Award-winning journalist David Pugliese recently reported that 30 soldiers from Canada's Armed Forces – the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment (3RCR) – suffered severe frostbite while participating in a near-Arctic training exercise at the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center near Fairbanks, Alaska.

Too many Canadians forget that our nation is fundamentally an Arctic one. Vast expanses of Arctic territory, stretching from the Yukon North Slope in the West to Labrador in the East, and the entire Arctic Archipelago, make up a major part of Canadian geography and heritage. These unforgiving landscapes have been the home to various First Nations and Inuit communities for thousands of years.

Because of this experience, it stands to reason that the people in these communities know a thing or two about survival in Arctic climates. Using natural resources and materials found in the Arctic, Indigenous Peoples have relied on sealskin, caribou hide, beaver fur, and other hide and fur products to keep warm.

SEE ALSO: Amazing facts about fur: Dressing for the Arctic. Truth About Fur.

In 2022 and 2023, the National Research Council put this to the test in a series of studies designed to test Indigenous-made garments directly against the predictable issue of extreme cold. Deployed out of interest for the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadian Coast Guard, and Parks Canada, these studies measured the “clo value” – a unit used to measure the thermal insulation properties of clothing, indicating how much heat a garment retains. The higher the clo value, the warmer the garment.

According to Evaluation of Canadian Armed Forces cold weather clothing with supplemental Indigenous clothing, apparel and gear that incorporated Indigenous-made garments had higher standardized total insulation values compared to base ones that did not use them.

Another paper published at the same time, Thermal evaluation of Government of Canada cold weather clothing and Indigenous garments, affirms that apparel or gear composed entirely of Indigenous-made garments had the highest measured clo value out of all those tested, which would allow a physically active person to remain warm in -60.0°C air.

Superior Option

Conducted with complete transparency by our Federal Government, these studies were published in 2022. Therefore, hundreds if not thousands of Canadian observers and certainly relevant members of the Canadian Armed Forces knew that Indigenous-made fur and sealskin garments are the superior option to keep the men and women who serve our country safe in extreme cold weather environments.

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

Though the exact details of what happened during this recent exercise are not known, it is clear that the equipment provided to the members of 3RCR was not sufficient. We know that equipment made from fur or sealskin would have protected them better than what they had, and likely would have helped some of the injured soldiers.

In an increasingly uncertain time, with more than a few countries posturing for Arctic expansion, it is high time to return to outfitting our soldiers with the equipment they need to be safe. On this point, both traditional knowledge and leading-edge scientific research agree: natural fur is the right choice.

You may recall that Coloradans recently defeated an anti-fur ballot initiative, and probably assume that the state is safe for now. But your assumption would be wrong. Now opponents of fur are looking to introduce a statewide ban on the sale of all wild fur – something they've not tried in the past.

As recently as November 2024, Coloradans chalked up a major pro-fur win when they defeated ballot initiative 308, 58% to 42%, that would have banned the sale of all fur products in Denver. Leading the charge against the proposed ordinance was Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM).

That battle, which garnered a lot of news coverage, especially for the slogan "Hands off our hats", sent a clear message that most Coloradans would not stand for animal rights groups telling them what they could and couldn't trade. But perhaps the message was not clear enough. Now a petition from the anti-fur Center for Biological Diversity has accused the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPWC) of violating sound conservation practices, with the aim of forcing a statewide ban on all trade in wild fur.

Attacking Wild Fur

As Executive Director of the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), I frequently attend meetings, auctions, trade shows and the like, across Canada and around the world, where fur is the number one topic of conversation. But at many of these events, I am also in a minority. Why? Because our organization represents the interests of all kinds of fur, including wild fur.

Much of the global fur trade deals only with ranch fur. Many designers and manufacturers, for example, are concerned above all with the different colour phases of ranch foxes and mink, but have no interest in where or when the best coyotes are harvested. (This reality is also why fur ranchers attract so much attention from anti-fur activists.)

When combined with the strong and easily understood arguments in favour of regulated trapping, this explains why many folk assume wild fur is comparatively “safe”. Trapping plays a key role in wildlife management, it's an important part of livelihoods for Indigenous communities, and its heritage underpins so much of our shared history across North America.

But that idea is now being challenged in Colorado. If successful, the anti-fur lobby will use the CPWC to introduce a statewide ban on the sale, trade and bartering of all wild fur.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur.

Different Approach

Over the last 40 years or so, trappers have grown used to attacks that focus on the welfare of individual animals caught in traps, but this time things are different.

This time, the aim of the anti-fur lobby is not to attack wild fur for how it's harvested, but rather to claim that the mere act of trapping violates the North American Model of Conservation, as spelled out by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

When the CPWC meets next on March 4–5, it will discuss a proposal from the Center for Biological Diversity that says the state's current science-driven regulations are not fit for purpose, and that there needs to be a statewide commercial ban on wild fur.

As a community, we must stand together against efforts to restrict, reduce or eliminate the fur trade. That includes trappers, hunters, farmers, ranchers, First Nations, rural landowners, fur buyers, manufacturers, retailers, designers and artisans, from all parts of North America. Everyone who enjoys our world-class garments and accessories needs to be heard.

Both the FIC and the CRWM firmly believe that by standing together, we can be far more than the sum of our parts. Now is the time for all of us to support efforts to keep commercial fur trapping alive in Colorado. And that is why the FIC will be joining CRWM in Denver next week, giving voice to all Canadians who support science-based, well-regulated wildlife management.

ESSENTIAL READING:

Follow this link for:

• the Citizen Petition Form "Prohibiting the sale of furbearer furs with exemptions", June 16, 2025;
• "Petition to amend 2 CCR 406-018 to prohibit the commercial sale of wildlife fur in Colorado", submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, June 16, 2025; and
• the recommendation to deny the above petition submitted by the Division of Parks and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, February 19, 2026.

On February 3, the Fur Institute of Canada visited Ottawa for Fur Day on the Hill 2026 to meet and greet the nation's political leaders. Joining us were members of the FIC Board, Canada Mink Breeders Association, the Cree Trappers' Association, Écofaune Boréale, Ontario Fur Managers Federation and Saga Furs. Ably supporting them all were our friends at Summa Strategies and Torchia Communications.

During this day-long event, we met with Members of Parliament, Senators, representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministers, as well as members of the diplomatic corps, covering a diverse range of topics. These included maintaining Canada's position as a world leader in the fur trade by fighting trade bans and promoting fur and seal products, and ensuring our men and women in uniform are prepared for operating in the extreme weather of the Arctic environment by outfitting them with personal protective equipment made from fur instead of inferior synthetic materials.

In the evening, we hosted a cocktail reception for Parliamentarians and colleagues, that doubled as a showcase for furs from FIC members International Fur Dressers & Dyers and Écofaune Boréale. The chilly weather also gave everyone a perfect opportunity to show the Hill a wide array of their own furs.

Building relations with politicians is a key part of FIC’s mandate as advocates of the fur trade, and this makes Fur Day on the Hill an important event on our calendar. It helps us cement alliances with federal representatives of all political stripes, while familiarizing them with issues that affect our trade.

SEE ALSO:

Fur Day on the Hill 2024: Fur Institute Strengthens Political Ties. Truth About Fur, March 10, 2024.

Fur Day on the Hill: Fur Institute welcomes friends in Ottawa. Truth About Fur, May 1, 2023.

Consumers are receiving mixed signals, with some saying fur is back and others saying it’s on its last legs. So does someone have the story wrong? Let’s see where the evidence points.

Compared with the 1980s, when fur sales were strong in all traditional markets, today’s trade has shrunk, a fact it blames on the anti-fur lobby. But it also says fur is making a modest comeback. In contrast, anti-fur campaigners insist the fur trade is terminal.

Meanwhile the media can't decide. Some editorialise that fur is fashionable again, while one presenter flaunts fur at a football match and another wears coyote at a New Year's Eve show. Yet others say fur is finished, though they are sometimes transparent about pushing an agenda.

In our quest for the truth, let’s journey back in time, hoping this will help explain where fur really stands today.

Animal Rights Playbook

The modern animal rights playbook was written in the 1970s on the blood-stained ice floes of Atlantic Canada. With a cast of cute seal pups and “evil” sealers wielding hakapiks, protesters learned that all they had to do was provoke a fight (think Paul Watson) while Brigitte Bardot added credibility and sex appeal. The media lapped it up, and the campaign was hugely effective.

