Last week in Cleveland, animal-rights activist Meredith Lowell, 35, stabbed another woman three times, allegedly for no other reason than that she was wearing fur boots. Mercifully the victim survived, while Lowell has been charged with attempted murder.

It's impossible to say at this point how Lowell justified this act of extreme aggression, but before I get accused of making excuses for her, let's get one thing straight: there can be no excuses. Unless, of course, she's found to be insane. The buck stops with her, and she must now face the consequences of her actions.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Police: Ohio woman stabbed another in belief she was wearing fur. Associated Press, Nov. 22, 2019.

That said, we all know that advocates for causes can commit extreme acts that they wouldn't even consider if there weren't others egging them on.

At one time, attacking abortion doctors was a trend in the US, and presumably each new attacker felt more emboldened knowing that others had gone before them. In the 1990s, when fear of secondhand smoke was bordering on hysterical, a Japanese youth shoved an old man under a train for smoking on a station platform, killing him. I'm sure there are many similar stories.

Obviously the kind of people who commit these acts feel very strongly, at least in the heat of the moment, that their aggression is justified. And perhaps they even developed their convictions independently of any outside influence. More often than not, though, they are inspired to act by the propaganda of lobby groups that fuels their nascent beliefs.

Which raises the question: is society doing enough to silence groups that incite others to violence? Yes and no. There is already a slew of legislation to combat hate crimes based on race, religion and sexual orientation. But other inciters of violence are slipping under the radar, including extreme animal rights groups. Nothing is being done to mute their often hateful rhetoric - rhetoric that may have turned Meredith Lowell into a would-be killer.

SEE ALSO: It's time to say "no" to anti-fur hate groups.

A Picture Paints a Thousand Words

The Internet is now awash with animal rights propaganda depicting animal users as evil incarnate. "Meat is murder!" they cry. But this picture above, from the 2003 PETA campaign "Your mommy kills animals!" says it all.

Aimed specifically at teenagers, what effect did PETA think this comic-book campaign would have? Could Meredith Lowell, who was then about 19, have seen it? If not, there were, and still are, plenty of other materials she probably saw.

The message, of course, is brutally clear. It tells children that if their mommy wears fur, she is a bloodthirsty psycho who derives pleasure from killing animals in the most gruesome manner possible. It then asks children to confront their mommies with their blood-curdling acts of barbarism.

For lucky parents, of course, this might turn into an important teaching moment - an opportunity to inform their children that groups like PETA are full of it and mommy knows best. Or it could go very badly.

It's certainly not hard to imagine that Meredith Lowell was exposed to this kind of vicious propaganda, and that this provided her feeble mind with justification for stabbing a woman three times for wearing fur.

Yes, it is Meredith Lowell who stands charged with attempted murder, and she alone must now face the music. But perhaps part of the blame also rests with the animal rights movement for making her think she did the right thing.

UPDATE: Woman found not guilty by reason of insanity in Cleveland Heights church stabbing over faux-fur boots. Cleveland.com, Feb. 25, 2020.

***

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

Differences of opinion, and the debates they spawn in search of amicable solutions, are crucial to the functioning and evolution of democratic society. But even the healthiest of democracies can't please all of the people all of the time, so we aspire to keep the majority as happy as possible while defending the rights of minorities to follow different paths. This approach breaks down, however, when a minority refuses to accept the will of the majority. Such is the quandary Western society faces today in dealing with animal rightists.

Though far fewer of us now work directly with animals than in the past, almost all of us still eat and wear animal products, and benefit from medicines and medical procedures tested on animals, to name just three of the most important ways in which animals benefit humans. But animal rightists want all of these banned, while some even oppose non-lethal uses, like pets and seeing-eye dogs. Can a path of peaceful coexistence be found? Or will we be forever locking horns?

Essential Freedoms

Two essential freedoms are at play here, freedom of speech and freedom of choice, with the latter being a manifestation of the former. Freedom of speech enables us to express our views, while freedom of choice enables us to act on them. The problem is that while the animal rights movement embraces its own right to freedom of speech, it rejects the right of others to freedom of choice.

In fact, animal rightists push their freedom of speech to the legal limit and beyond, denouncing animal users as "murderers" and "torturers". In so doing, they regularly make statements that any court would find slanderous or libelous if animal users had the time and money to file suit.

What they refuse to accept is the freedom of choice of others, a vital freedom in any functioning democracy that is easy to understand and should be easy to apply. In short, we are free to do whatever we want, provided it is legal. It doesn't mean we have to like the things some people do, just as they don't have to like the things we do.

Thus, for decades now, animal users have been saying to animal rightists: "If you choose not to eat meat, fine. If you choose not to wear leather or fur, fine. If you choose not to save your life' with medicines tested on animals, fine. But please respect our freedom to choose for ourselves."

But this simple and democratic way to avoid conflict is soundly rejected.

"Meat Is Murder"

So why is the animal rights movement so opposed to freedom of choice? In general terms, it's because the movement's moral code differs from that of most people. That's why it is often likened to a religion, since religions tend to have moral codes that are somewhat unique. It has also been likened to an intolerant religion, whose mission it is to convert non-believers.

More specifically, it's because the animal rights philosophy teaches that the intentional killing of an animal by a human is murder. Murder is a universal taboo (except for the obvious difference that most people think it refers only to humans killing humans), so we can all appreciate to some degree why animal rightists refuse to compromise on this one. Morally speaking, numbers are not the issue, since murdering one human (or animal) is no more defensible than murdering 1,000. And there are no half measures. You can't partially kill an animal, and even if you kill it humanely, it's still dead.

Activists for most other causes can be pragmatic, and are open to improvements wherever they can be found. For example, environmental activists don't demand that we quit driving, just that we drive less or switch to electric cars. They ask us to use less plastic, not stop using it altogether. And they don't ask us to sit in darkness, just to use more energy-efficient light bulbs.

But animal rights activists don't have this luxury. If Americans were to reduce the number of chickens they "murder" each year from 9 billion to just one, that would still be one too many.

Creating Conflict

Given that animal rightists see no room to negotiate with animal users, and outright reject their freedom of choice, they have opted instead to focus on creating conflict. For example, animal rights groups pioneered an anti-social tactic (now dubbed "naming and shaming") based on a simple formula: find someone doing something you don't like, take photos or video, then publicly shame the person into changing their ways.

This tactic is not intrinsically bad. Sometimes a situation may seem so desperate that naming and shaming can feel like the only course of action left. Witness the huge outpouring of support for Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager (born 2003) now blaming every adult on Earth for a climate crisis that her generation will pay for. You may not agree with her, but if you're worried about leaving the fate of the planet in the hands of politicians and big business, you understand why she's doing it.

But shaming people to bow to your will, or forcing them to do so by legal means, should only be encouraged as a last resort. Why? Because it creates ill will, even hatred, and irreparable divisions.

To cite one of countless examples, California lawmakers have just passed bans on all commercial and recreational trapping and the manufacturing and selling of fur products. It is no secret that they were driven to do so by the animal rights lobby, who shamelessly fed lawmakers every lie and half-truth they could dream up to win their case. But when the dust settles, things will not just return to normal, with everyone getting along in a spirit of civic harmony. Quite the opposite. While the victorious animal rights lobby steamrolls on to its next target, trappers, furriers, freedom-of-choice advocates, and a host of other sympathisers, will forever remember how livelihoods and traditions were destroyed to satisfy the demands of a few. The animal rights movement may have "saved" a few animals, but it has surely gained thousands of new enemies in the process.

Rise of Veganism

So what's to be done? Can animal rightists be persuaded to become "team players", working together with animal users in pursuit of a more harmonious society?

Right now, the answer is probably no. In North America at least, there are more supporters of animal rights now than ever before, though presumably few of the new converts signed up for a life on the road, donning balaclavas by night to steal farm animals or ransack research labs.

Most probably came to animal rights after adopting a vegan lifestyle for a variety of reasons, typically some vague notion of health benefits or saving the planet. They then learned along the way that the philosophy behind animal rights and veganism is essentially the same. Now that veganism is better understood, all new converts have probably at least questioned the morality of killing animals, while so-called "militant vegans" are synonymous with animal rights activists.

Whatever the case, organisations of any type - be they a business, a religion, or a knitting circle - are less open to change when the numbers are up.

But here's the rub. Although vegans are now a common sight in major cities and on college campuses, it seems highly unlikely they will ever constitute more than a small percentage of the overall population. It's not easy to gather reliable data on eating habits, but according to a recent assessment of multiple surveys, self-identifying vegans now account for between 1% and 2% of the US population. In other words, if they hope to convert us all to their way of life, they're facing an impossible task.

Animal rightists-cum-vegans thus face a choice. Will they settle for sowing conflict and division until the end of time? Or will they find a way to co-exist peacefully with others?

