americans do not accept this extreme view; most of us believe that humans do have a right to use animals for food, clothing and other purposes, so long as these animals are treated responsibly. There is no justification for banning fur sales while hundreds of millions of cows, pigs and sheep, and several billion chickens, are killed each year for food in North America. Even philosopher Peter Singer stated in his landmark Animal Liberation – the book that launched the animal-rights movement – that it is completely hypocritical to campaign against the fur trade while most Americans continue to eat meat, eggs, fish and dairy.

3. As a society we do, of course, sometimes restrict personal choice, but only for very important reasons. To ensure that animals will be there for us in the future, for example, we ban trade in endangered species. But endangered species are never used in the fur trade; all the furs we use today are raised on farms or culled from abundant wildlife populations. This is assured by state, national and international regulations. Animal welfare must also be respected -- and decades of scientific research and government regulations ensure that fur today is produced responsibly and humanely. Trapping in North America is regulated by state (in Canada, provincial) wildlife authorities, in accordance with ISO standards and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Fur farms are being inspected and certified to ensure compliance with codes of practice developed by veterinarians and animal scientists. There is simply no credible evidence that fur animals are treated less respectfully than other animals we use for food or clothing.

4. Wildlife populations often must be culled to protect property and human (and animal) health, whether or not we use their fur. Overpopulated beavers flood homes, farms and roads; raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other diseases; coyotes are the main predators of lambs and calves – and now attack pets and even people in urban areas; predators must also be managed to protect sea turtle eggs and other endangered species; and the list goes on. But if we must cull some of these animals, surely it’s more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

5. The fur trade supports livelihoods and cultures, especially in rural and remote regions where alternate employment may be hard to find. We all care about nature, but most of us now live in cities; indigenous and other trappers are our eyes and ears on the land, the people who monitor wildlife on a daily basis and can sound the alarm when nature is threatened. Fur farms provide employment in regions where the soil is too poor for other agriculture, helping to support rural communities. Fur artisans maintain handicraft skills that have been passed down from generation to generation. In this age of mass-production, each fur garment and accessory is still made individually, by hand. The fur trade maintains a range of remarkable skills and knowledge, a part of our human heritage that should be respected and encouraged, not persecuted with bans based on hateful and misleading propaganda.

6. Finally – and certainly not least – fur apparel is a long-lasting, natural material that is recyclable and completely biodegradable. After many decades of use, your fur can be thrown into the garden compost where it returns to the Earth. By contrast, most clothing today is made from petroleum-based synthetics that do not biodegrade. Instead, these synthetics leach thousands of plastic micro-particles into our waterways every time they are washed – plastic that is now being found in oysters and other marine life. It is bizarre at a time when we are trying to reduce our use of plastic – for example, by banning the use of plastic bags and water bottles – that some cities would even consider banning a long-lasting, recyclable and biodegradable natural material like fur!

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion.

As this quick review shows, recent proposals to ban fur sales are anything but “progressive”. They would unjustifiably usurp our right to use a sustainably produced, natural and biodegradable clothing material. They are arbitrary and discriminatory, especially in a society where most people eat meat and wear leather. They are completely unjustified because the modern fur trade is extremely well-regulated to ensure environmental sustainability and the responsible treatment of animals. And they would unfairly attack the livelihoods and cultures of thousands of people who maintain heritage craft skills and a close relationship with the land.

Again: no one is forced to wear fur. But everyone should be concerned about these misguided proposals to take away our right to make up our own minds about very personal and complex ethical choices.

********

What you can do to help! Make your voice heard at: www.ShoppersRights.org

The strength of the fur industry is that it is always reinventing itself.  In the 1970s and 1980s, it was the revival of wild fur. In the 1990s, furs were sheared low and treated like fabric. Since the dawn of the 21st century, a new generation of designers is mixing it up, exploring a wide range of techniques and some very new approaches to marketing fur.