Another landmark came in 1990 when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched the campaign “I’d rather go naked than wear fur”. Everyone knew that sex sold, but this was the first time animal rights had been conflated with naked women. Again the campaign was a media hit, prompting PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk to tell The New Yorker in 2003: “We are complete press sluts”. (PETA officially “retired” the campaign in 2020, but this was probably just to give media an excuse to run old campaign photos.)

Meanwhile, the fur trade was losing ground. The media (and their viewers) were by now hooked on images of stressed animals and naked women, and the fur trade couldn’t compete. Plus, funds were running low for public relations, and while some people were determined to fight back, they couldn’t agree on how to do this.

New Tactics

Then the 2000s arrived and the anti-fur lobby expanded its already strong arsenal with some new tactics.

Pushing local fur bans: One tactic has been to push US city governments to ban production and/or sales of fur. The fur trade must then file lawsuits to have ordinances overturned.

Almost all of the anti-fur lobby's victories so far have come in Californian cities, followed by a statewide ban from 2023. Notably absent has been the snowball effect campaigners hoped for in major cities and states elsewhere.

Still, it’s an effective tactic even when ban attempts fail, since it generates media exposure and costs the fur trade money. This has happened in cities where fur is more entrenched, like New York City in 2020, Denver in 2024, and Chicago in 2025.

Pressuring players to switch from real fur to fake: Another tactic has been to get key players to drop real fur in favour of fake, with the anti-fur lobby then taking credit for players “seeing the light”. While a few early converts required little persuasion, most victories have only come about after harassing executives with methods like demonstrating outside workers’ homes. Targets have been diverse, ranging from luxury brands and designers, to department stores, fashion shows and even magazines.

Fur farming bans: Yet another tactic has been to pressure governments to ban fur farming or pass regulations so draconian that it makes no sense to continue.

Though in its third decade, this campaign gained fresh legs during the Covid-19 pandemic as activists stoked fear that mink farms breed zoonotic diseases. This fear was key in the 2020 move by Denmark – then the world's leading mink farmer – to cull its entire herd, and British Columbia’s 2021 decision to phase out mink farming.

This campaign has been especially effective in the European Union, with most members having already introduced partial or total bans, the latest being Poland. Meanwhile, the "Fur Free Europe" citizens' initiative gathered over 1.5 million signatures opposed to fur farming and the sale of farmed products, obliging the European Commission to decide by next March whether to propose an EU-wide ban.

Whether an EU-wide ban happens is still unknown, plus the issue of wild fur will remain on the table. But with some 70% of fur currently coming from farms, and global output contracting steadily, who, if anyone, will pick up the slack?

So kudos to the anti-fur lobby. Though it has often fought dirty, its tactics have undeniably hurt the fur trade.

Plastic Windfall

But another version of this story has it that fur is making a comeback. If true, it all began with a windfall for the trade: a miscalculation by its opponents.

When the modern animal rights movement emerged in the 1970s, Western society was made keenly aware of animal welfare issues. These remain important today, but have been superseded by existential issues threatening the very future of the planet.

In recent years, society has undergone a sea change, with terms like “sustainability”, “climate change”, “global warming” and “renewable energy” entering everyday usage. And the cause célèbre is how to wean ourselves off fossil fuels like petroleum.

Of course, the fur trade has always known fur is sustainable: it’s durable, biodegradable and renewable, and its environmental footprint is a lot smaller than the anti-fur lobby claims. So logically, society's shift in priorities should benefit real fur, and work against fake fur made of non-renewable, polluting, non-biodegradable, petroleum-based plastics that only add to the tons of microplastics already in our watersheds and oceans.

So what have most anti-fur groups done? Rather than keeping their message simple and opposing all fur, real and fake, they have thrown their support behind fake fur as a replacement for the real deal, falsely claiming it is more sustainable!

This is now backfiring. Not only has fake fur kept the furry look (real or fake) on the fashion radar, it has also exposed the anti-fur lobby as dishonest.

Perhaps the biggest shock for the fur trade came in 2017, when Gucci announced it was dropping real fur. Both the world-famous brand and its animal rights handlers effused about how the move enhanced sustainability, and for a while the fur trade feared society would simply fall for this deception. But now, the media and consumers are at least questioning whether fake fur was the right way to go.

The anti-fur lobby, meanwhile, has attempted damage control, such as by calling plastic garments “vegan clothing”, and promising we'll all be wearing “bio-fur” soon, made of fungi, nettles, pineapple and the like.

Maybe one day we will. But for now, almost all manufacturers of fake fur still prefer the petrochemical kind, so the harm it does to the environment continues.

Recycled Vintage Fur

Then, to confuse matters further, along came vintage fur.

As any fashionista knows, recycled and remodeled vintage furs have been in vogue for a few seasons. Many come from thrift stores and are at least 40 years old, though with demand still strong, it's inevitable that dwindling supplies are seeing ages fall.

For an example of just how vintage furs have confused the picture, look at media coverage last February of the New York and London Fashion Weeks.

Hoping as always for a new angle, on Feb. 16 the New York Times ran a piece titled “What happened to the stigma of wearing fur?” “[I]n January,” wrote Jessica Iredale, “women and men all over town were busting their furs out of storage in what felt like an abrupt reversal of social values.” For years, wearing fur in the US and Europe had felt taboo. “Except, suddenly, people don’t seem to care – especially if the wearer can assert the mantle of ‘vintage’, as no animals were freshly killed and upcycling old clothes is more virtuous than buying new.”

The Wall Street Journal followed suit on Feb. 18, with “Fashion turned on fur. Young customers want more“. Then on Feb. 19, the New York Post ran with “Real fur is making a comeback after years of exile. ‘You’ll see it on the runway again’“. And on Feb. 28, Women’s Wear Daily declared that “Furry textures – some real, some faux” were all over the runways in New York. In short, America’s most populous city was awash in fur again!

The irony was that last December, New York Fashion Week announced a ban on fur from 2026!

Even more ironic was a report in The Standard (Feb. 21) during London Fashion Week titled “How luxury fell back in love with real fur and crocodile skins”. It was commenting on the street scene rather than on the show’s runways, because it couldn’t do otherwise. London Fashion Week had already banned fur, in 2023, followed the next year by exotic skins and feathers!

What message were these reports sending to consumers?

Was the real story not about vintage furs, but about the resurgence of fur in general? Were the likes of New York and London Fashion Weeks just part of an ivory tower trying to move past fur, while the streets said the opposite?

Predictions

So where does this leave the fur trade today?

Let's first agree who we’re talking about. I'll call it the Western fur trade, that caters primarily to certain consumers in two regions: North America and Europe, and an East Asian bloc, centering on China and South Korea, that buys a lot of pelts at Western auctions and has designers showing on Western runways. Millions of fur users, especially Indigenous peoples in the High North, don't belong in this category, and won't stop using fur just because of a few bans passed in Western capitals.

That said, the Western fur trade has been under attack for decades, giving the anti-fur lobby plenty of time to refine some highly effective tactics.

No one will deny that these tactics have hurt the fur trade, but many believe the trade has now turned a corner to recovery. Assuming this is true, how durable that recovery is depends on the trade's ability to change.

One change that may be unavoidable is a fall in total output of farmed fur, plus a shift in suppliers. When shortages seemed likely in the past, North American, European and (in this century) Chinese farms simply increased production. But this time around will be different.

Obviously, EU production is falling and may stop entirely, but it's also down in North America due to bad publicity from the anti-fur lobby, and no one is expanding right now. So unless Chinese farmers step up again, or another country fills the breach, a supply shortage could be looming that requires the fur trade to operate at a reduced scale.

There are, however, a few avenues that are already expanding.

One is sales of wild fur. Pelt prices are edging up for some species; for example, at Fur Harvesters Auction last month, interest was strong in bobcats, marten and wild mink. Also, the number of trappers is increasing in many places. And since trapping is now widely recognised as an important conservation tool, choosing wild fur is one way consumers can show their support for sustainable use. There is still opposition to trapping where wildlife and human habitats coincide, notably among dog walkers, but also on the rise are problem animals like coyotes with mange, rabid raccoons and destructive beavers, so trapping won't disappear anytime soon.

Other avenues for expansion are better opportunities for artisanal designers and online retailers, especially in remote areas. Factors fueling this growth include the departure of most luxury brands and department stores from the real fur market, the closure of many brick-and-mortar furriers in expensive downtown locations, and of course the rise of the Internet, which makes it possible to run businesses in remote locations that were not viable before.

Whether all this translates into a comeback for fur remains to be seen, but the signs so far are promising. For now, there's a paradox: on the one hand, the anti-fur lobby continues its efforts to end the fur trade, with a lot of success. But on the other, many media reports and eye-witness accounts say fur is back in fashion. Who is right? Only time will tell for sure.