Moving Forward

If I had the opportunity for a one-on-one with Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and grande dame of the animal rights movement, I would begin by stating the following truths. (i) Most people will never agree with PETA's views on animal use, so you are fighting a lost cause. (ii) PETA is all about being negative, insulting people at every turn and never saying anything nice. All stick and no carrot. (iii) While PETA is undeniably a master at grabbing headlines, most people are sick to death of reading them.

Given this negative scorecard, I would then suggest that the animal rights movement change tack. Here are some specific actions it could take today to help it become a useful participant in the democratic process.

• Above all, show integrity. Following are some examples of how.

• Don't tell lies, don't fabricate evidence, and if someone sends you alleged evidence of animal cruelty, ensure it is real before publishing it.

• If you find you have inadvertently published false information, don't pretend you don't know. Remove it immediately, and maybe even issue a public apology.

• If you obtain evidence of animal cruelty, don't sit on it waiting for the best time to use it for fundraising. Share it with authorities at once so they can investigate.

• When publishing video of animal cruelty, make unedited footage available as well, with audio, to allay suspicions that it has been edited to create a false impression, or even worse, has been staged.

• Don't engage in, or condone, illegal activities like releasing animals from farms or vandalism.

• Don't expose children to shocking images. The next time you hold a street demo, ditch the photos of animal cruelty and hand out samples of vegan cooking instead.

• If you must target stores, do so at a distance, and never harass customers, scrawl graffiti, scream abuse, superglue locks, or take your demo inside the store. In case you haven't realised it yet, everyone hates you when you take your demos indoors.

• Don't bombard people on social media with hateful messages, and never, ever send death threats.

• Put animal rights on the back burner, and pursue improvements in animal welfare instead. They may not be entirely on message for your group, but they're achievable, and if you're up front about your intentions, you'll have broad support. But don't be dishonest and push for higher animal welfare standards as a ruse to drive animal users out of business.

And if you're up for making these much-needed changes, try thinking outside the box to come up with campaigns that respect freedom of choice, and may even turn enemies into friends. Call me a hippy, but how about hosting vegan food-tasting events, and extending friendly invites to your local ranchers and hunters? Or go the whole hog and invite them to set up their BBQs too, then have a contest. Or organise vegan fashion shows but invite designers using real leather and fur too, then let the audience choose which they prefer.

Democracy is about building bridges, but all you're currently doing is burning them. Are you ready to change?

***

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

Conventional wisdom is clear on why, since time immemorial, wolverine fur has been the preferred material for hood trim in the High North. In essence, the thick, dark, oily fur is hydrophobic, which means it repels water, and thus prevents the build-up of frost caused by condensation of the wearer's breath. The only problem is, none of this is true.

While everyone agrees that wolverine fur makes the finest lining for parka hoods in sub-zero conditions, experts still don't have a clear understanding why. But they do know that it's not hydrophobic, it doesn't repel water, and, given the chance, it allows frost to build up just like any other fur.

Before we dispel the myths surrounding wolverine fur, here's some background. Wolverine fur is generally considered too long and the leather too heavy for use as whole coats. Instead, it is revered as trim for hoods by the Indigenous people of the Arctic and sub-Arctic, in preference to the more readily available (and therefore cheaper) wolf and coyote. But it's not entirely about functionality. Sometimes a strip of wolverine fur is placed next to the wearer's face, then surrounded with the long, silvery mane of a wolf, creating the famed "sunburst" ruff. The effectiveness of these ruffs in keeping the wearer warm has been scientifically proven, but they can also be spectacularly beautiful, so they're also worn for show!

SEE ALSO: Why fur trim keeps us warm. Truth About Fur.

What Is Hydrophobicity?

So where do the myths about wolverine fur originate? Let's start with that confusing word "hydrophobic". It probably doesn't mean quite what you think it does, or even what your dictionary says.

When we talk of phobias (from the Greek phóbos, meaning "aversion", "fear" or "morbid fear"), we think of being repulsed by something. Hence the word "hydrophobia" was historically used as a synonym for rabies because sufferers often fear water (and liquids in general). From this, scientists came to use the word "hydrophobicity" to describe the behaviour of certain surfaces in the presence of liquids. Then, for whatever reason (laziness, misunderstanding, or lack of a better word?), dictionaries decided to use "repel" in their definitions. The Free Dictionary, for example, defines hydrophobicity as "the property of repelling water rather than absorbing it or dissolving in it."

Strictly speaking though, hydrophobic surfaces don't repel water at all. Two magnets of the same polarity, for example, repel each other, but hydrophobic surfaces don't repel water; they simply don't attract it. So even if wolverine fur were hydrophobic (which, as we'll see, it isn't), it would be wrong to say it repels water.

Many examples of hydrophobic surfaces exist in nature, all highly unattractive to water but not repelling it per se. Perhaps the best-known is the leaf of the lotus flower, after which the "lotus effect" is named. These leaves, and those of other plants like nasturtiums and prickly pears, use hydrophobicity to keep clean. Rain drops gather dirt while the surface architecture minimizes their adhesion to the surface itself. The same phenomenon is seen in the wings of insects like butterflies and dragonflies. Meanwhile, insects that live on water, like water striders, or spend most of their lives under it, achieve hydrophobicity through tiny hairs that make them virtually unwettable. Then there are penguins. One reason penguins excel at swimming is a layer of trapped air that coats them. Aside from providing insulation, this air reduces drag when swimming, and they can release it to accelerate when jumping out of water to land.

"Frost-Shedding"

So how about the claim that wolverine fur prevents the formation of frost or ice from the wearer's breath? Again, it's a convenient explanation, but not actually true.

Research on the efficacy of fur trim was ramped up during World War II, when thousands of military garments made use of it, notably wolf and coyote. Writing in 1952 for the Journal of Mammalogy, Rollin H. Baker found wolverine out-performed both these furs, but not because frost didn't form on it. On the contrary, it did. It was what the wearer did next that mattered.

On the performance of wolf and coyote, he wrote: "As long as the fur trim can be kept dry, it functions quite well. However, once rime or frost has accumulated on wolf and coyote fur trim it cannot be brushed or shaken off. Therefore, in order to remove the rime, the garment must be warmed to the point where the rime either sublimates or passes through a liquid stage before it is evaporated. When air temperatures are low enough to cause direct freezing of the breath on the fur trim of garments, thawing caused by warm air currents from the body wets the fur. It thus becomes very uncomfortable to the wearer and also loses its ventilating quality."

All of which sounds thoroughly miserable, particularly if that thawed frost turns into the last thing you want on your hood trim: clumps of ice - icicles even - drawing heat away, disrupting air flow, and dragging your hood down with the sheer weight. (For an idea of how bad things can get, just Google "ice beard".)

So how did wolverine fur compare?

"Here is the point of difference between wolverine fur and most other furs," wrote Baker. "Frost or rime actually will form on wolverine fur at sub-zero temperatures, but it can be readily brushed off with a simple flick of the mitten and thus the fur can be kept dry. If the rime is not brushed off, the fur will become wet and uncomfortable, just as other furs do."

In other words, the myth that wolverine fur prevents the build-up of frost is wrong. Frost forms on wolverine fur just like on any other fur. What sets it apart is what Baker called its "frost-shedding quality" - the ease with which it can be brushed off.

So Is It Hydrophobic?

In case you think all this talk of repulsion versus non-attraction, and frost-prevention versus frost-shedding, is splitting hairs, let's now address the elephant in the room. Is wolverine fur hydrophobic or not?

Scientists are extremely interested in hydrophobicity for a whole range of possible applications in things like aircraft, road and power-line maintenance, building construction, energy efficiency in cooling devices, car windshields, and protection of crops. So in 2012 Boris Pavlin, then at Carinthia University of Applied Sciences in Austria, subjected wolverine fur to a whole gamut of tests to see why it's so effective at "frost formation suppression".

Pavlin's test for hydrophobicity was simply to photograph the contact angle between droplets of water at various locations on a wolverine hair (see photos above). Clearly, there is no comparison between these images and the lotus leaf we saw earlier, and Pavlin's conclusion was unequivocal: "the surface was NOT hydrophobic" (emphasis not added).

Then How Does Wolverine Fur Work?

Sadly, there is still no clear understanding of why wolverine fur is so effective - or, to be precise, why it's so easy to brush frost off before it becomes a problem. But it seems certain that when an answer is found, it won't point to one factor alone.

One proposal is that wolverine guard hairs are uncommonly smooth, with no tiny barbs to stop frost from falling off. Using a scanning electron microscope, Pavlin confirmed that the middle parts of wolverine guard hairs are indeed smooth. The tips, however, showed a "very interesting pattern" of barbs.

He also tried freezing hair tips and testing for any abnormal surface electrical charge that might influence frost or ice formation, but found none (though he thought this should be revisited with optimal testing equipment). There were also no chemical substances on the hairs' surface. And in one test which seems unrelated to the purpose of his research but may prove useful to someone, he found the tensile strength of wolverine hairs to be remarkable as he could stretch them by more than 20%! But no silver bullet to explain everything.