At TruthAboutFur, we enjoy introducing our readers to innovative creators like Brenda Dragon, who draws on her childhood on the land to make practical accessories for her growing Aurora Heat brand. Or New Zealand designer Jane Avery, who uses fur from culled rabbits to craft one-of-a-kind works of wearable art. Today we visit with American creator Pamela Paquin, a passionate promoter of “accidental fur”. What is accidental fur, you ask? Read on!

TaF: Pamela Paquin, you have specialized in a quite unusual sector of the fur trade. Tell us about “accidental fur”.

PP: As anyone who drives through the countryside knows, a very large number of furbearing animals are killed on our roads: raccoons, foxes, squirrels and many others. I recuperate these animals to make beautiful fur accessories that sell for anywhere from $45 to $2,000. I find that “accidental fur” is a more respectful term for these animals than “road kill”; I like to focus on their potential rather than how they ended up coming to me.

TaF: Did you come from a fur family?

PP: Not really, we were farmers. My father’s family were French-Canadian dairy farmers who came to Massachusetts from Quebec early in the 20th century; I am now living on a small piece of my great-grandfather’s farm. My mother was brought up in Greenwich, CT, 30 minutes from New York City. This mixed background gave me a sense of duality and engendered a respect for diversity and different ways of life. From childhood I wanted to make a difference in the world. I studied International Relations at Boston College and then worked in organizational management at MIT. Pursuing a Master’s in Peace Studies in Europe for a change of perspective, I then married a Dane; it was in Denmark that I first became aware of mink farming, which caught my attention because I had two pet ferrets at the time.

TaF: Is that when you became interested in working with fur?

PP: It wasn’t that simple. I was a vegetarian in Europe -- my response to growing awareness of the need to control our consumption of resources, and my desire to reduce violence in the world. I also thought that wearing synthetics was the way to be gentle with the planet – until a Danish furrier (Jane Eberlein of Samarkand) made me re-think my position on oil-based fabric including faux fur. I also came to understand that vegetarianism is not really natural for humans. And that fur is the result of 200 million years of R&D by nature to produce the ultimate way to keep a body warm and dry.

TaF: So did you begin to question your vegetarianism?

PP: Eco-systems sciences made me realize that cows and other herbivores recycle plants that humans can’t digest, but herbivores also need predators to maintain a balance. Humans are omnivores, and we have a role to play. It’s fine to be a vegetarian, but hypocrisy is rife in many ways: cats are carnivores, so to keep a cat you elevate your love for your cat above the lives of the animals that provide its food. Industrial soy production is destroying habitat. We’re all compromised, but I believe we should be as respectful as we can to the animals that feed and clothe us, and work together to bring compassion to sourcing from nature. Even my view of peace has evolved; I realize now that peace isn't a final goal or end-state, it’s a skill set to learn: we can only strive to manage conflict with compassion and consideration.

TaF: So how did you begin working with fur?

PP: When I came back to the States, I was trying to change careers and travel less while raising my daughter. I was struck by how many animals I saw by the side of the road -- you don’t see so many in Europe – and it got me thinking: here was a wonderful natural resource that was being wasted.

A local taxidermist named Tom White – The Rustic Moose – taught me how to skin and flesh. He helped me buy my tools and explained how the auctions and prices and the industry worked. I was also incredibly inspired by Mark Miller, in Boston, who continues to produce in the US; I give them a lot of credit for that! Moyle Mink & Tannery and USA Foxx & Furs have both been super kind and helpful regarding tanning - and attending the ILOE fur show was an inspiration regarding technique, Zuki in particular. I'm heartened that sheared beaver looks so much like mink, given how few wild mink, and how many beaver, I find.

I began making fur accessories for friends and neighbors, and people loved them. Suddenly the local media picked up my story, and next thing I was on Nightline, and even the BBC came knocking. I was not ready and it was quite a shock! I set up my website and that’s how I now sell most of my creations.

TaF: Your company is Peace Fur, and you have sometimes been quoted calling your products “ethical fur”.  What do you think about mainstream trapping and fur farming?

PP: I consider myself to be part of the North American fur industry, full stop. Calling my products ethical – which could suggest others were not -- was as self-defeating as when we first named our company Petite Mort Fur, a play on words with the French euphemism for the female state after love-making! As a farmer who eats meat I have no problem with hunting or trapping when it's done with compassion.