SEE ALSO:

Fur is firmly back in fashion - and even more divisive than ever. BBC, April 8, 2025.

Fur sure: In the era of sustainability, a winter icon makes a comeback. Buffalo Spree, Dec. 26, 2025.

As real fur creeps back into fash­ion, is faux the way to go? Daily Telegraph, Dec. 27, 2025.

The news about fur is so muddled these days, it’s no wonder some people are confused.

Take the surging popularity of used furs. As we reported recently, GenZ is embracing “vintage” as a guilt-free way to enjoy the comfort and beauty of fur. After all, the animals died long ago, and reusing old clothing is better for the planet than contributing to mountains of discarded – usually petroleum-based – fast fashion. Fine, but why stop there? After all, today’s new furs will be tomorrow’s vintage.

Similarly, shearling is trending on fashion runways, with politically-correct designers claiming it is not fur at all. But isn’t it? Shearling is an animal hide (sheepskin) processed with the hair attached, the same as any other fur. Some find it reassuring that sheep are raised for food, that my shearling jacket is just the packaging from someone’s rack of lamb – a distinction that probably wouldn’t impress sheep. In any case, Indigenous and other trappers eat beaver, muskrat, seal, and other fur animals. What’s the difference?

Meanwhile, anti-fur campaigning continues: governments are lobbied to ban fur production; many apparel companies have stopped selling it; and Vogue – following the retirement of their dauntlessly independent editor, Anna Wintour – recently announced that fur will no longer appear in the magazine, even in advertising.

So, is fur back in fashion, or isn’t it? Why is sheepskin now cool, but mink and beaver not so much? And how does fur become more ethical with age, or is it just the lower price point that draws young people to “vintage”?

Quite the muddle.

Why All the Fuss About Fur?

Of course, there’s nothing new in muddled thinking about fur. Animal activists have spent decades tarring fur trapping as cruel – even as millions were invested by governments and industry to assure the humaneness of trapping.1

Activists also denounce mink farming, claiming that it’s cruel to keep “wild animals” in pens. But mink have been raised on farms in North America since the 1870s. After more than 150 generations of selective breeding they are very different than their wild cousins – they are twice the size, much tamer, and well adapted to life on the farm.2

The fur trade is not a rogue industry, it has adopted responsible practices just like other agricultural sectors. From an animal-welfare perspective, it sometimes scores better: wild furbearers roam freely in nature until the moment they’re captured; farmed mink – precisely because they are not used for food – are spared the long truck ride to distant abattoirs. And yet, in a society where literally billions of animals are eaten each year, the fur trade has been treated as a pariah. Go figure.

Sustainability

Another example of muddled thinking is the belief that we should stop using fur if we wish to protect nature. When Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri announced that his prestigious designer label would go “fur-free”, in 2018, he claimed this demonstrated “our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business.” Other companies followed suit, revealing how little they understood (or cared?) about what sustainability really means.

Many wild species are indeed threatened by climate change, pollution, urban sprawl, and other challenges. Some fear we are witnessing a “Sixth Mass Extinction”. But the modern fur trade does not deplete wildlife populations; the fur we use today comes from abundant populations. Government regulations ensure that only part of the surplus that nature produces is taken each year – which is true sustainability. This is why Greenpeace, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other serious environmental conservation groups do not oppose the fur trade. The North American fur trade is a conservation success story that deserves to be better known.

And so, anti-fur campaigners – and companies that yield to their pressure – are not promoting sustainability at all. Quite the contrary: because “animal rights” groups oppose using any animal products – no fur, no leather, no wool, not even silk -- they provide cover for petroleum-based synthetics that are not renewable or biodegradable, that leach micro-plastics into the environment each time they are worn or washed – but are now often marketed as virtuously “vegan”.

The Medium Is the Message

Confusion about fur is not accidental. Animal-rights advocates are not interested in acknowledging the animal-welfare and conservation achievements of the fur trade because they oppose any use of animals. As PeTA’s website clearly asserts: “Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.” But because few people are prepared to follow PeTA to such lofty heights of moral purity – only 4% of North Americans are vegetarian; barely 1% say they are vegan – attacks on fur (and other animal-based industries) are disguised as animal-welfare campaigns, sensationalizing real or purported abuses.

Industry efforts to correct misinformation face the problem that, in an age of information overload, attention spans are limited, especially for subjects remote from most people’s daily lives. One gory photo trumps volumes of expert testimony.

Meanwhile, to retain fickle audiences, the media are drawn to controversy and confrontation. Trappers and mink farmers diligently tending their traplines or barns are not news; a dozen shouting protesters make better television – especially if some are topless. “We’re media sluts,” says PeTA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk. “We didn’t make the rules but we learned to play the game.”

The game is also rIgged demographically. Not so long ago, most North Americans still had family living on farms; summer vacations provided hands-on education about where food comes from – and respect for the skills and knowledge of people who fish, hunt, and raise livestock.

Now, for the first time in human history, most of us live in cities, with little or no contact with the land. Children are raised on Disney fantasies of nature, where the lion frolics with the lamb. The animals we frequent are mostly our pets, which increasingly are treated as “children”. Often, they sleep in our beds. When the only canine you know is your dog, it is easy to be upset by images of coyote trapping or fox farming – especially when the images are carefully selected to shock.

Fur is denounced as an “unnecessary luxury”, catering to spoiled rich people. But, despite its luxury image, the fur trade remains small-scale and artisanal; it lacks the financial and other resources that larger industries can deploy in response to misleading activist campaigns.

Protection Racket

Confusion is also caused when anti-fur campaigns become self-reinforcing feedback loops. When Canada Goose and other prominent apparel brands stop using fur, it suggests that something must be wrong with it; people must no longer want it. But the real reasons why companies drop fur have little to do with ethics or consumer demand. Store invasions, rowdy protests at the homes of CEOs, social media attacks, and other aggressive tactics simply make fur too hot to handle. When security and brand-reputation costs for a small segment of a company’s sales become too great, dropping fur is a business decision.

Consumers could also be bullied – especially because most were women. (A leading animal-rights theorist once told me he thought PeTA would show more integrity if they protested biker gangs for wearing leather jackets!) Many women stopped wearing fur, not because they thought it was wrong but for fear of having paint thrown at them. Ethics, indeed!

The Future of Fur

So where do all these mixed messages leave us? Is the recent popularity of vintage fur and shearlings just a fashion blip, or the beginning of a real shift in the tectonic plates of social consciousness?

One encouraging sign: despite decades of negative publicity, most people have a more positive view of fur than animal activists would have us believe. An opinion poll commissioned by the Natural Fibers Alliance, in 2022, found that two-thirds (65%) of Canadians think wearing fur is acceptable so long as the industry is well regulated and animals are treated humanely. Only one-in-five (21%) disagrees – with just 10% saying they “strongly disagree”.

In the US, same story: 61% agree that brands and retailers can responsibly use and sell animal-based products including leather, wool, silk, and fur. Only 9% strongly disagree.3

More than three-quarters (77%) of Canadians also believe that wearing fur is “a matter of personal choice” – similar to findings in previous US studies – putting the lie to activist claims that the public supports their call for the governments to ban fur farms and retail fur sales.

Especially interesting: for the first time in the 25 years that I have reviewed such surveys, younger people (18-25) now see fur in a more positive light than their elders. GenZ’s love affair with fur is not a fluke.

People are becoming more aware of the environmental costs of non-biodegradable, petroleum-based “fast fashion” – not to mention concerns about the leaching of micro plastics into the food chain each time these synthetics are worn or washed. Bits of plastic are now being found in marine life, breast milk, and in our brains. Cruelty-free indeed.

Bottom line: people do need clothing, and if our goal is to embrace more sustainable lifestyles, fur checks all the boxes. Made from a natural, renewable resource, fur apparel is extremely long-wearing, can be re-styled as fashions change, and is often passed from one generation to the next – as highlighted by the current popularity of vintage. From an environmental perspective, fur is not a “frivolous luxury”.

From a cultural perspective, the fur trade preserves a treasure-trove of human knowledge, skills, and culture. Indigenous and other trappers are some of the last representatives of our hunter-gatherer heritage; with most of us now living in cities, they are our eyes and ears on the land, often the first to sound the alarm when pollution or habitat destruction threaten wildlife. Mink are raised on multi-generational family farms, providing income and employment for embattled rural communities. Fur artisans (my own grandfather was one) maintain extraordinary handcraft skills that have been transmitted through generations.