"Many different strategies contribute to easy frost removal," he concluded, adding that "some questions remain unresolved and should be subject of further research." But he did at least come up with one definitive finding, which he states cryptically as: "A non-hydrophobic surface is superior to other existing approaches - a proof that the most obvious solution doesn't need to be the right one." In short, while it might seem obvious that wolverine fur is hydrophobic, it's not.

***

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

A recent trip to the United Kingdom allowed me to conduct some unscientific research on common preconceptions about this damp and chilly nation. Are the natives really as fixated on Brexit as media reports suggest? Is opposition to fur as strong as we're told? And is veganism truly sweeping the land?

The UK is the spiritual home of the animal rights movement, so it’s not surprising that it also hosts some determined anti-fur campaigners. In 2000, England was the first country to prohibit fur farming (largely symbolic because there were so few farms), and now activists want to ban all fur imports. To this outside observer, the future of fur in the UK was looking grim before my recent visit. Now, I’m a little more optimistic.

OK, I’m not strictly an outsider. I’m English. But I’ve spent almost no time there for 20 years, so a month-long stay over Christmas gave me the chance to see whether my preconceptions based on media reports and hearsay matched reality.

As my plane touched down at London Heathrow on a dark and foreboding 4°C evening, my main preconceptions, of course, concerned Brexit. Did people really talk about nothing else? And, more to the point, was it fair to say that mere mortals could make no sense of this complex mess?

In close second place was my preconception about the likelihood of some sort of fur import ban. A campaign to this end got a lot of media coverage last summer, buoyed by a bevy of celebrities and stories of fur-vendors and wearers being harassed on Instagram. The Conservative government nixed the idea of a ban, but the main opposition party, Labour, was unsurprisingly more receptive, and with the political scene in turmoil (Brexit, again!) who knows what could happen?

My third preconception was that all the stories I’d been reading about veganism sweeping the UK must be exaggerated. Omnivores like myself tend to believe that veganism can never become a major trend, but what if we’re wrong? Ethical vegans (as opposed to the dietary variety who just think veganism is healthy) tend to share animal rights beliefs, so if vegan numbers were really swelling, the UK might become less fur-friendly than ever.

It was time for some first-hand observations.

Fur-Trimmed Parkas Everywhere

My first objective was to see for myself how much fur was on the street.

This totally informal survey took in two quite different areas: London’s West End, with all its foreign and often well-heeled tourists, and a sampling of towns and villages across the county of Kent. From growing up in the region, I expected to see a smattering of mink and fox jackets in London, but very little in the way of full-fur garments elsewhere. And I was right. The southeast of England has never been a big fur market.

But here’s the news! Everywhere I turned, from London’s ritzy Piccadilly Circus to the tiny village of Downe, Kent, where my parents live, fur-trimmed parka hoods were everywhere. Trendy folk were wearing them, but so too were school kids, pensioners with grocery bags, and tough guys with workman boots. In an impromptu high-street survey in the coastal town of Folkestone, I estimated half of all Christmas shoppers were wearing them.

So you’re asking were they real or fake, and yes, the majority looked cheap and ill-kempt, and were almost certainly plastic. But as many as one in 20 looked spectacular, meaning top-notch fakes or real, and at least one in 50 was bona fide coyote. I don’t think that’s insignificant, especially in England at a time when animal activists are constantly claiming that real fur is taboo. They're wrong.

I saw no disapproving looks from passers-by at those sporting coyote, and I don’t believe that’s because anyone thought they were fakes. It’s not that hard to spot a real coyote ruff, particularly when it’s accompanied by a helpful Canada Goose logo. Rather, I imagined the wearers of cheap fakes were admiring the real McCoy enviously, wishing they could afford one of their own.

I don’t know whether this boom in fur-trimmed parkas will open the door to other furs (and shut down talk of fur bans for good), but it is clear that the look of fur - both fake and real - is now hugely popular and widely accepted in the UK. It was certainly a surprise that media reports had not prepared me for.

Fashionable Vegans

Gauging the popularity of veganism was another kettle of fish (to use a phrase PETA would rather we didn't). I just kept my eyes and ears open, and didn't have long to wait.

Whenever I go home, one of my first stops is my local pub, the George & Dragon, for a pint of bitter, a comforting reminder that no matter where in the world I pitch my tent I will always be English. Imagine my surprise, then, when I asked for a bite to eat and was offered the option of a vegetarian menu! I literally squawked and threw up my hands as if the barman had offered me a virus.

No, I don’t live under a stone and have even seen vegetarian menus in trendy eateries, but a good English pub is never trendy – or so I thought.

I soon learned that British diners are now thoroughly coddled when it comes to their dietary quirks. Many restaurants, stores and, yes, even pubs offer gluten-free vegetarian and vegan options, and a meat substitute called Quorn is all the rage. My own sister served Quorn “meatloaf” on Boxing Day, which I viewed with the same curiosity I normally reserve for unrecognizable roadkill.

For an expert’s analysis, I sat down with my old friend and sheep farmer Lizzie, who, virtue of two teenage daughters, has a finger on the pulse of all things trendy. When she informed me we were now in the month of Veganuary, I knew I was in for an eye-opener.

“Veganism has become terribly fashionable, for many of the wrong reasons,” she said. "The supermarkets have jumped on the band wagon and vegan food is everywhere - actually at the expense of vegetarian food.”

"People are increasingly being told about the damaging environmental effects of livestock production, and they believe that by becoming vegan they are helping to save the planet. But they are unaware that by rejecting meat and dairy products, their dietary fats now come from sources which contribute to the destruction of rainforests. 70% of UK farmland is under grass for very good reasons - agronomic and environmental. We are extremely well-placed in the UK to produce beef and lamb in a sustainable way."

So are all these vegans also animal rights activists, or at least sympathetic to the cause?

“There are a fair number of ethical vegans here, but only a few of them are animal activists. Most long-term vegans are calm and peaceful - they don't have the energy to be anything else. However, many of the new trendy vegans don't really care all that much about animals. It’s more to do with fashion, perceived health benefits, and their own woolly thinking born of a total disconnect with the whole concept of food production.”

And just to prove that Brits can’t stay off the subject of Brexit, she adds: “The one good thing that could have come out of Brexit would be leaving the Common Agricultural Policy. Sadly, we're going to bugger that up along with the rest of it. I'll be interested to see how long it takes these misinformed vegans to revert to meat-eaters once the food shortages kick in. I can't see them living on swede, a few stored potatoes and apples until the summer.”

Unscientific Conclusions

In North America, it is not uncommon for people to write off the British as a bunch of animal-rights fanatics. But, as in all things, we should be cautious about making generalizations about entire cultures, especially when our only sources of information are the media.

With that in mind, I now offer these unscientific conclusions from my recent month of field work.

First, and for me the most fascinating, most Brits don’t seem to hate fur at all, at least not fur-trimmed parkas. This suggests the future of fur in the UK may not be so bleak after all, especially if new products can be developed and marketed that cater to emerging trends and lifestyles.

Second, the overwhelming majority of Brits are still omnivores, but the rise of veganism is very real. However, this may just be a passing phase, and there’s no reason yet to assume that today’s trendy vegans will become tomorrow’s animal rights activists.

And last but most definitely not least, it’s true: just mention the word Brexit and everyone within ear-shot pulls their shoulders back, puffs out their chest, and delivers their 2 cents’ worth. They'll then admit they really don’t know what they’re talking about!

***

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

Though rarely seen these days, moleskin deserves a special mention in the history of the fur trade. This unique fur was once favoured by British high society, and at the height of its popularity gave value to a pest that was being trapped anyway, thereby satisfying a fundamental requirement of the ethical use of animals: minimisation of waste.

First some clarification: Moleskin, or mole skin, or mole fur, or simply mole, is the fur of moles, and where the fur trade is concerned, specifically the European mole (Talpia europaea). This may sound obvious, but a completely different fabric made of cotton is also called "moleskin", and is far more common these days.

Moles have never been a great fit for the fur trade because they're so small – an adult measures only 4.3 to 6.3 inches long. The tiny pelts are cut into rectangles and sewn together into plates which are almost always dyed because natural colours are so variable, making it difficult to find a large number of matching pelts. The most common colour is dark grey or "taupe" (French for mole), but light grey, tan, black and even white have all been observed.

These plates are - or at least were - then made into coats or trousers requiring 500 pelts or more, the lining of winter gloves (fur side in), and a very soft felt for premium top hats. (Cheaper hats used rabbit while everyday hats used American beaver.) Above all, though, moleskin has always been associated with the fronts of waistcoats.

If you're undaunted by the labour involved in working with such small pelts, the result is unlike any other fur. The hairs are very short and dense, encouraging comparisons to velvet, while the leather, though quite delicate, is extremely soft and supple. But what makes moleskin truly special is the nap. The hair of other furbearers grows pointing towards the tail, hence the expression "to rub someone the wrong way." Moleskin, however, reacts the same whichever way you rub it, an adaptation believed to facilitate reversing in tunnels.