Trappers have been on the front lines of conservation and the rebound of furbearers in North America. Trapping is also critical for controlling overpopulation, or invasive species like nutria in Louisiana, or possum and rabbit in New Zealand.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

I also respect farmers who work hard to provide their animals with excellent care; I eat meat and participate on our local agricultural council to ensure my food is compassionate. I know that farm-raising mink is a way to produce consistent, high-quality fur at a reasonable cost, while providing a range of natural colours, which means less dyeing.

From an animal-welfare perspective, it’s important that farmed mink can be humanely euthanized on the farm; they don’t have to be transported to distant slaughterhouses. Nonetheless, many potential clients aren’t comfortable with the idea of raising animals in cages; for these people, accidental fur provides another option. At least half of our customers have never worn fur before.

As a Peace Professional, I know better than to criticize other people’s choices. Some people prefer wild fur, some prefer farm-raised – and now Peace Fur provides a third option that can open new markets for the industry. I think there’s lots of growth potential here and I'm eager to share what I've learned. It's a big country and I can't pick up every raccoon, fox and coyote!

TaF: So do you think that others could be following your example?

PP: Absolutely! There are a growing number of us already and I've had designers reach out for wholesale. It is estimated that as many as one million animals are killed on our roads every day. That’s more than 360 million animals each year. I think it’s reasonable to suppose that, say, 50 million of those animals may provide quality fur. That’s a good portion of total world fur production today.

I believe accidental fur can attract a whole new generation of fur lovers, because it makes so much environmental and ethical sense to not waste this wonderful material. 

TaF: So do you see opportunities for growth in the North American fur trade?

PP: I do, because our society is beginning to understand that fur is a natural and biodegradable material. Synthetics are not. We are choking the world with plastics, and we have to change. Our challenge as an industry is to show that we are not only sustainable, but also compassionate and respectful of the animals we work with. Certainly, with Millennials having more pets than babies, it's a perspective we should be aware of. People feel fur and think of the animal now, so showing respect in sourcing helps them feel proud of their furs.

Attracting new customers will also help to raise prices – which is important, because no industry can be sustainable if producers cannot make a living. Now that I understand how much work is involved in producing a fur pelt, it frustrates me they can be sold for so little. I believe that Peace Fur can help to increase understanding and appreciation for fur and the fur industry.

And maybe there's a bit of destiny at play, because there is a rich fur heritage in my family name: The House of Paquin was a fashion design and marketing powerhouse in Paris, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Jeanne Paquin was a courageous innovator and the first major female couturier. I like to think that I am also an innovator who can help the North American fur industry grow and thrive for the next century. The fur is already quite literally at our feet.

SEE ALSO: Roadkill salvage: When to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. By Furbearer Conservation.

***

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

Most of our TruthAboutFur blog posts discuss the environmental and ethical implications of fur production, because critics of the industry have focused on trapping and farming. But the fortunes of the fur trade also depend on a wide range of fast-changing business and marketing issues. Today we explore one of the most important of these “downstream” challenges: selling fur at retail.

We hear lots about how quickly retail is evolving, especially with the game-changing explosion of social media and on-line sales, but most fur purchases still involve the personal interaction of a consumer with a bricks-and-mortar retailer. And while the “service business” (remodeling, repairs, cleaning and storage) is important for most fur retail operations, on-going success still depends upon selling new products.

But, while many retail furriers have invested considerable time and money to modernize their stores, very few have paid much attention to refining their own skills in the subtle art and science of selling.

Most furriers are very qualified to evaluate the quality of the products they sell, and many are skilled fur artisans in their own right, capable of repairing, remodeling or even creating a full fur garment in their back-store workshops. These skills were learned from experienced master furriers - usually a parent or relative, sometimes a former employer - and this training was treated very seriously. But selling was usually taken for granted as just something one did, and for many years that was good enough. No longer.