None of this means that everyone will want to wear fur. But the popularity of vintage furs and shearlings bucks the – until recently – seemingly irresistible push to “cancel” the fur trade. As Leonard Cohen sang: “There’s a crack, a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in!” Time will tell whether GenZ’s new interest in fur will open the door to a more honest appreciation of this remarkable North American heritage industry.

FOOTNOTES

1) The program directed by the Fur Institute of Canada (since 1983) allows new trap designs to be rigorously tested and certified. It has supported new state and provincial regulations, trapper training programs, and, in 1997, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) – the world’s first international animal-welfare treaty. See also: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping. Truth About Fur, 2016.

2) Mink housing, nutrition, and care standards are set out in codes of practice developed by animal scientists and veterinarians, under the auspices of the National Animal Care Council.

3) Natural Fibers Alliance, personal communication.

A flurry of media stories last Winter announced, with evident surprise, the sudden reappearance of fur on designer runways and in the streets, with Gen Z consumers leading the way. Could the fashion pendulum really be swinging so far? Are new opportunities really opening for those in a trade that has suffered from years of unfair and misleading anti-fur campaigning?

The New York Times (Feb. 16) led the pack with a piece entitled "What happened to the stigma of wearing fur?” "[I]n January," it observed, "women and men all over town were busting their furs out of storage in what felt like an abrupt reversal of social values.” For years, journalist Jessica Iredale wrote, wearing fur in the US and Europe had felt taboo. “Except, suddenly, people don’t seem to care – especially if the wearer can assert the mantle of ‘vintage’, as no animals were freshly killed and upcycling old clothes is more virtuous than buying new.”

The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 18) followed suit with "Fashion turned on fur. Young customers want more". Then the New York Post (Feb. 19) ran with "Real fur is making a comeback after years of exile. 'You'll see it on the runway again'".

The stories just kept on coming. On Feb. 28, Women’s Wear Daily featured lamb shearling on its cover, declaring that “Furry textures – some real, some faux” were all over the runways at New York Fashion Week. “Welcome to the latest downtown uniform as a new generation looks at fur a different way.”

It was the same across the pond. On Feb. 21, for example, The Standard of London reported "How luxury fell back in love with real fur and crocodile skins". “Despite the bans and the rise of faux fur, it looks like fashion is falling in love with the real thing again,” declared journalist Rebecca Cope. Pip Chawner, whose brand Philippa London repurposes vintage fur, agreed: “If you walk up and down King’s Road, pretty much every fifth person is wearing a piece of fur.”

Fur was also prominent at the Paris and Milan fashion weeks, at upmarket Aspen and St. Moritz ski resorts, and on celebrities including Rihanna and Kendall Jenner.

So, what did happen to the stigma of wearing fur, as the New York Times asked? Or perhaps, for someone like me who has spent much of the past 40 years defending this much-maligned North American heritage industry, a better question would be: “What took so long?” But I am getting ahead of myself.

SEE ALSO: Adventures of a pro-fur warrior. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur, 2017.

Microplastics Scare

Until recently, promoters of fake fur – or "faux" fur, as they call it – insisted that the main reason for choosing it over the real thing was that it was “cruelty-free”.

But there is growing awareness that fake fur, like most synthetic textiles that now account for some 60% of our clothing, is made from petroleum. As such, it doesn't biodegrade, and it sheds clouds of microplastics each time it’s washed or worn. These tiny pieces of plastic are now being found in marine life, and even in breast milk. Cruelty-free, indeed!

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

As trend forecaster Tiffany Hill, interviewed by The Standard, put it: “Some consumers are questioning whether banning fur was truly an environmental win, given the environmental impact of synthetic alternatives. As concerns over fast fashion and microplastic pollution grow, some argue that natural fur – when sourced responsibly – is actually a more sustainable option.”

Sweet words indeed!

Shearlings and Vintage

But the fight is not over yet. While fur is creeping back into the fashion limelight, decades of anti-fur campaigning have left their mark. The confusion these campaigns have caused can be seen in the way fur is now being embraced with claims that vintage fur is more virtuous than new, and that shearling is not really fur at all!

As any fashionista knows, vintage furs have been a huge hit for the past few years, and their appeal is obvious. As designer Carly Mark spelled out in the New York Times, the draw of vintage fur is that “it already exists”.

Rebecca Cope of The Standard agrees. “Gen Z have embraced fur more wholeheartedly than other generations for a specific reason – it can be argued that vintage fur is entirely sustainable, while the majority of faux fur alternatives are not, due to the plastic content.”

In other words, vintage fur satisfies the ecologists’ call to reduce the enormous waste generated by disposable “fast fashion”. The next step, of course, will be to recognize that the same arguments support using new furs too: A quality fur coat can be worn for decades, and can even be taken apart and completely restyled as fashions change – an important environmental advantage.

A long-term problem with vintage furs, obviously, is that supplies will run out if folks stop buying new furs. On the plus side, vintage gets unused older furs out of the storage vaults and onto the streets, to remind people of the warmth and beauty of this remarkable natural material.

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

The renewed popularity of shearling is another example of how fashionistas are rationalizing their return to fur ... by pretending that it isn’t fur at all!

“Well, it’s shearling, not fur,” said Matteo Tamburini, creative director of Italian fashion house Tod’s, in Vanessa Friedman's New York Times report from Milan Fashion Week (Mar. 2). “It’s all shearling,” echoed Maximilian Davis, creative director of Ferragamo. “Fur is something we can’t use today, we shouldn’t use today ...”

Shearling definitely is fur, of course, just like mink or fox or any other fur: they are all animal skins tanned (dressed) with the fur (wool, hair) still attached. Shearling, however, comes with the handy moral buffer that it’s just left-over packaging from someone’s rack-of-lamb.

This by-product-of-food-production argument doesn’t cut it with animal-rights groups, since PeTA et al. also want to “cancel” the use of animals for food. But few people seem ready to follow PeTA’s call to such heights of ethical purity. A recent Gallup poll found that only 4% of Americans now say they are vegetarian (no meat in their diet), while just 1% identify as vegan (no dairy, eggs, or other animal products).

Perhaps it’s time for furriers to promote the “food-by-product” story to beaver, muskrat, sealskin, and other fur animals which are also eaten?!

SEE ALSO: Top 5 tasty furbearers. Muskrat stew and more. Truth About Fur.

Turning Point

For those of us who have tried for years, often with little success, to explain the fur trade’s ecological credentials, it is music to our ears to read in a prominent newspaper that, "Some consumers are questioning whether banning fur was truly an environmental win, given the environmental impact of synthetic alternatives."

For too long, facts were no match for sexy photos of celebrities who would “rather go naked than wear fur”.

But now we may be at a turning point. Just when it looked like fur was headed for the dustbin of history, the tectonic plates of societal consciousness have shifted again.

Of course there are still serious obstacles to overcome. For example, anti-fur activists continue to call for bans on fur production and sales in many regions, and prominent fashion media like Vogue are refusing to cover fur fashion or even accept advertisements.

But younger consumers are clearly ready to look at fur differently.

It’s now up to the fur trade to take advantage of this new openness to promote the comfort, beauty, and, yes, the environmental and ethical credentials of this remarkable heritage industry.

This is the story of just one students' club in British Columbia, with a trapping component, that could use a helping hand. But hopefully it will also open eyes across Canada. You probably live far from BC, but maybe there's a trapping club nearby that faces similar problems. Can you help? Or maybe you're struggling to start your own trapping club, and can learn from this young man's experiences.

Meet Cole Mark, a 25-year-old born in BC's capital, Victoria, and a student at the University of Victoria, or "UVic" to those in the know.

By anyone's definition, Cole is an outdoorsman. When he is not studying forest biology or working for the BC Wildfire Service, he is hunting, rock climbing, backcountry skiing, fishing, scuba diving, spearfishing, shooting (guns and bows), and foraging. He also has "strong passions" for wildlife management and sourcing his own food.

It was in character, then, that in 2023 he started the UVic Freediving and Spearfishing Club, and followed this up in 2024 with the UVic Fish and Game Club – the one we're going to talk about today.

As the name suggests, the UVic Fish and Game Club dabbles in a wide range of activities, both hands-on and involving educational presentations and licensing courses. One of the most successful components has been shooting, with nearly 50 members completing their firearm safety training in the club's first semester alone.

The trapping component, however, is proving more challenging to get off the ground – something we'll circle back to.

Making of an Outdoorsman

Truth About Fur: In your own words, Victoria "offers limited exposure" to outdoor activities, while your parents are a teacher and a lawyer. How, then, did you become an outdoorsman?