Royal Connections

Historically, moleskin had a following wherever moles were hunted as pests, and particularly in the UK. From at least as early as the 18th century, every parish in England employed a molecatcher who supplemented his income by selling the pelts. (There was no money in the meat, however. Theologian William Buckland [1784 - 1856], who famously claimed to have eaten his way through the animal kingdom, described mole meat as "vile", rivalled only by bluebottle flies.)

The moleskin waistcoat was ubiquitous, and a tragic event reminds us that even moles were said to wear them! In 1702, King William III, better known as William of Orange, was out riding when his horse, Sorrel, tripped on a molehill and threw him. He broke his collarbone, developed pneumonia and died, prompting his Jacobite enemies in Scotland to toast “the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat."

But the most interesting period in the history of moleskin was in the early 20th century, and centred on another British royal, Queen Alexandra, wife of King Edward VII. Queen Alexandra was a fashion icon with enormous reach who set several trends among society ladies, like choker necklaces, high necklines, and "summer muffs". So great was her influence that some ladies even copied her "Alexandra limp", caused by a bout with rheumatic fever, by wearing shoes with different-sized heels.

Details are sketchy but the story goes that in 1901, as moles were creating havoc on Scottish farms, Queen Alexandra ordered a moleskin wrap. Whether the Queen simply fancied a bit of moleskin or was an enlightened wildlife manager depends on who's telling the story, but the result was a huge boon. Demand for moleskin went through the roof, and Scotland's pest problem was turned into a lucrative industry. During the period 1900 - 1913, the average annual supply of European and Asian moleskins was estimated at 1 million, and it increased thereafter. At the peak of moleskin's popularity, the US was importing over 4 million pelts a year from the UK.

Rise and Fall of Strychnine

After World War II the popularity of moleskin declined, perhaps in part because pelts were in short supply. Traditional molecatchers were being displaced by industrial pesticides, notably strychnine, which was first synthesised in 1954. But this poison was soon raising animal-welfare concerns and in 1963 it was banned in the UK for wildlife management. Moles, however, were exempted, and until recently dipping worms in strychnine was still the main method of managing moles on British farms. And because strychnine kills moles underground and unseen, supplies of pelts inevitably fell.

But now the tables have turned and traditional molecatchers are making a comeback.

At the dawn of the millennium strychnine was already in short supply, and in 2001 the UK suffered an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. In a bid to stop the disease spreading, public rights of way across land were closed and molecatchers were banned from entering farms. Within a short time there was a mole population explosion to an estimated 40 million. Then in 2006, the European Union ruled that strychnine could no longer be used as a mole poison and the stage was set for the return of traditional molecatchers.

In short order, three organisations sprung up claiming memberships in the hundreds - the British Traditional Molecatchers Register, the Guild of British Molecatchers, and the Association of Professional Mole Catchers. (It's another story for another day, but all three are now engaged in a bitter turf war - pun intended - in the guise of arguing how to kill moles humanely.)

Moleskin Revival?

The UK has always been the spiritual home of moleskin fashion, a position cemented by its most illustrious endorser, Queen Alexandra. Two factors are against it making a comeback anytime soon though: animal rights activism (for which the UK is also the spiritual home), and the cost of labour involved in working with such small pelts.

That said, if another royal influencer could be persuaded to don a new moleskin cap, who knows where it might lead? If I represented an organisation with a high-fallutin' name like the British Guild of Honourable Molecatchers, I'd get one off to Kate Middleton right away. Not only does she wear fur, but  she's also a strong bet to be a future queen.

***

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

Part of modern life in Western societies involves dealing with a handful of people who believe they can tell the rest of us how to live. They call themselves “advocates” if they man a desk or "activists" if they like shouting at people, while the rest of us call them "bullies" or worse. They are more influential now than ever before, empowered by the reach of social media and unprecedented access to spineless politicians and lazy journalists. Against this backdrop, the state of siege by animal rights advocates against the fur trade has reached a critical point.

So how does the future of fur look? Following are some of my personal musings, but we'd be interested in hearing what your crystal ball shows.

Fur Farming Bans

Let’s start with an overview of some frustrating setbacks the fur trade has suffered in recent years, and as we do so, picture a bunch of rolling snowballs that start small and just grow and grow.

The first snowball was fur farming bans. It started rolling in 2000 when fur farming was banned in England and Wales. Since then, other European countries have followed suit, or will phase in bans in the near future.

These bans have harmed the fur trade not because they've disrupted production (no major producer has yet stopped fur farming), but because they've provided support for activist claims and fuelled the public perception that something about fur must be bad. Generally speaking, only bad things are banned, right? And this lays the groundwork for future attacks on the trade.

Paradoxically, while this was going on, the fur trade was actually bouncing back from a slump in the 1990s. Pelt production and prices were up, and exciting new design techniques were reflected in fur’s growing catwalk presence and rising retail sales.

Fur-Free Brands

Then in about 2015, a second snowball started gathering speed. After years of trying, with minimal success, to bully designer brands into dropping fur, animal rights advocates at last saw their efforts paying off. One by one, brands caved in, and when Gucci announced in 2017 its plan to drop fur, the media circus that followed ramped up the pressure even more on the holdouts. For the last year, barely a month has gone by without another brand going fur-free.

Ironically, Gucci’s high-profile flight from fur presented the fur trade with a golden opportunity to talk about its sustainability credentials. As part of their rationale for dropping fur, brands invariably cite advances made in fake fur, while failing to mention that it’s made from petroleum-based plastic – a non-renewable and unsustainable resource that pollutes and doesn’t biodegrade.

Fortuitously, at exactly the same time as Gucci announced its plan to drop fur, the hottest environmental news story was about our need to reduce our use of plastics, with a particular emphasis on micro-fibres used in clothing like fake fur. This played right into the wheelhouse of real fur which is sustainable, has a negligible environmental footprint during its production and lifetime, and after decades of use can be added to the garden compost pile to biodegrade.

SEE ALSO: Fur-free Gucci policy contradicts company's "sustainability" claims.

In response, animal rights advocates and some clothing companies are already proposing a way around this dilemma: If we can’t use real fur or plastic fur, the obvious solution is to make fur-like fabrics from organic materials. Right now research labs are feverishly trying to make “fur” out of such things as bark and mushrooms, and since "leather" made from pineapple leaves is already on the market, you can bet they'll succeed sooner or later.

Retail Bans

Now a third snowball is gathering momentum: retail bans. Unsurprisingly, it started in California, first in West Hollywood in 2013, then Berkeley, and then San Francisco. Now Los Angeles is drafting legislation for its own ban, while euphoric animal rights advocates say New York and Chicago are in their cross-hairs.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a campaign is in full swing to ban all fur imports to an entire nation, and their demand is bolstered by a simple piece of logic. Remember how I said fur farming bans lay the groundwork for future attacks? Now supporters of an import ban are arguing that it is illogical that the UK bans fur farming but still allows the sale of furs produced in other countries. The current Conservative government has shown no interest in taking such action, but the main opposition party, Labour, has vowed to introduce a ban if it's voted into power. When the next general election (scheduled for 2022) comes around, a fur ban may well be high on the agenda.

SEE ALSO: Proposals to ban fur sales are anti-ecological.

Why Fur Will Survive

While these snowballs now barrelling down on the fur trade may seem unstoppable, there are at least two major obstacles in their way.

In the mid-term at least, the fur trade will continue to be able to count on major markets such as China, Korea, Russia and other former Soviet Republics where the voices of Western animal rights advocates are largely ignored. That's not to say that animal welfare is not being discussed in these countries. But the activist message that will not easily translate is that animals have rights and should not be used by humans for any purpose. In time, animal welfare standards in non-Western countries may catch up with those of the West, but the prospect of these countries embracing animal rights is remote indeed. Even in North America and Europe, the signals are more complex than activists would like us to think. The trend of using fur for smaller accessories and trim has made fur more accessible; in fact, fur is now being worn by more young people than ever before.

SEE ALSO: Animal welfare vs. animal rights: An important distinction.

In the long term, the fur trade will not die because common sense will prevail. This will be rooted in a common understanding of three things: (a) that our future will depend on using renewable natural resources sustainably, (b) that there is a need to manage the natural environment, including wildlife, and (c) that sustainable use includes minimising waste.

Even now, many animal-loving city-dwellers who rarely have contact with wildlife are rethinking their views on what, for them, may be tough questions. For example, in a North American context, when an “urban coyote” attacks a child, should it be euthanised? What about beavers that flood roads and houses? Or raccoons that carry rabies into our cities? And if we agree that these animals should be culled, is it ethical to throw the fur away or should it be used? In the future, as our understanding of these issues continues to grow, more and more people will agree that using the fur is the ethical choice.

SEE ALSO: Is it ethical to produce, buy or wear fur?