In today’s difficult market, it’s important to make the most of every sales opportunity; every person who walks in the door is a potential customer. (We will discuss ways to attract more consumers into the store in future article.) So how can we improve our selling skills, especially at a time when the normal challenges of fur retail have been complicated by animal-rights campaigning?

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss selling strategies with an accomplished retail furrier who, while he prefers to remain anonymous, was happy to share some of his tricks of the trade.

SEE ALSO: The future of fur retailing: New challenges, new strategies.

The Judo of Selling Fur

TruthAboutFur: Most fur shops now also sell shearling, leather, raincoats, cashmere, and other products. A wider product selection brings new customers into the store but does not always translate into new fur sales. How do you deal with consumers who express concerns about buying fur?

Retailer: First, it’s important to understand three fundamental principles of human psychology:

1) Logic, reason, and education (or information) make us think. But it is emotions that make us act.

2) Never contradict a customer and never use the word “but”, because that means that you disagree with what they are saying.

3) It is very difficult to counter an opinion with logic. It is usually more effective to address opinion-based objections with emotions.

TaF: So how do you apply these principles to someone who expresses concerns about buying fur?

Retailer: This consumer is trying to communicate something. If you deny what they are communicating - for example, by saying they don’t have their facts straight - psychologists say you will probably only reinforce their objection. None of us likes being told what to think or do! It is much more effective to flip the context of their objection. This is very much like judo, where the opponent's strength is used against himself. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the first step is to acknowledge that you understand their concern - that you agree - in order to channel that objection to a more productive outcome.

TaF: Can you give us some concrete examples of how you would apply this philosophy to selling fur? For example, let’s say a customer comes into the shop looking for a shearling, but refuses to try on a lovely mink stroller you propose because, she says, her children are against fur.

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has a lot more to lose than fashion.

Retailer: Well, in that case, my first response would be: “It is very good that your children have their own opinions; you've clearly raised them to think for themselves. Now, do your children sometimes make choices you don’t agree with?” Silence. The customer will then usually chuckle and respond: “Well, yes ... of course.” At which point I will say: “So, surely you have the right to make your own choices too, then, even if the kids don’t always agree, right? Now, let’s  try this nice little jacket, just to see how you like it ...” More often than not, the customer will now agree to try on some furs, because you have confirmed her right to make her own decisions, rather than contradicting what she told you. It seems simple, but it makes all the difference.

TaF: Interesting indeed. So let’s try this again. How would you respond to a customer who says: “You just don’t see much fur in the streets nowadays.”

Retailer: My first response would be: “You’re right. Most of the furs we sell now are less conspicuous; fur can now be worn everywhere, for all sorts of activities. The styles we sell now are not what most people think of when we say ‘fur’. Let me show you what people are wearing today ..."  And you start with a nice plucked mink jacket.

TaF: Very nicely done. So how about a customer who says: “I’ve heard that many fashion brands have stopped selling fur. It is not really socially acceptable to wear fur these days."

SEE ALSO: The truth about "fur free" designer brands.

Retailer: I would answer: “I understand what you mean. Fashion companies are often changing direction, for all sorts of reasons. We saw the same thing in the early 1990s, but within a few years most designers had fur back in their collections, presented more creatively than ever -- that's when we started seeing more sheared furs and a wide range of new fur accessories. It's true that some companies tested the water with fake furs last year, but that sparked more serious discussion about the environmental impact of petroleum-based synthetics and fast-fashion, and now we can already see the industry preparing to change direction again. After all, fur is the most durable and recyclable natural clothing material you can choose. Lightweight, warm and comfortable too. Try this piece, for example ..."

TaF: Do you still see cases where it’s the husband who is discouraging his wife from buying fur?

Retailer: Not so much any more, times have changed. But when that happens, I ask the husband: "Sir, I understand that you want your wife to look and feel good, whatever she buys, right?" Normally he'll answer, "Yes, of course." So then I will validate his answer: "Because if she buys something she doesn't really like, she probably won't wear it much, will she? So what’s important is to buy something she really likes and will feel good wearing, right?" - a statement no modern husband can deny. And then I lock in his agreement with: "That's why you should go with this lovely fur jacket, if that’s what makes your lady feel good, don’t you think?"