Cole Mark: My love of nature was largely instilled in me by my late grandfather and my uncle. My grandfather and I spent days fishing, and he shared stories about hunting and fishing. My uncle, a commercial diving captain, often took me fishing and crabbing, further shaping my passion for the ocean and outdoors.

Ironically, as for Victoria, the capital of BC, its limited offering of exposure is largely because of considerable social pressure to oust these foundational pieces of Canadian tradition and heritage. This makes it awfully intimidating for people to take interest in, never mind trying to be a part of, outdoor recreation.

As many of you know, and starting well before I was born, there was a slow clawing at everything trapping, hunting, fishing and shooting. However, today it's been turned into more of a cutting away. As a young man who cares deeply about his country, neighbour, and having a family of his own one day; I quickly realized that I needed to be the change I wanted to see. I knew it wasn’t going to easy. The idea alone of starting a fish and game club that promotes the education of firearms and trapping at the University of Victoria was completely nuts. And it has been a wild ride for me to say the least. But, I knew I needed to make a difference where I could. I understand how intimidating these pursuits can seem to people with no background in them, and this is what drives me to make outdoor education more accessible. I want others to discover and appreciate this important part of Canadian tradition, heritage and culture.

TAF: Starting the Freediving and Spearfishing Club and then the Fish and Game Club was a logical step for you, then?

CM: That's right. The mission of both clubs is to provide a space where students can develop practical skills, build a deeper connection with nature and food, and promote safety, ethics, and conservation in all activities with friends and without worrying about backlash. Both clubs have been incredibly rewarding to start and run, and they have taught me a lot about leadership, community building, and sharing my passion with others.

TAF: Could society do with more such clubs?

CM: I certainly believe so, especially at the university level. I keep my club entirely apolitical. My goal is to give anyone an experience and working knowledge so they can make informed opinions from choosing whether or not to buy a fishing rod at a local store, getting a firearms license (restricted or not), or casting a ballot.

Additionally, many of the outdoor recreational activities that fish-and-game clubs foster, including trapping, are being phased out in my generation. And as they disappear, we are also losing the heritage, values and most importantly the virtues they bring and inherently teach.

Our UVic club also just had our first hunting event approved! This event utilized an initiation hunting license where any student could get a license and hunt for the first time with a licensed student. It must be the first hunting trip a university club in BC, or maybe even in Canada, has done in decades.

TAF: You have no background in trapping, and yet your club offers this skill. How did this come about?

CM: I acquired my trapping license in 2021. I can thank Mr. Steven Rinella and a few whispers of stories about trapping here on the island for developing my interest. Ever since, it's been a defining part of my development as an outdoorsman and as a young academic. It has taught me lessons that my degree could not, from hands-on wildlife management and land stewardship to the practicalities of renewable resource management. It has taught me that there is a gap in understanding the vital role that trapping plays in sustainable wildlife management, land stewardship, and in renewable resources. It has instilled in me a profound respect for the delicate balance of ecosystems, the patience to observe and understand animal behaviour, and the discipline required to work ethically within nature’s cycles. And it has reinforced the values of responsibility, resilience, and humility, showing me that a true connection with the outdoors is not all from theory but also time spent in the bush.

These are the lessons I hope to pass on to my fellow club members.

Hurdles to Trapping

TAF: You say that two hurdles stand in the way of really getting trapping off the ground at your club: cost and limited opportunities to "get out".

CM: That's right. Overall, the club is doing well. We currently have around 130 members, and our numbers continue to grow as more students seek outdoor experiences and opportunities to learn. Of all the activities we offer, though, trapping presents unique challenges.

There's a decent amount of interest in trapping at UVic, but we need to provide more opportunities for club members to spend time on actual traplines, and we also need to provide a way for them to become licensed. Both face issues of accessibility and cost.

In BC, you can only trap on traplines or on private property. Traplines that were once hundreds of dollars, are now tens of thousands. BC only has around 1,800 licensed trappers, which is roughly a 40% decrease from the 1950’s. I fear what kind of future my own children will face. Will the lifestyle be reserved for a select few diehards and those willing to endure unnecessary scrutiny, criticism, and death threats? I sure hope not.

As for helping students obtain their trapping licenses, so far about 30 students have expressed interest in taking a course, but only one has done so. This was through the British Columbia Trappers Association. Courses cost around $800, are a two-hour drive from town, and only run once a year. So we've been working with the BCTA to offer a more accessible and affordable alternative for club members, but it's a work in progress.

TAF: So have you been able to offer members any opportunities at all to gain hands-on trapping experience?

CM: Thankfully, yes. A very generous local trapper and former instructor, Jerry Baker, agreed to host a workshop for just $30 per student! Unfortunately, he will be selling his line soon as he is unable to work it any longer due to age, so we're still looking for a long-term solution. I have had one trapper reach out to us about a line that's pretty close to UVic, however, they’re looking for ~$25,000 which is well more than I have.

My hope is to arrange a partnership or access agreement with a trapper or landowner here on Southern Vancouver Island. My vision is to secure a trapline that the club can use for education, mentorship, and hands-on learning. We have limited funding but I am more than happy to work on something that is mutually beneficial.

I also believe that having guaranteed access to a trapline could offer students unique research opportunities on local furbearing species, and provide new perspectives on how trapping can play a more active role in modern coservation efforts as a wildlife management tool.

Succession Plan

TAF: You'll be graduating from the University of Victoria soon. Do you have a succession plan to make sure the UVic Fish and Game Club continues once you've gone?

CM: I plan to continue my education in forest biology after graduating, with the goal of earning my Registered Professional Biologist (R.P. Bio) and Registered Professional Forester (RPF) accreditations. So I may not be leaving Victoria just yet. But as you say, I must ensure the club has been set up for long-term success, enabling it to thrive as a permanent part of student life at UVic.

To this end, we have a vice-president and an executive team to make sure our leadership succession is smooth and the club has capable hands to carry it forward.

I am also in talks with department heads (Program Coordinator and Dean of EPHE) to explore the possibility of making the club a funded program here at the university. This process is complex and takes time, but if successful, it will give the club access to stable funding and administrative support, which will go a long way toward ensuring its sustainability long beyond my own time here. It also sets a provincial precedent; in BC, there are no institutionally recognized Fish and Game or Shooting Clubs.

Meanwhile, we are gathering every bit of support we can, from organizations, sponsors, and individuals, because not only do we have very minimal funding but these also strengthen our application and demonstrate the value of what we are doing. I am proud to say that we have already received support from the BC Wildlife Federation, Safari Club International, Belisle Traps, the Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's Outdoor Fund, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. If you’re interested in seeing more you can check our Instagram page or email us at [email protected].

TAF: We wish you every success, and who knows, maybe your future partner on Southern Vancouver Island – be it a landowner or trapline operator – is actually reading this interview! And as we said in the introduction, it's almost certain that similar initiatives exist across Canada that need a helping hand. Could that helping hand be yours?

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada held a ceremonial opening of the Court, which featured the public debut of the Court’s new robes. In June, Chief Justice Richard Wagner went on record saying that new robes were coming that “better reflect Canadian identity”.

The new robes are black with red piping, while the traditional robes were red wool with white mink fur, which had replaced the ermine of the original robes from 1875. The connection between Canadian history and identity and fur is well-known to all Canadians – the  Hudson's Bay Company, voyageurs, Indigenous fur trappers, and so much more. Canada is also the birthplace of successful mink and fox farming.

SEE ALSO: A personal voyage to the origins of fox farming. Truth About Fur, 2015.

Every corner of our country has been affected in some way by the fur trade. St. John’s, Newfoundland & Labrador, where steamships unloaded sealskins, and the Fur District of Montreal, where the sound of sewing machines once echoed through the streets, are just two examples that come to mind. Today, there are countless towns and villages across Western and Northern Canada that still bear the name “Fort” or “Factory” stemming from outposts of the North West Company or Hudson Bay Company.

Fur is not some kind of historical artifact. Today, there are innovative and exciting designers across Canada using it. Some are inspired to use fur because it is a biodegradable alternative to synthetic fibres that send microplastics into our rivers and oceans. Others are using fur as a way to reconnect to their Indigenous heritage, which was suppressed by government institutions, including the very Court Wagner sits on. Others wear it because it is warm, fashionable, and accessible.

The Supreme Court has added itself to a list of Canadian institutions that have chosen to wrap themselves in the adulation of foreign-funded animal activists instead of supporting Canada’s fur farmers, trappers and seal hunters who not only support our rural communities but, more often than not, are wholeheartedly supported by everyday Canadians in rural, coastal, northern, and yes, even urban communities.