Some Predictions

So how will the fur trade look in, say, the year 2100? Here are my predictions.

• The future of fur will be inextricably linked to that of fake fur, so let’s deal with that first. Fake fur made from plastic will no longer exist, maybe even 20 years from now. Instead, it will be made from organic materials, either agricultural waste or synthesised in labs. If you don’t think it will ever approach the qualities of real fur, I disagree. Scientists can be very creative given enough industry support, so expect to be wearing “furs” made from turnip heads or fungus by the end of the century. This will present stiff competition for real fur, just as plastic fur does today, but likewise it will sustain interest in fur's unique look while providing cover for real fur lovers from harassment by animal rights activists.

• Fur farming bans will remain in western Europe. It won’t matter whether acceptance of fur as a sustainable resource becomes more widespread. Bans tend to stay in place for the simple reason that they are much harder to lift than they are to impose, especially when lobby groups threaten to raise a ruckus. (For example, it's been largely accepted by wildlife managers that the US Marine Mammal Protection Act will never be amended to allow commercial harvesting of seals or other marine mammals, no matter how abundant or destructive they become.)

Elsewhere, the future of fur farming will depend on the industry's success in meeting new challenges. Animal rights terrorists will continue to try to drive fur farmers to financial ruin, and this in turn will negatively impact the recruitment of new farmers. But if farmers can weather this storm, another challenge will come from the rise of organic fake fur. As the performance of this new material improves, the viability of fur farming will depend on being able to produce pelts of a quality and type that fake fur makers cannot or choose not to imitate. (This is not exclusively a fur problem: producers of meat and other animal products will face similar challenges, and some already do. Butter competes with margarine, real milk with soy milk, and a variety of animal-free organic leathers are now available.) Fur farmers and their associations should begin thinking about their own "unique selling proposition", as marketers call it.

• As for the future of retail bans, my crystal ball is very cloudy. When West Hollywood banned fur sales, it was easy to dismiss this as the foible of a quirky little town, but San Francisco, Los Angeles, and perhaps the entire UK, cannot be so easily dismissed.. That said, the bans so far are largely symbolic because people can just buy fur elsewhere. Also, the courts have ruled that wild furs cannot be banned by municipalities in California since wildlife management is under state jurisdiction. It's also noteworthy that sheep fur is exempted from the ban proposed for San Francisco, perhaps because Californians love their Uggs so.

SEE ALSO: Sheep fur: Pamela Anderson hates it, Ralph Lauren loves it.

If I have to make a prediction, it's that in 2100 there may still be retail bans in some Californian cities and the UK, and perhaps a few other locations where no one wears fur anyway, but that will be it. But if animal rights advocates succeed in forcing bans in New York and Chicago, the future will be more difficult to predict.

• On a positive note, increased public understanding of sustainability issues may herald a new Golden Age for fur. Wildlife will always have to be managed, and no matter how good organic fake fur becomes, there will always be demand for “the real thing”.

Plus we're now seeing that design innovation and effective marketing can turn prices around. Prices for most wild furs have been depressed since the early 1990s, yet coyote prices are now at record levels thanks to the popularity of fur-trimmed parkas sparked by Canada Goose and its imitators. Perhaps in the future, with inspired design innovation and marketing, fur producers, designers and artisans will once again be properly rewarded for their efforts.

• Last and least, what does the future hold for all those animal rights advocates so bent on taking down the fur trade and any others that use animals? My tongue-in-cheek prediction is that they will all move to California, pass legislation making the entire state vegan, and leave everyone else alone. More seriously, I believe they will be shunned as social pariahs, and their days of leading politicians and designer brands by the nose will be over.

The game they are playing now is a double-edged sword. Their bullying tactics are currently quite effective in bringing about change, but as they expand their net to include everything from marine parks to fish burgers, and pets to carriage horses – which they are doing right now – they will make more and more enemies. By 2100, and probably long before, society at large will say, “Enough is enough!”

***

It's just a theory, but one explanation why Britain is the spiritual home of animal rights activism – and of opposition to fur – is that it exterminated all its large, dangerous animals long ago. North America, in contrast, still presents many opportunities to get mauled or even eaten, with one animal in particular, the coyote, now making its presence felt even in inner cities. Will this increasing exposure to a large scavenger-cum-predator shape the animal rights debate – and attitudes towards fur – in the years ahead?

Bears have been extinct in Britain for about 1,000 years, while wolves probably vanished by the late 18th century. The worst that might happen to you on a stroll in the countryside is to get bitten by an adder, the country's only poisonous snake, but bites are very rarely fatal. And the country is rabies-free. In the cities, if you're unlucky, a pigeon or seagull might poop on you.

So it's easy for the British to be somewhat glib about the dangers of wildlife. Yes, it's sad that tigers eat Indians, but they (the tigers) must be saved for future generations to admire!

In North America, of course, the story is different. Life in rural areas often means sharing space with wolves, bears, cougars, rattlesnakes and rabid raccoons. And life anywhere now can involve facing down a pack of pet-eating, human-biting coyotes. When it's your own kids' lives on the line – as any Indian living next to a tiger reserve will tell you – your view of wildlife may be very un-British!

Coyote Attacks

On April 29, 2018, on a suburban New York playground, a coyote launched an unprovoked attack against 5-year-old Natalia King-Petrellese and her 3-year-old brother. Luckily, police officers were able to kill the coyote, but what would have happened if they hadn't been around?

Coyote attacks on humans are still rare compared with attacks by domestic dogs, reported The Economist in 2013, and only two fatal attacks have ever been confirmed: 3-year-old Kelly Keen in 1981, in Glendale, California, and 19-year-old Taylor Mitchell in 2009, in Nova Scotia.

But aggressive altercations are increasing as so-called "urban coyotes" move in to city centres and lose their fear of humans. "Around 2,000 coyotes are reckoned to live in Chicago and its suburbs," said The Economist, "and it seems likely that the animal is thriving in many other built-up parts of the country. Once restricted to the south-western United States, it spread across the continent during the 20th century and more recently made its way into large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Boston and even New York."

Canada's not exempt either: In Montreal, half a dozen coyote bites on humans were reported last year.

Across North America, coyotes are now prime suspects when pet cats and dogs go missing, while in rural areas they are the number-one predator of calves and lambs.

So it's only a matter of time before the next fatal attack on a human. If it hadn't been for the presence of adults, it likely would have been Natalia King-Petrellese.

Urban Coyotes and Animal Rights

It seems inevitable that the steady spread of urban coyotes will influence views on animal rights in North America, especially among people living in cities.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

It's a sweeping generalisation, but let's say that our views on wildlife reflect where we live. People born and raised in Montana don't love nature in the same way people from Manhattan do. Rural folk tend to have a more utilitarian view of wildlife; they can wonder at its beauty at the same time as seeing it as a source of food and clothing, or simply as a pest. City-dwellers are more prone to Bambi syndrome, seeing wildlife as innocent, wide-eyed creatures, peacefully going about their daily existence. When you have little real contact with nature, you can imagine it's Disneyland.

So it's hardly surprising that there are differing views about coyotes. For rural folk, coyotes have little going for them. They lack all the glamour of wolves, eat livestock and pets, stink, taste foul, and carry rabies. About the only good thing going for coyotes is that – when their fur is prime – they make a great coat. For many rural folk, the only good coyote is a dead coyote.

Many city dwellers, though, tend to equate coyotes with domestic dogs, even to the point of putting food out for them (despite repeated warnings that this is an extremely bad idea).

These opposing points of view are both valid, but one thing we can all hopefully agree on is that, even if coyotes are not our favourite animal, they're still God's creatures and should be respected accordingly. That can mean many things, from trapping them humanely to trying to coexist with them.

But here's the thing: even the most ardent fan of coyotes will likely become a coyote-hater the minute one tears Fido to pieces or, heaven forbid, drags off their child.

Curiously (to this author at least), this change in attitude is not automatic for everyone. When Taylor Mitchell was mauled to death by coyotes while jogging through a riverside park, her mother issued a statement asking that the animals be spared. "We take a calculated risk when spending time in nature’s fold — it’s the wildlife's terrain," she wrote. "When the decision had been made to kill the pack of coyotes, I clearly heard Taylor’s voice say, 'Please don’t, this is their space.' She wouldn’t have wanted their demise, especially as a result of her own."

Still, I'm going to stick my neck out and say Taylor's mum's reaction was highly unusual. Most parents in her situation would have said, "To hell with coyote rights. Nuke 'em!"

Coyotes and Fur

Last November, Toronto-based Canada Goose, purveyor of coyote-trimmed parkas, took a bold step and opened a flagship store on Regent Street in central London. Presumably the decision to set up shop in the heartland of animal rights was based on the fact that many shoppers here are foreign tourists, because it can't have come as a surprise when local activists started protesting.