TaF: Let’s try one more. How do you handle a customer who asks if you will buy her old coat, because she doesn’t wear it anymore?

Retailer: Again, I will begin by agreeing with her: "I understand perfectly that you do not want to wear this coat as it is now, Madame. No one would want to wear it like this.” Confirming her opinion; then pivoting: “The good news is that the fur itself is still in very good condition. You know, I could take this apart completely, clean the fur, and re-cut it into a young, contemporary style. Then you will have a lightweight, modern coat you can really enjoy ...” And you show her some examples of what can be done!

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

TaF: Thank you for this. I am sure that our readers will find your approach useful. Any last thoughts?

Retailer: At a time when fur retailing is under pressure from competing products and services - not to mention on-line sales - it is more important than ever to hone our selling techniques, to maximize the potential of every consumer who comes into our shops. I hope some of these tips help others, and it would be great if retailers reading this would send in their own experiences and techniques. By sharing ideas, we can all do  better!

* RETAILERS:  Share your own tips about selling techniques that you find effective, in the "Comments" section below, or send them to us at [email protected].

One of the most frustrating aspects of the current fur debate is the lack of any real facts or serious analysis in most media reports and public discussion.

For years, activists have circulated images of injured animals to support their claim that fur farming should be banned. This is the logical equivalent of showing photos of gruesome car crashes to argue for the elimination of motorized transport. But pictures speak louder than words - especially in a 164-character universe. So fur is often associated with animal cruelty, with little understanding or recognition of government regulations, industry standards, and all the scientific work that’s been done over the past 40 years to promote humane practices in the trade.

SEE ALSO: Calling PETA: US fur farming is strictly regulated.

More recently, anti-fur campaigning has spawned an even more simplistic “ethical” argument: we shouldn’t use animals for fur because we now have man-made textiles to keep us warm. Conversely, because no animals are killed (at least not directly) to make synthetics, faux is now frequently dubbed as “ethical fur”.

Vegans Say We're Evil

This line of thinking (or non-thinking) has been encouraged by the recent wave of militant veganism, promoting the notion that any use of animals is morally indefensible. According to this emerging vegan doctrine, if those of us who continue to consume meat and other animal products are not outright evil, we are certainly guilty of moral sloth for failing to recognize the impact of our actions.

This line of argument was evident in a recent opinion piece published in La Presse, Quebec’s most important daily newspaper. Teacher and children’s writer Annie Vintze acknowledged that fur is warm and beautiful, and that she herself once would have worn it without question. Recently, however, her adult daughter made her understand that wearing fur makes us “complicit in animal suffering”. If we’re not ready to kill our pet dogs and cats for fur, she asks, why is it okay to kill coyotes and foxes?

SEE ALSO: 5 reasons why wearing fur is not like wearing your pet.

Vintze counselled patience with those of us who have not yet seen the light. Rather than criticism, she suggests, fur wearers need gentle encouragement to reflect upon the evil of our ways. What was most striking about her 600-word condemnation of fur was the complete lack of interest in, or consideration of, the real ecological and animal-welfare contributions of the modern fur trade. That there are non-animal alternatives is assumed to be reason enough for rejecting fur.

In response, I sent the following letter to La Presse. It has not yet been published, but I thought some of the arguments might be useful next time you find yourself in a discussion about the ethics of fur.

SEE ALSO: Is it ethical to wear fur? from the website of Truth About Fur.

*  *  *

Fur – An Ethical Choice!

Response to "Manteaux de fourrure complices de la souffrance animale"

While acknowledging that fur is beautiful and part of our Quebec winter heritage, Annie Vintze argues that we should no longer wear it because we now have synthetic materials to keep us warm, materials that don’t involve the killing of animals.

A review of the facts, however, suggests that fur is still an ethical choice for those who care about protecting nature.

Fact: Many fur animal populations must be controlled even if we didn’t use fur. Coyotes that provide fur trim for our parkas are rapidly expanding their range and numbers across North America. They are the main predator of lambs and calves on farms, and are now attacking pets and even people in cities, a clear sign of overpopulation. Over-populated raccoons spread rabies; beavers flood property, roads and fields; muskrats undermine stream banks; and the list goes on.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap, from the website of Truth About Fur.