Earlier this year, Fairmont, whose hotels were built along the Canadian Pacific rail line which transported furs to auction houses across the country and whose luxury hotels were filled for decades with customers wearing their finest furs, went fur-free. The Hudson's Bay Company, which once gathered furs from across the Canadian hinterland to send to markets in Europe, had announced a fur-free policy not long before their demise. When Canadians tune in to watch our greatest athletes enter the Olympic opening ceremonies in Milan next February, they will see other countries’ athletes wearing Canadian fur, but not Team Canada.

SEE ALSO: Sharon Firth wants fur back on Canada's Olympic uniform. Truth About Fur, 2019.

Chief Justice Wagner, on behalf of Canada’s thousands of trappers, seal hunters and fur farmers, as well as the many Canadians who believe in maintaining a connection to our shared history and the role of both the Supreme Court and the fur trade in it, I encourage you to reconsider and refashion your statement. If you are convinced we need to replace the Supreme Court’s traditional Santa Claus robes with something more fashion-forward, there are many designers across Canada who would be more than happy to help you create a design that truly celebrates Canadian identity and heritage – with natural and sustainable Canadian fur.

Doug Chiasson is Executive Director of the Fur Institute of Canada, and a Director-At-Large of the Canada Mink Breeders Association.

If you want a new way to stay updated on the latest developments in Canada's fur trade, look no further than a podcast now being brought to you by the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) in cooperation with a strong advocate of the sustainable use of wildlife. There's no reading involved, and no swiping through social media on a tiny smartphone screen. Just click "play" and listen to a full hour of information courtesy of The Truth About Fur.

Launched in May 2024 and airing new episodes more or less monthly, The Truth About Fur podcast is a joint effort of the FIC and the Wild Origins Canada Foundation. The Foundation launched its first podcast, the award-winning Hunter Conservationist, seven years ago, since when this podcast has become more of a "channel" for a family of podcasts each looking at different angles of sustainable use as a wildlife conservation tool.

Hosting duties for The Truth About Fur are shared by two men from opposite coasts. Mark Hall, from British Columbia, is a third-generation trapper and Executive Director of Wild Origins Canada. Joining him very remotely is the FIC's Executive Director Doug Chiasson, from Nova Scotia. You can tune in to Mark and Doug on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or watch them on YouTube. All past episodes are archived in the Members section of the FIC website.

Funding Sources

Truth About Fur: Podcasts on the Hunter Conservationist channel are free to stream or download, including The Truth About Fur, but producing all this content surely costs money. How is it funded?

Mark Hall: Wild Origins Canada is a federally registered nonprofit corporation, so we rely on sponsors and donors to keep the lights on! This means hunters, trappers, anglers – anyone who agrees that sustainable use is an important tool in conserving wildlife.

We also draw support from our umbrella organization, the Origins Foundation, started in South Africa but now global. The Origins Foundation divides partners into two "clubs", both of which provide financial support. The Conservation Club groups top-tier brands of manufacturers, outfitters and so on, while the Supporters Club consists of individuals who provide a few bucks a month.

Doug Chiasson: And in line with this business model, we are currently seeking sponsors for The Truth About Fur podcast. Please download our latest presentation deck here, and email me at [email protected] if you can help.

Target Audience

TAF: What is the target audience of The Truth About Fur podcast?

DC: Podcasts are not revolutionary. They're a new spin on a traditional medium, the radio, so our target audience is just people who like listening to the radio. If there's a difference between the two, it's that podcast users have more control over what they listen to than when they rely on a radio dial. But the audience was always there.

Podcasts are also a way of expanding our offerings. For the last two decades, organizations like the FIC relied on traditional websites as their main public relations tool, but netizens today want to access content in a variety of ways. So we've had to adjust by adding new digital platforms, like this blog, social media channels, and now a podcast.

As for who actually listens, we don't analyze our audience like some content creators do for social media. But it's safe to assume they have time to spare (since each episode lasts over an hour), and their eyes are busy elsewhere. So good candidates would be people who do a lot of driving, or spend hours in the workshop. Or maybe they just want background noise while they do other things.

For us, the main issue is filling a need for a steady supply of reliable, up-to-date news on Canada's fur trade that folks can listen to, wherever and whenever they choose. Hopefully, The Truth About Fur podcast meets that need.

Larger Picture

TAF: How does The Truth About Fur podcast fit into the larger picture of the Hunter Conservationist channel?

MH: The Hunter Conservationist believes in the sustainable use of wildlife, and supports the ways of life of people who share this belief. So we were already covering trapping issues, since furbearers are just wildlife like the game birds and animals that hunters pursue.

The science that's needed to understand furbearers, protect their habitat, and so on, all applies generally in the field of conservation. And from a human perspective too, trappers and hunters have much in common. An entire way of life revolves around the sustainable use of furbearers – a holistic knowledge that trappers share with one another. The same goes for sealers and the sealing industry, who the FIC also represents.

When we started the Hunter Conservationist, there was no national voice that explored the larger picture of conservation and the sustainable use of wildlife across Canada. Then we expanded to include a whole bunch of different podcasts, but all guided by the same principles. For example, there's Around Canada, which covers national news stories, and a new podcast we're doing with the Alberta Professional Outfitters Society.

I saw the same need for the trapping community. There was no national podcast that was standing up for trappers' way of life, and the deep knowledge they have of furbearer ecology that is fundamental to the conservation of species that belong to all Canadians. So The Truth About Fur is part of this family of podcasts dedicated to the people whose way of life revolves around the sustainable use of wildlife. It's a logical fit.

TAF: Given that you are very much the man behind Hunter Conservationist, where do you stand personally?

MH: Both my grandfather and father were trappers, and I share their passion, so I understand this way of life. I also want to fight against the bad things that are said about trappers.

So my personal motivation is really strong. I dislike seeing lies in the mainstream media about trapping, and correcting them is a hill I'm willing to die on. I will stand up for every trapper and every hunter across this country who is deeply connected to the sustainable use of wildlife. I'll always be there, on all of our various platforms, standing up for great Canadians who love this way of life.

In 1997, the Fur Institute of Canada’s Aboriginal Communications Committee launched the Jim Bourque Award in honour of a man committed to the sustainable use of wildlife, animal welfare, development of Canada’s modern fur trade, and recognition of Indigenous People’s role in the conservation and management of wildlife. This year's award went to Patricia Dwyer, a Métis resident of northern Alberta and director of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Here is her story.

SEE ALSO: Fur Institute of Canada holds 2025 AGM in Edmonton. Truth About Fur.

***

The Wild Path: A Personal Journey

The first traces of my passion for wildlife etched themselves into my mind long before I could spell “conservation.”  As a child in northern Alberta, I would explore outdoors with my brother and my cousin. The skies held a fascination of large and small birds, some quiet voices and some joining each other in raucous laughter, while the fields and forest floors provided small mammals like squirrels, skunks, rabbits and porcupines. Occasionally a mink or an otter would be spotted down by the Burnt River. Deer and coyotes were plentiful.

I wanted to be a veterinarian working with wildlife. I never got there, but found other ways to fulfill my passion. I was the granddaughter of a Hudson’s Bay factor and an Indigenous woman who lived in a town of about 300 people and relied on the fruits of nature. After living up there for my early formative years it was no surprise to my parents that I would choose an occupation along that path.

Personal Growth: Lessons Beyond the Curriculum

While studying wildlife biology and management at the University of Guelph, two of my student colleagues, Richard Popko and Robert Stitt, introduced me to the Ontario Trappers Association at a conference in North Bay. I was smitten. There were at least 250 trappers, men and women from all over Canada to Texas. They were happy, friendly and welcoming people. And they accepted me without question.

Upon graduation I accepted a position from Neal Jotham and Diana Manthorpe, with the Federal Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping, the predecessor to the Fur Institute of Canada. I took a course in trapping from Lloyd Cook, the then president of the OTA. The work I did was to film animals going into traps which we wanted to prove humane. The traps were kill traps, and locked open. There was a trajectory which could be determined with the very little movement we provided and the animals’ movements. No traps were used to kill animals unless they were determined able to hit hard enough at a vulnerable spot. I would film at night and eventually in an indoor space with adequate cameras and lighting. I housed and cared for marten, mink, fisher and raccoon for research, as well as a lynx, and a fox.

SEE ALSO: Humane trapping research program leads the world. Truth About Fur.