Time will tell how this venture works out, but Canada Goose won't be getting any PR help from indigenous wildlife. If some large predators show up in nearby Hyde Park to attack pet dogs, the conversation might change, but that won't happen because Britain has no large predators.

But in North America, of course, that's exactly what is happening. Urban coyote conflicts are now regular events, and that can be expected to change attitudes towards wildlife, but will it also change attitudes in other ways? Just as a new tuberculosis or whooping cough epidemic does wonders for vaccination campaigns, will the surge in coyote attacks on pets and people increase public appreciation for the benefits of regulated trapping – and the sustainable use of fur?

The danger, of course, is that if children are killed, there will be calls for coyotes to be exterminated. Public hysteria could even result in their total removal from the landscape, like British bears and wolves.

The optimal outcome is that urban coyotes open the eyes of city-dwellers to a side of wildlife that has nothing to do with Bambi. A new and more realistic understanding of wildlife will include the realisation that wild animals must sometimes be culled, and if that happens, it's only ethical to use them for food or fur.

City-dwellers will finally get why rural folk don't feed the bears but instead turn them into fine eating and a bearskin rug. Perhaps they'll also get that wearing a coyote-trimmed parka is not "like wearing your pet dog", as animal activists like to claim, but about protecting your pets – and your kids.

Fur-trimmed and down-filled parkas are everywhere in our cities these days, but is the coyote, fox or other fur trim on the hoods just decorative, as activists claim, or does it really help keep us warm?

We're not all Inuit hunters, Iditarod dog mushers, or polar explorers, but we've all seen them, if only in pictures: men and women braving the elements in voluminous parkas, topped off by huge hoods with giant fur ruffs. Yet their faces are so exposed, and most of the fur trim doesn't even contact the skin, so can they really be that warm? Or are they just for show? Have faith: fashion statements are the last thing on anyone's mind when the mercury plummets and the wind picks up. Developed over millennia by the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, these ruffs work.

For most southerners, a parka hood is just about protecting the head from a bit of wind and rain. But people who work at –30°C, often for long periods, need much more. That doesn't mean bundling up like Himalayan mountaineers though, because beyond keeping warm, they also need to function effectively. Whether it's trapping, fishing, or driving a snowmobile, they want clear vision both in front and to the sides. Giant fur ruffs fit the bill perfectly.

Here are the key design features, and why they work so well:

Show Some Cheek

There are two ways your body loses heat in cold weather: conduction and convection. Conduction is not a major concern for southerners, unless we get soaked to the skin, and then our body will cool down really fast, especially if there's a wind to add convection. And so we blithely pull our hoods close around our faces, and there may even be a draw string for just this purpose.

Now try ice fishing in Nunavut – or almost anywhere in Canada, for that matter – in January, and see what happens! Your hood's fur trim is tight up against your cheeks, right next to your mouth. Each time you exhale, the moisture in your breath forms ice on the fur. And since ice is a far better conductor of heat than air, your fur trim, far from keeping you warm, becomes a very efficient conductor of heat away from your face. Next thing you know, you've got frostbite.

Real polar ruffs greatly reduce this ice formation. The fur trim is still tight up against the face, but contact is made behind the cheekbones. Hence the exposed face we talked about.

SEE ALSO: Amazing facts about fur: Dressing for the Arctic

Think Big

You also want your hood's fur ruff to be large. Your traditional caribou or seal skin parka is already bulky, so top it off with the lion-meets-angry-frilled-necked-lizard look! The most spectacular of all ruffs, a “sunburst" ruff, can measure three times the diameter of the wearer’s head!

Wind removes heat from your face by convection, and the faster it blows, the more heat it removes. But when the wind hits a solid object, a boundary layer is created in front of the object, inside which the wind slows down. The larger the object, the thicker and more insulating the boundary layer. Ergo, the greater the diameter of your fur ruff, the warmer you'll be.

This has long been intuitive to Inuit designers, and in fact to all of us. It's the reason why, when we face into a gale with a wall at our backs, the wind speed is much less than if we're standing in the open. The wall has created a boundary layer.

In 2004, a research team from the universities of Michigan, Washington and Manitoba quantified this boundary layer effect using a heated model of a human head, thermocouples, a wind tunnel, and a variety of hoods. As expected, the most effective hood by far in slowing heat loss had a sunburst ruff. It was particularly superior to other hoods when the wind was at a high yaw angle to the model's face, i.e., blowing from the side.

(For an excellent graphic showing how a fur ruff creates a boundary layer, see "Why fur-lined hoods are so warm," Chicago Tribune.)

Varying Hair Lengths

The Inuit have also long understood that fur trim works best when the hairs are of varying lengths. This is naturally the case when traditional furs such as arctic fox, wolf, or wolverine are used, since they have long guard hairs and short underfur, and different parts of the pelt are different lengths. Coyote and fox also have these qualities and are more commonly available on modern parkas. The effect can be enhanced further by using two types of fur within one ruff.

The same 2004 research team sought to quantify this also, comparing the sunburst ruff with a "military hood" with short-haired fur of uniform length. Once again the sunburst ruff came out top, with the researchers concluding that a variety of hair lengths disrupts the wind flow more and thereby helps build an effective boundary layer.

One comparison not made by the researchers was between real fur trim and fake fur, but since fake fur hairs are uniform in length, the conclusion is unavoidable that fake fur trim can't compete with the real deal.

That aside, their conclusion was unequivocal: "The present experiments clearly demonstrate the superiority of the sunburst fur ruff configuration for all wind velocities and yaw angles tested. ... The sunburst fur ruff design is truly a remarkable 'time-tested' design."

Southerners Take Heart

The good news for everyone living south of the Arctic Circle is that we can all benefit from this "time-tested" design – perhaps just scaling it down a bit. Caribou or seal skin parkas are overkill for most of us, not to mention the stares they'd attract. But we can easily fit ourselves out with a down-filled hood with real fur trim that's plenty big enough.

The most popular fur for ruffs these days is coyote, which not only keeps us warm, but also dovetails with the need to manage a growing coyote population across North America. Fox can also be effective.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story

Truth About Fur's Alan Herscovici lives in Montreal, currently blanketed in snow, where temperatures in January average about -10°C, but have risen no higher than -20°C for much of this winter. With wind chill, it can feel like -30°C.

"Call us 'southerners' if you want, but there are days I feel like Nanook of the North," says Alan. "The coyote ruff on my parka has proven its worth this winter!"

***

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

It’s Christmas time so, for a change of pace, let’s wander off the topic of fur, and on to Christmas trees. So which are best for the environment, real trees or fake trees? You may find some of the arguments familiar!

We are flies on the wall at the dairy farm of Fred and Mary in upstate New York, where son Nick is visiting for the festive season along with his wife, Nancy. Since Nick grew up on the farm, he knows all about milking and mucking out, but Nancy is a city girl from Rochester, where she works as a personal lifestyle coach.

“A what?” Fred and Mary had asked the first time they’d met Nancy. In the years since, good-natured goading had become a part of Christmas family tradition, but it was always a two-way street because Nancy’s knowledge of nature was as pitiful as Fred and Mary’s knowledge of city life.

“Why must your cows be pregnant when you’re just using them for milk?” she’d asked one year. “And how is it even possible? They’re all female!”

This year, with a couple of days to go to Christmas, they all climbed in Fred’s truck to see a friend who had a beautiful tree picked out for them. In the back seat, Nancy lovingly caressed her early gift from Nick, a big, bouncy, faux fur fox hat. Behind the wheel, Fred proudly wore his Daniel Boone hat, made by a local artisan from a roadkill raccoon Nick had run over.

“Faux? That means fake, right? Plastic?” Fred asked Nancy, knowing perfectly well what it meant. “Well at least it hasn’t got rabies!” Nancy shot back, pointing at Fred’s head. “For the umpteenth time, my hat does not have rabies!” Fred began, before Mary intervened. “You both look lovely!” she pleaded.

Shortly after, they were headed home with a spectacular nine-foot spruce hanging off the flatbed. Fred and Mary were beaming, while Nick looked anxiously at his wife. She was bursting to say something!

“Poor tree,” she muttered, and Fred eased off the gas. “Come again?” he said. “Uh oh,” said Mary and Nick.

“Why can’t you just get an artificial tree?” said Nancy. “You know, save the planet?”

Fred stroked the tail of his raccoon hat meaningfully.

“If everyone bought a real tree,” continued Nancy, “soon there wouldn’t be any left – like what’s happening in the Amazon.”

“Seriously?” responded Fred. “That’s like saying we’ll run out of carrots if too many people eat them. That was a farm we just visited, and each year my friend plants saplings to replace the ones he’s sold. His family’s been doing it for forty years, and they’ve got more trees now than when they started! Some trees do come from forests, but even those are managed so they don’t run out.”

“But why take the chance?” said Nancy. “If we need more artificial trees, we just make more. They’ll never run out.”

“Never? It’ll take a long time,” conceded Fred. “But most fake trees are made of PVC, and one of the ingredients for making PVC is oil. That’s a non-renewable resource. So if anything won’t run out, it’s real trees.”