Fact: We have changed the natural environment in many ways, so now we must take responsibility for maintaining a balance between wildlife and available habitat. Keeping wildlife populations within the limits their habitat can support helps to ensure more stable and healthy wildlife populations. But if we have to kill some animals, surely it is more ethical to use their fur than to waste it?

Fact: Most wild species produce more young than their habitat can support to maturity. Trapping is strictly regulated to ensure that we use only part of this natural surplus. This is an excellent example of “the sustainable use of nature”, a central conservation principle promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Fact: Canada is the world leader in research to develop humane trapping methods, work that provided the scientific basis for the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS).

SEE ALSO: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping.

Fact: Fur is now also produced on family-run farms. Farmed mink and foxes are fed left-overs from our own food production, the parts of chicken, pigs, and fish that we don’t eat. The animals’ manure, soiled straw bedding, and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers to restore the soil - completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

Fact: Farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care; this is the only way to produce the high quality of fur for which North America is known.

Most important from a consumer perspective, fur is remarkably warm, durable and long-lasting. Unlike most clothing, a fur coat can be restyled as fashions change. And fur is biodegradable: after decades of use, you can throw it into the garden compost.

By contrast, the synthetics proposed by animal activists are generally made from petroleum, a non-renewable, highly polluting, and non-biodegradable material. Recent research is revealing that these synthetics leach micro-particles of plastic every time they are washed - plastic that passes into our waterways and marine life, and is now even being found in bottled water.

Some people, of course, choose not to use any animal products, even for food. This is a matter of personal choice that we all can respect.

But for the 95% of Canadians who eat meat and believe that humans do have a right to use animals - so long as this is done responsibly and sustainably - fur is not only warm and beautiful, it is also a responsible and ethical clothing choice.

When animal activists pressure designers to stop using fur in their collections, or politicians to ban the sale of fur products in their cities, we rarely consider what society would lose if we turn our backs on fur.

Activists claim that fur is a frivolous luxury; that no one needs to wear fur anymore. But fur is a natural, sustainable and responsible clothing material. And we will lose a lot more if activists are successful in vilifying fur.

Let’s take a look at what we lose as a society if we allow animal activists to dictate the discussion about fur:

1. Fur Craftsmanship – a Remarkable Heritage

This issue is close to my heart because my paternal grandfather was trained as a furrier by his father, in Paris, before coming to Montreal as a young man, in 1913. My own father also worked his whole life in the trade. So I am saddened that there is so little recognition or respect for this remarkable heritage industry. In this age of impersonal mass-production, fur is one of the few clothing materials that are still hand-crafted, by skilled artisans. Specialized knowledge and skills are needed to select, cut, sew, and assemble fur pelts to produce a beautiful garment or accessory. These skills have been maintained and perfected through centuries, passed down from parents to their children.

When I bring someone into a fur atelier, even people with experience in the apparel industry cannot believe that anyone is still doing this sort of meticulous hand-work. Fur craftsmanship is a wonderful example of the sort of authenticity many hipsters and others are seeking today. Fur apparel and accessories represent the marriage of human creativity with the beauty of natural materials.

The fur artisan’s skills and knowledge are part of our cultural history and heritage; they should be valued and protected - like world heritage sites and endangered species - not vilified, especially at a time when such handicrafts have become so rare. Like the wanton destruction by the Taliban of giant Buddhas carved into the mountainside at Bamiyan, in Afghanistan, or the burning of ancient libraries in Timbuktu by Islamic insurgents, the misguided scapegoating of centuries-old fur skills shows a complete lack of understanding and respect for our cultural heritage and the diversity of human experience.