My supervisor was Dr. Fred Gilbert, and I had two employees. Eventually the FIC trap development work moved to Vegreville. I had also moved to Alberta and was working for the Alberta Government as a fur biologist. I was still working with traps and trappers and had several trappers outfitted with new humane traps and new technicians to test over the winters. I also worked with government people from the other provinces who held similar positions to mine – such as Bob Carmichael (Manitoba), Mike O’Brien (Nova Scotia) and Pierre Canac-Marquis (Quebec).

Eventually I left to do a master’s under Dr. Frank Mallory on lynx cycles producing my thesis “Location and Characterization of Lynx Refugia of Ontario”, at Laurentian University in Sudbury, supported by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and my many friends and family. During that time, I collaborated with Jim Baker on a chapter in the trapping bible by Milan Novak, Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America.

Following that and before graduating, I attended University of Ottawa at the Law school. I graduated from my master’s and law degrees on the same May weekend in 1992. Upon graduation I worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the trapping section, doing consultations with Aboriginal peoples on humane traps. Brian Roberts and Smokey Bruyere were my mentors and supervisors in this position.

I was soon asked to join the Canadian Wildlife Service, to do consultations and help facilitate the changes to the Migratory Birds Convention 1916. With the acceptance of the Constitution Act, 1982 it was necessary to acknowledge and accept the rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada to hunt migratory birds during the closed season for subsistence purposes. I requested and was given permission to form a negotiation committee with Aboriginal peoples on the team. The Honourable James Bourque, who was the Deputy Minister of Environment in the Northwest Territories, worked with me along with Philip Awashish from the Crees of Quebec and Rosemary Kuptana, the then president of the Inuit Tapiirisat of Canada. I have always thought of this successful endeavour as one of the first Federal government actions of reconciliation to Indigenous peoples.

At CWS, I was Chief of Aboriginal Affairs and Transboundary Wildlife for 20+ years. Presently, I am on the Executive of the Canadian Wildlife Federation (NGO) and slated to become in two years the first woman, and first Indigenous president. 

The Power of Community and Collaboration

Conservation, I discovered, is not a solitary pursuit. Through workshops, conferences, and collaboration with other students and professionals, I became part of a network dedicated to wildlife conservation. We shared findings, debated best practices, and supported each other through successes and setbacks. One of my most formative experiences was working on co-management agreements in the new treaties with Indigenous peoples. The project required coordination between hunters and trappers, Indigenous communities, and government lawyers and biologists – a reminder that conservation is as much about people as it is about animals.

I learned to listen as much as to speak, absorbing traditional ecological knowledge and local stories that textbooks never capture. The wisdom passed down by Indigenous Elders about the cyclical nature of animal populations and the importance of gratitude after each successful track or capture added depth to my scientific understanding.

I am humbled and so grateful to so many people who helped me to understand and to grow along my journey, and to have been able to express myself throughout. Receiving the Jim Bourque Award is an amazing gift of recognition which I never expected. Jim was a close friend of mine and a person I highly respected.

Do you have an Instagram account? Can you spell "Tick Tock"? Do you know what an "influencer" is? If all your answers to these social media questions are "Yes", and they come as easily as saying how many toes you have, chances are you're aged under 40. But if you hesitate or have no idea, you're probably Gen X or even a Baby Boomer. And that's a problem the fur trade needs to address.

Yes, these are generalisations, just as it is to say that the fur trade is ageing, but like most generalisations, they are based in truth.

Social media have become an important way to communicate directly to consumers without having to deal with the middlemen, or gatekeepers, of traditional mainstream media. But so far, the fur trade has been slow to exploit social media, and the main reason is that its managers have grey hair, and most of the people they manage have grey hair too! Social media are aimed primarily at younger people, who also create most of the content, and with little young blood currently entering the trade, keeping up with this trend has become a pressing issue.

At just 24 years old, fur advocate Nora Lacasse doesn't pull her punches when describing the crisis.

"The fur trade is aging and unless we start creating content that feels young, fun, and actually scrollable, we risk losing the next generation entirely," says Nora, who literally grew up with social media. "A lot of traditional fur leaders still approach messaging in a very conventional, institutional way, which simply doesn’t perform in the social media space."

If you recognise yourself in this description of an ageing manager, struggling to keep up with the latest trends, maybe we can still turn things around.

Lose Your Biases

I'm 69, and have little time for social media in my private life – for good reason in my view. I yearn for a past when life seemed simpler and slower, before electronic gadgets began dominating every facet of our existence. Another common gripe among my peers is that today's kids have the attention span of a gnat, favouring shocking images and sound bytes over, say, reading books or even blog posts!

But our ideal world is not the world we currently live in. If you are a manager responsible for marketing or public relations, you can't do your job well unless you also keep up with the times.

So the first thing you must do is lose your biases, or at least set them aside.

You may see Instagram as just a way to share photos that don't even belong to you, but for millions of users it's a source of information and entertainment, and a sophisticated marketing tool. To you, TikTok (correct spelling!) may only be for teenagers looking to twerk and share pranks, but these kids are buying products now, or will be very soon. And while you may think of Facebook as only being good for showing friends what you had for breakfast with a side of fake news, it has also become a powerful marketing tool when in the right hands.

By all means, continue dreaming about tossing your cellphone in the river one day, but if you're in marketing or public relations, wait until you actually retire. You already know that billions of other people depend utterly on their cellphones, and these are the people you should be selling to.

Workload

So you've resolved to up your social media game, but before you take the plunge, consider the work involved.

The most common question asked is how often you should post. There are no hard and fast rules, but if you're posting on Instagram, the consensus is that 1-2 posts per day is fine. For some people, that's already a lot (in terms of time and content), but multiply it by, say, four social media platforms, and you should think about streamlining your operations!

Another rule is that quality trumps quantity. So don't think you can post a load of rubbish just to keep your posting frequency up!

And will all your content strike the same tone, or will you be mixing it up? How much of your content will be original, how much will be sharing others' content, and will you be customising content for different platforms?

Last but not least, you're really supposed to spend time analysing your audiences to see what's working and what's not, and responding with changes as needed. There are several apps to help you in this, but don't forget to read all your visitors' comments too!

Good Role Models

If you're still determined to tackle social media head-on, your next step is to check out what others are doing, and here there is good news: you don't actually have to look beyond the fur trade. That's right; a handful of your younger colleagues are already fully engaged.

A good example is New England Naturals, a maker of custom fur pieces and other natural products in New Hampshire. On founding the company in 2017, Riley and Jake DeBow, both now 31, decided education was key to their business, and in 2020 launched their TikTok channel. Today they also have Instagram, YouTube and Facebook.

With material repurposed for posting on each platform, a newcomer might expect the four audiences to react in similar ways. Not so, says Jake. Rather, there are "substantial differences" between them, in particular in their ages but also in their attitudes.

"The older crowds don't like the 'modern' social media apps," he says, "and the younger crowds have drifted away from the older apps like Facebook and YouTube."

So what differences does he see?

"TikTok users are mostly aged 30 or younger, and want to be entertained," says Jake. "They like comedy, and post jokes in the comments section. Some of them have not even heard of trapping, but still they engage."

"Instagram users give us the most community support. Most are aged from 25-55, and they are interested in trapping and a subsistence lifestyle. They want to learn and feel part of a community, with most engagement coming from people who are inquisitive and deeply curious about the content we create."

"Then there are YouTubers, who tend to be people who are not on 'popular' channels like Instagram and TikTok. Many are trappers who like videos that explain the fine details and specifics of trapping and fur handling."

"And then there are our Facebook users, the oldest of the lot, with many over the age of 55. They are the most critical of our content. Anti-trappers are very active and loud, but so are the trapping community."

If nothing else, one takeaway here is that audiences differ, which is why people who take social media seriously use multiple platforms. Life would be simpler if we all used the same one, but as I've already said, life is no longer simple!

Influencers

After reading all the above, it would be totally understandable if your response was, "I just don't have time!" But there is another option: influencers.

Your typical influencer is a freelance expert in social media who creates content for a paying client, endorsing a product in the hope of increasing sales. This is usually achieved by projecting nuanced messages aimed at changing a consumer's mindset. In the case of fur, these messages might focus on sustainable use, the role of trapping in wildlife management, or the warmth and beauty of fur.

So how do you go about choosing the right influencer?

For famous brands, it might be as simple as giving a celebrity a luxury garment in exchange for their promise to go nightclubbing in it. But for the rest of us, the process is a little more hit-and-miss.

It's not a minefield, though. Indeed, all the steps you need to take are basic to all management.