Nancy rallied fast. “But real trees are so wasteful. After just a few weeks you’ll throw yours in the garbage, while mine will last for years.”

“Actually, we use our trees for all sorts of things,” explained Fred. “Mary puts the branches on the flower beds to insulate the plants against frost. I chop up the trunks for firewood. And there’s a truck that collects them too, and puts them in the chipper to make mulch for the parks. And even if they just get tossed on the garden, they just become worm food. Like you say, PVC trees will last for years, but they’ll still end up in landfills, polluting groundwater for the next thousand years.”

“Heh, artificial trees can be recycled too!” said Nancy.

“That’s true. PVC is easy to recycle once or twice,” conceded Fred, “but it weakens with time and most still ends up in landfills, and it doesn’t biodegrade – it doesn’t become worm food. A lot is also mixed in with household waste and is incinerated to produce electricity, but that releases harmful dioxins into the atmosphere.”

SEE ALSO: Santa wears fur "from his head head to his foot"

Carbon-Neutral Purchase

“In fact,” he continued, “since we’re on the subject of pollution, greenhouse gases are emitted during the making of fake trees, but buying a Christmas tree from a farm is a carbon-neutral purchase.”

“A what?” spluttered Nancy.

Nick took pity on her. “Trees sequester carbon dioxide, right? They absorb it and store it. Now carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and if we cut down all the trees, it would be released back into the atmosphere, worsening global warming. But each time a farm cuts down one tree, it replaces it with another, so on balance, no carbon dioxide is released into the air. So it’s a carbon-neutral purchase.”

Nancy glared at him. “How about a divorce? Is that carbon-neutral?” Nick stifled the urge to laugh. “Sorry, dear. I’ll be quiet.”

“So how about all those people driving out to tree farms in their gas-guzzling trucks to buy their trees?” asked Nancy. “Or are they all driving Teslas? I don’t think so!”

“Nancy dear, they don’t drive Teslas when they go to the mall to buy a fake tree either,” interjected Mary in her best peacemaker tone. “More importantly, real trees are farmed close to consumers, while your fake tree probably came all the way from China. So the greenhouse gases involved in shipping fake trees are much higher. Right, Fred?”

Fred grunted, sensing he’d said enough.

“Well, how about the cost to you personally?” Nancy asked Mary, mimicking her sweet tone. “Each year, you spend $100 on a tree that lasts a few weeks. I bought mine for a little more, but it’ll last for 20 years.”

“Bingo!” said Fred, unable to keep his mouth shut. “And that’s the only reason for buying a fake tree. It’s cheap. But in the long term, there’s a price we all have to pay. Real trees are sustainably produced and don’t harm the environment. But fake trees are unsustainable and polluting.”

“Stop the car, Dad! Dead raccoon!” shouted Nick suddenly. “Are you sure you don’t want a hat like Dad’s, Nancy?”

Something that keeps writers like me employed is that no matter how good we are at spreading the truth, when the next generation comes along there are things we have to teach all over again. Such is the case with the clothing material popularly known as sheepskin, lambskin or shearling. And the lesson that needs constant repetition is that it is not wool, it is sheep fur, and animals die to produce it.

In defence of those who find this confusing, it's true that the word "fur" is popularly used to mean the skin and hair (or pelt) of particular types of animal, like mink or fox. But in fact, every hairy animal can provide fur, including sheep, which do so in vast amounts. We just don't call it fur. Sheep fur is variously called sheepskin or lambskin, while the fur of a sheep which has been recently sheared is called shearling.

And just for total clarity, when we use sheep hair without the skin attached, it's called wool, and no animals are killed to produce it.

In the context of the great fur debate, these are important distinctions because many people are wearing fur without even knowing it, including some people who should know better.

Pam's Ugg Boots

The most memorable case of someone not being able to put two and two together was Pamela Anderson. During her Baywatch days, she almost single-handedly turned Ugg sheepskin boots into a major fashion trend. She then took up the cudgels for PETA, campaigning against the practice of mulesing sheep while still wearing her trademark Uggs.

For some unknown reason, PETA decided not to tell Pam what Uggs were made of, but finally the penny dropped. "I'm getting rid of my Uggs," she wrote on her website in 2007. "I feel so guilty for that craze being started around my Baywatch days. I used to wear them with my red swim suit to keep warm never realizing that they were SKIN! I thought they were shaved kindly. People like to tell me all the time that I started that trend - yikes!"

"It's Clear It's Sheep's Wool" – Vogue

But the point here is not just to have a laugh at Pam's expense. She is a high-profile example of a pervasive ignorance found not only among the general public but even in the world of fashion.

This November, Vogue (UK) interviewed Gucci's new handler, the Humane Society of the US, about the brand's decision to go "fur-free". As we shall see, there's cause for scepticism when brands like Gucci, which use a lot of shearling, make this claim. Will they be dropping all furs, including sheep fur, or just the mink and fox?

Never fear, reported Vogue's interviewer, Emily Farra; Gucci had all the bases covered. "Gucci has already made its signature Princetown loafers in lamb, sheep, goat, and alpaca fur, which do not require the animals’ pelts," she wrote. Really? What is "alpaca fur" if it's not a pelt? More significantly, Gucci is quite open about its sheep-based Princetown loafers being lined with shearling, and, yes, that means the whole pelt – skin and hair.

We called out Ms. Farra on Twitter, but she refused to see the light ...

Animal Rights Groups, Designer Brands Conspiracy

Ignorance about sheep fur persists in part because neither designer brands that use it, nor the animal rights groups that handle them, are forthcoming with the truth. It's a trade-off. In return for brands declaring themselves "fur-free", their animal rights handlers turn a blind eye to the fact that sheep pelts are fur.

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

A shameless example of this duplicity is Ralph Lauren. Since 2006, it has been "100% fur-free" and compliant with "PETA guidelines". In reality, it uses a huge amount of sheep fur, often disguising it as other types of fur, necessitating the following footnote to the show notes of a recent collection: "Ralph Lauren has a long-standing commitment to not use fur products in our apparel and accessories. All fur-like pieces featured in the collection are constructed of shearling."

Talk about double-speak! Both Ralph Lauren and PETA are surely aware that shearling is fur, and yet they insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise. And they get away with it because, as Pam Anderson and others have proved, intelligence is in short supply where sheep fur is concerned.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, here's the short version: Sheepskin, lambskin and shearling are all fur. And yes, animals die to produce them.

In the modern field of conservation, sustainable use is the goal for which resource managers strive. Yet not so long ago, conservation was popularly associated not with sustainability, but with not using resources at all. Perhaps inevitably, along the way some lazy thinkers came to equate sustainable use of a resource with not using it, among them Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri.

When Bizzarri announced recently that Gucci would be dropping fur, he caused much head-scratching. The move was a demonstration of “our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business,” he explained. So Gucci will now be replacing real fur – a renewable, biodegradable, natural resource – with non-biodegradable fake fur made from a non-renewable resource, petroleum.

How could Gucci have become so confused about the meaning of "sustainability"? History provides a possible answer.

SEE ALSO: Fur-free Gucci policy contradicts company's "sustainability" claims.

Protection vs. Conservation

Forty years ago, when Marco Bizzarri was growing up, and after a long history of renewable natural resources being mismanaged in much of the world, the word "conservation" was on everyone's lips.

But what did "conservation" mean to most of the public or, in practical terms, on the front lines of the war declared on alleged resource abusers?

The biggest "conservation" issue of the day – the biggest ever in terms of public awareness – was whaling, and groups that formed the Save the Whale Campaign called themselves conservationists. A very few were the real deal, but most were actually perpetrating a deception. They were not interested in sustainable use, or a temporary cessation of whaling to allow stocks to recover. They wanted all whaling stopped forever, regardless of the state of stocks. They were "protectionists", or, to use a term more commonly associated with wilderness protection, "preservationists".

And so the die was cast. In the popular conscience, "conservation" had come to mean not using something, be it whales, seals, ivory, tuna or tropical rain forests. The list just grew as "Save the [enter pet cause here]" campaigns proliferated. Stopping the killing of any animal, correctly termed protection, was now widely perceived by much of the media and the general public as a conservation goal.

From Conservation to Sustainability

Meanwhile, true conservationists were developing increasingly sophisticated management strategies based on a relatively new concept, the "sustainable use of renewable natural resources".

An integral part of sustainable use is that conservation objectives are often best served by giving renewable resources financial value, thereby giving stakeholders an incentive to manage them wisely. For many species of animal, the most effective way of doing this is to allow regulated killing for food or clothing. Captive breeding and even domestication of animals can also help relieve pressure on wild populations. Gucci's parent group, Kering, is actively involved in a programme to conserve pythons by farming them. Ted Turner's bison ranches have played a key role in bringing this animal back from the brink of extinction. And yes, all wild species of furbearers have benefited from the expansion of mink farming.