2. Fur Trappers – True Stewards of the Land

If ever you’re in a plane that crashes into the northern wilderness, you’d better hope there’s a fur trapper aboard, someone with the skills and experience to provide food and keep the rest of you alive. We all care about nature, but most of us now live in cities and depend completely on complex distribution systems for our needs. Trappers are among the few who still go into the bush, alone, with only their knowledge of the land and animals to maintain themselves. Trappers are, in fact, our eyes and ears on the land; they are the ones who can sound the alarm when nature is threatened by industrial pollution or poorly planned development. It is trappers who inform logging companies about the location of eagle nests and other important habitat, so they can be protected. It is trappers who call in government wildlife biologists when they spot problems. At a time when we claim to care about protecting nature, we should respect the skills and knowledge of those who still live close to the land.

SEE ALSO: Trapping and sustainability.

First Nations and other trappers do not need lessons about respecting nature from urban activists! But activists have easy access to city-based journalists, and have mastered all the tricks to attract media attention. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk says, “We’re media sluts; we didn’t invent the game, we just learned how to play it!” With hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from well-meaning urban supporters, this flourishing new protest industry has painted trappers as exploiters or enemies of nature, a complete falsehood. In fact, the well-regulated modern fur trade is an excellent example of sustainable-use principles promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

In simple terms, trappers take part of the surplus that nature produces every year. Only abundant furbearers are used, never endangered species. By taking part of the natural surplus, trappers help to smooth out population “boom and bust” cycles, maintaining more stable and healthy furbearer populations. Unfortunately, trappers live far from the media centres, and their voices - the voices of the true guardians of nature - are rarely heard.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap.

3. Fur Farmers – Supporting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities

Thanks to more efficient practices, farmers now represent barely 2% of the North American population, compared with about 33% in 1900 - a demographic shift that poses challenges for the viability of rural communities and services. Fur farms provide needed employment, especially because mink and foxes can be raised on small parcels of land, and in regions where the soil is too poor or the weather too harsh for most other forms of agriculture.

Farm-raised mink and foxes are fed left-overs from other animal production, the parts of chickens, pigs, fish and other food animals that humans don’t eat. The manure, soiled straw bedding, and carcasses of the fur animals are composted to produce high-quality natural fertilizer to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

The farm-raising of fur-bearing animals, which began in North America more than 120 years ago, also provides an efficient safety valve to reduce pressure on wild populations. And with careful selective breeding and excellent care, North American fur farmers have developed a remarkable range of natural colour ranges in mink and fox, reducing the need for the dyes needed with most textiles. Not least important from a social perspective, most fur-bearing animals are raised on family-run farms.

Natural, Renewable, Recyclable, Long-Lasting, Biodegradable

Fur craftspeople, trappers and farmers – together with fur buyers, processors, and a range of other specialized workers – maintain skills and knowledge that are part of our cultural heritage.

None of that would matter, of course, if animal species were being endangered or abused. But the modern fur trade is now conducted responsibly and sustainably. Trapping is strictly regulated by state and provincial wildlife departments, to ensure that only abundant furs are used, never endangered species.

North America is also the world leader in humane trapping research and development – work that provided the scientific basis for ISO standards, best practices, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Mink and fox farmers follow codes of practice to ensure excellent nutrition and care for their animals; this is the only way to provide the high-quality fur for which North America is known internationally.

SEE ALSO: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping.

Above all, fur is a natural, renewable, recyclable, long-lasting and ultimately biodegradable clothing material. After many decades of use, a fur garment or accessory can be thrown into your garden compost where it will return to the soil. By contrast, fake furs and other synthetic materials promoted by animal activists are generally made from petroleum, and are not biodegradable.

Simply put, most synthetics are another form of plastic bag. Troubling new research is revealing that these synthetics leach micro-particles of plastic every time they are washed - tiny plastic particles that are now being found in marine life and even in bottled water. Such synthetics may not be expensive to purchase, but they are very costly for nature and wildlife.

A sustainably produced, long-lasting and biodegradable natural clothing material. A rich heritage of increasingly rare craft skills. Support for rural and remote communities, and the responsible use and conservation of nature. The more closely we look, the more we understand how much we have to lose if we allow misinformed “animal rights” campaigns to turn designers, consumers and political leaders against North America’s founding industry.

***

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