Step 1 (see above) is to set aside your biases. If you still see influencers as hustlers offering good reviews in exchange for free food and clothing (or vice-versa), most of these people are quickly drummed out of business. If you get the slightest hint you're dealing with one, just walk away.

Step 2 is to educate yourself as much as possible about the influencer market so you can at least sound knowledgeable in negotiations over things like budget and deliverables.

And Step 3 is to ask for recommendations.

"So far, the Fur Institute of Canada has only dipped its toe in the influencer market to promote fur, working primarily with Nora Lacasse," says Executive Director Doug Chiasson. At just 24, Nora already has a reputation as an advocate of fur, content creator, and a candidate for Miss Universe Canada 2025. "Early in 2025, we ran a small Instagram campaign with a range of influencers, which helped us build a relationship with Nora. We then invited Nora to Première Vision Montreal to create some interesting content."

SEE ALSO: Nora Lacasse: Sustainable fur advocate. The Truth About Fur podcast, July 29, 2025.

"The experience so far has been positive," continues Doug. "Our Instagram following has grown, some FIC members have independently struck up deals with Nora, and other organizations are talking to us about how we approach influencer marketing."

So how is Nora finding life as a fur influencer?

"It’s been a powerful journey representing fur on social media and now on the pageant national stage," she says. "There’s been backlash, yes – but also momentum. The resistance proves the message is bold, and it’s starting the right conversations."

"For lifestyle and fashion, Instagram and TikTok are where the momentum is. Both are essential, but Instagram is the core of my brand."

Like Jake DeBow, she also sees differences in her audiences.

"The Instagram audience tends to be slightly older and more consumer-conscious than on TikTok," she says. "They are more likely to engage thoughtfully, especially when it comes to luxury or sustainability. TikTok, on the other hand, is great for reaching younger users and testing fast, engaging formats. Gen Zers [born 1997 to 2012] haven’t grown up with the same narratives. They're more open-minded and curious, especially as fast fashion starts to lose its appeal. I’ve personally seen way more traction and engagement from younger audiences on TikTok. It’s fast, visual, and where growth is happening."

"Facebook is more for an older demographic, and honestly, that group is harder to influence; they’ve been heavily marketed to, especially when it comes to fur, and many already have strong emotional responses."

Scrolling, Swiping

So what does the future hold for social media and the fur trade? Can we hope that all our grey-haired managers will respond to this call to arms? And are there enough youngsters waiting to receive their marching orders? Or are influencers the way to go?

However we choose to face this challenge, Nora and Jake agree that the pace will be fast and furious.

"Just putting out information isn't enough," says Nora. "People don’t want a lecture, they want something thought-provoking, visually compelling, or even a little controversial. The irony is that fur is slow fashion. But if we want it to thrive, it has to be willing to move at the speed of the scroll."

"Attention spans now are short, and one reason why fast fashion brands are thriving is because their videos are packaged in a way that speaks to a fast-paced, younger audience in short videos, bold statements, emotional or aesthetic appeal."

Jake points to the speed at which people swipe as the reason to deliver messages in the punchiest way imaginable. "Feeds change so quickly and videos become irrelevant after a short period of time, so we need to be sure that messaging doesn't fall through the cracks. And the most important messages need to be delivered in the first sentence of a video or you risk viewers not getting to the important information as they swipe so quickly."

Visually compelling messages? Videos that become irrelevant? Key messages in the first sentence? Viewers scrolling or swiping like whirling dervishes? Like it or not, this is the world we all live in, but can the grey-haired fur trade adapt?

The Fur Institute of Canada's (FIC) 2025 Annual General Meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, started with a bang! Five days of meetings, from June 10-14, were scheduled to be held at one venue, but at the eleventh hour an electrical fire knocked out half the conference centre, forcing everything to be moved next door! Thankfully, the staffs of both venues, and of the FIC, were equal to the task, and made the huge upheaval look like nothing.

Meanwhile, the AGM took place against the backdrop of the Stanley Cup Final of the National Hockey League, between the local Edmonton Oilers and the Florida Panthers. Needless to say, Oilers fans were out in force, but sadly there was no fairy tale ending. On June 17, the Panthers clinched their second-consecutive Cup in game six of the best-of-seven series.

As for the comparatively undramatic meetings themselves, the focus was on provincial / territorial collaboration, both amongst regulators and trappers. Regulations were the purview of the Canadian Furbearer Management Committee, made up of government wildlife managers, while updates on the latest developments in humane trapping fell to the FIC's Trap and Research & Development Committee.

The week also featured a long-anticipated and well-overdue meeting of Trappers’ Associations from coast to coast. The meeting was well attended, with the majority of provincial trappers’ associations in Canada in attendance. Stay tuned to Truth About Fur for a future piece centred on this meeting.

"Provincial and territorial governments and trappers associations are essential to guiding the work of the Institute," said FIC Executive Director Doug Chiasson. "It was great to have so many of them represented here in Edmonton, and we look forward to even more attending our next AGM."

Social Events

Day three was given over to socialising, combining an afternoon at Beaverhill Sporting Clays shooting range followed by dinner at Fort Edmonton Park, hosted by the Alberta Trappers Association and Canadian Coyote Company.

As the organisers of any such event will tell you, a little fun and games is an essential part of team-building. And if it involves firearms (no animals were harmed!), a spectacular historical setting, some of the best steak many could remember, listening to a cowboy balladeer beside an open fire, and cheering on the Oilers on a tablet in their victorious Game 4, so much the better!

"The FIC AGM is always a great chance to get together with the FIC membership from across Canada, handle some serious business and have a good time as well,” said FIC Chairman Jason White.

Banquet and Awards

Following the conclusion of the AGM, the FIC hosted a banquet with keynote speaker the Honourable Todd Loewen, Alberta's Minister of Forestry and Parks. As a dedicated trapper and outdoorsman himself, Todd was certainly among friends.

Also present to greet the banquet was another outdoorsman, MP Blaine Calkins. Blaine is currently chair of the Conservative Hunting and Angling Caucus.

Then came the Awards ceremony, with FIC Board member Serge Larivière, of the Cree Hunters Economic Security Board, acting as master of ceremonies. Awards were given to five recipients.

The Neal Jotham Award, sponsored by the Saskatchewan Trappers Association, went to Bryant White, a wildlife biologist and Furbearer Research Program manager with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Bryant's work focuses on coordinating projects involving US state and federal wildlife agencies, especially research related to Best Management Practices for the conservation of furbearers.

SEE ALSO: People of the fur trade: Bryant White. Truth About Fur.

The Jim Bourque Award, sponsored by the International Fur Federation, went to Patricia Dwyer, a director of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Long a proponent of humane trapping, the career of this Métis resident of northern Alberta has included positions with the Federal and Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping and the Department now known as Crown-Indigenous Relations, and over 20 years of experience as the Chief of Aboriginal Affairs and International Wildlife with the Canadian Wildlife Service.

SEE ALSO: Bringing Indigenous perspective to the future of Canadian Wildlife Federation. Say Magazine, September 2024.

The North American Furbearer Conservation Award went to biologist Dr. Tim L. Hiller, founder and executive director of the Wildlife Ecology Institute in Helena, Montana. Tim also heads a team of editors now undertaking the daunting task of updating the 1,150-page Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, considered the key reference in its field. Colloquially known as "the bible for furbearer management", the tome has not been updated since it was published in 1987.

The Lloyd Cook Award, sponsored by Fur Harvesters Auction, went to Ross Hinter, Public Liaison and Program Development Coordinator of the Alberta Trappers Association. Together with wife Deborah, Ross also operates North Trapping & Bushcraft, teaching trapping, traditional hide tanning, resolutions to human / wildlife conflicts, and other workshops. Ross has been teaching for more than three decades, throughout Alberta and British Columbia.

SEE ALSO: Alberta trapper Ross Hinter teaches about wildlife habitat. Truth About Fur.

The Fur Institute of Canada Lifetime Achievement Award went to Gordy Klassen. A past president of the Alberta Trappers Association and FIC Board member, Gordy has put his time, effort and money into helping educate trappers about the importance of furbearer management, and has hosted countless meetings at his own homestead.

SEE ALSO: People of the fur trade: Gordy Klassen. Truth About Fur.

Our Sponsors

The FIC would like to thank all the sponsors who were essential in supporting the AGM: our host sponsor, the Government of Alberta; our Gold (Wolverine) Sponsor, the Alberta Trappers Association; our Silver (Wolf) Sponsor, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association; and our Bronze (Lynx) Sponsor, Canadian Coyote Company.