In short, sustainable use is founded on the consumptive use of resources in a regulated environment. It gives the resources value to stakeholders, while ensuring use of those resources does not exceed their capacity to replenish themselves.

Sustainable use is not about stopping use of a resource.

Gucci Left Behind

Gucci's understanding of "sustainability" appears to be based on an outdated, 1970's view of conservation: that the best way to conserve a resource is to stop using it.

For sure, some furbearer species were hit hard by hunting and trapping before modern regulations were implemented, even in North America. And some, such as South American and African spotted cats, are now – rightly – banned in international trade.

But to imply, as Gucci does, that farmed mink and fox, or abundant wild populations, will somehow benefit by no longer being used for fur shows a naîve and total misunderstanding of how sustainable use works.

Gucci has been left behind as our knowledge of environmental conservation has evolved. We don't need a Save the Mink campaign!

Even those of us who think dressing up means jeans and a clean T-shirt have an opinion about "high fashion". Skinny models in bizarre outfits … we’ve all seen them in old copies of Vogue begrudgingly read in the dentist’s waiting room. And since high fashion loves fur, it can also influence our opinion of fur fashion in general, and not always in a positive way.

That’s right. High fashion, with all its excesses, is a double-edged sword for the fur trade. While those who understand it value its promotion of fur, the jeans-and-T-shirt crowd can be left thinking fur fashion is a lot of frivolous nonsense. Or worse, a waste of animal life.

So for all the fashion heathens among us, let’s learn more about how high fashion works and why it is so important to the fur trade. To this end, I interviewed our resident fashion insider, Alice, who has years of experience working in the luxury fashion sector.

Simon: The public’s view of high fashion, or haute couture, can be rather negative. Designers with exotic names making outlandish outfits for a handful of wealthy clients make it seem elitist and self-indulgent.

Alice: First let’s get our terms straight. Haute couture and high fashion are not the same and have different objectives. Haute couture describes a very small niche of the luxury fashion world, hand-making one-off pieces that only royalty and oil sheiks can afford. High fashion is a loose term for the collections of luxury designer brands that are for sale to the general public and influence trends in mass-market fashion.

Simon: Whatever they’re called, some of their pieces are so weird, no normal person could carry them off, so why bother?

Alice: If pieces look unwearable, it’s probably because they’re not meant to be worn. But they have a definite purpose; they represent the big ideas of a collection. These ideas are then tapered down into more normal items for the stores of the designer brands. Fast-fashion and mass-market brands then make them even more commercial and sell them on the high street.

So while a designer-brand show may feature an insane, brightly coloured fur coat with feathers and all kinds of things sticking out of it, its stores may not even have that coat. It might have a production run in single digits, with less volume and no feathers. Then a high-street store will make a bolero jacket with the same colours but fake fur. It gets massively tapered down.

And sometimes catwalk pieces aren’t for sale at all. These are called “press pieces”. Again, they represent the big ideas, but they look super spectacular because their purpose is to make the pages of magazines. So a stylist might look at a collection of sheared mink jackets decorated with beaded flowers, and then ask the atelier to make a mink bikini top and matching headband, covered in beaded flowers, and pair it all with a long skirt with a train. No one would ever go to the beach dressed like that, but it makes an impact on the catwalk.

Are Buyers of High Fashion Different?

Simon: When I need a new pair of cargo shorts, I don’t check Vogue first. I just head to the store and buy the first pair that fits. Are buyers of fur fashion so different?

Alice: Yes. Fur fashion is part of the luxury sector, and buyers of any luxury goods, not just fur, behave differently from buyers of $10 cargo shorts.

Most people with $10,000 and more to spend on a fur coat don’t just walk into a store and pick one they like. A seed has already been planted in their mind of what they want, and designer brands plant these seeds by having their clothes on the catwalk and being worn by celebrities and other influencers.

And when that happens, it’s very important for furriers and fur manufacturers to be on trend. At the last New York Fashion Week, rapper and style icon Nicki Minaj got a lot of media coverage in a $19,000 Oscar de la Renta fox coat. It’s likely that this style of coat is going to be popular at retail now, and the furriers may have even placed rush orders to get similar coats in stock. “Trickle down” would also see cheaper, less-flashy versions in fast-fashion outlets, maybe even made of fake fur.

Simon: Trickle down?

Alice: Yes, trickle down theory is when a designer brand sets a trend, and others follow suit with more affordable versions. There’s also “trickle up”, like if designer brands are inspired by street style or subcultures, like punk or hip hop. But for luxury goods like fur, trickle down is key.

Simon: So how far down does it trickle? Surely Canada Goose, known for its functional coyote-lined parkas, doesn’t care what designer brands are doing.

Alice: It certainly does. Canada Goose is known as a performance brand, but it’s already collaborated with French designer brand Vêtements, and I expect it to be influenced more and more by high fashion in the next few years. It gives Canada Goose credibility – a “cool factor” – to be associated with a designer brand, rather than just being known for functional parkas. And it will sell more of the regular coats just because it happens to have a couple of fashion-forward ones available.

A better example of these collaborations is H&M. While it’s known for its fast-fashion, it’s had huge success collaborating with a string of designer brands and celebrities.

SEE ALSO: 5 Reasons Why PETA Won't Make Me Ditch My Canada Goose

Simon: Critics of fur fashion say it’s “frivolous”, and of course they’re not referring to raccoon hats in Winnipeg in winter. They say that when fur is used for purposes other than keeping the wearer warm, the taking of animal lives cannot be justified. A real need must be met, and fur sandals don’t meet the standard. Even some trappers feel this way. They lament that they work hard all winter so someone can wear a pink fur bikini with pom-poms on.

Alice: That sounds like a great argument; no one wants to see animals being killed for no good reason. But where the fur trade’s concerned, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Furbearers are farmed and trapped above all to make cold-weather clothing, and if this clothing also happens to be fashionable, it does not lessen the fact that its primary purpose is to keep people warm. As for accessories, you must remember that animals are not killed for the purpose of making these. The vast majority of fur pelts, and certainly of prime pelts, are made into coats, and accessories are made from whatever's left. This includes scraps, parts like tails that are normally only used for trim, and the good parts of damaged or low-quality pelts.

A friend of mine once won a set of mink golf club covers in a raffle and, curious to know how much they were worth, asked around. It turned out they were very affordable because they were made from the pelts of farmed mink that died naturally before their fur had fully grown. He was a little disappointed, but also comforted to know that mink were not being raised for the express purpose of keeping golf clubs “warm”!

So accessories are very much secondary products to cold-weather clothing, and should actually be seen in a positive light because they demonstrate the industry’s dislike of waste.

SEE ALSO: Why Fur Is the Ethical Fashion Choice

Simon: Still, some stuff is perceived badly by some people, especially the silly stuff like furry bag charms or covers for iPhones. The fur trade seems to be courting criticism for appearing insensitive to the fact that animals have died, while producing items that don’t even help their core business.

Alice: What you call “silly” stuff, marketers call “fun” stuff, and they exist in all areas of retailing. And you’re mistaken if you think they don’t help the core business. It’s a proven marketing strategy that by offering fun items at low prices – entry-level items – more people will end up buying the high-end product you really want to sell. So if a girl buys a furry key-ring bauble and ear rings and all her friends think they’re awesome, then her next step might be to buy a fur scarf. And when she grows up, her attraction to fur may translate into a full-length coat.

Small, affordable items also generate exposure to friends of people who buy them, and open up debate about your product. Those iPhone covers, for example, have had an amazing amount of media coverage, all positive.

So if turning a small percentage of pelts into cute accessories opens up the dialogue about fur, makes it more accessible, and gets more people to wear fur, it makes perfect business sense to do it.

And as I’ve already said, animals are not killed for the purpose of making accessories. If anything could be said to show disrespect for animal lives it would be throwing the fur scraps away. Instead, they are used to create fun items that give people pleasure. There’s nothing wrong with that.

High Fashion Influences Us All

Simon: So to sum up, how important is high fashion to the fur trade?

Alice: Extremely important. While fur is on the catwalks, it continues to be a fashion item and is in demand in the fashion market. Without the fashion component, we will see many more "practical" fur pieces, such as parkas and more simple coats whose sole purpose is warmth, but less of the stylish pieces.

It’s vital that fur fashion appears in the media and that is achieved by putting it on the catwalk and on the backs of celebrities. No one is better at doing this than designer brands, and they also have the money to pay for advertising.

But remember that high fashion influences every sector of the fashion industry, not just the luxury sector. Any company involved in designing, producing or marketing clothing is constantly alert to what direction the market is taking. They follow current trends but also hope to predict future trends, and for this they look to designer brands, fashion media and celebrities.

So as consumers, we might think that high fashion is irrelevant to us and that we make independent decisions about what to wear. But that’s rarely the case. We are all subject to being influenced, and though we may not know it, high fashion influences what every one of us wears.