Are you an artisan designer from a remote region, creating stunning fur fashion but still wondering how to break into the "big time"? Maybe you can learn from the experience of Jane Avery, a designer from New Zealand's South Island, who recently crossed the world to show her wares on a catwalk in Vancouver.

Truth About Fur: You launched the Lapin label in 2017, combining exotic fabrics with the fur of invasive wild rabbits, responsible for tremendous ecological damage in New Zealand. Your garments are spectacular and your environmental message is strong, so last November you accepted a longstanding invitation to show your wares on the other side of the planet. Is the New Zealand market too limiting for you? Is the urge to go international just irresistible? And aren't there other major fashion weeks closer to home than Vancouver Fashion Week (VFW)?

SEE ALSO: New Zealand designer embraces wild rabbit "eco-fur". Truth About Fur.

Jane Avery: Ever since I started Lapin, my intention was to “go international”. New Zealanders are notorious for wanting to leave our islands and seek their fortune in the big blue yonder. It’s part of our national character as isolated Antipodeans. So in the eyes of my fellow Kiwis, it’s certainly good for Lapin to earn kudos as an “international adventurer”. This is where I make my living after all, and we love it when a plucky compatriot takes a New Zealand story to the world.   

New Zealand keeps me plenty busy fulfilling client work, but I am curious to know whether Lapin can succeed beyond these shores. And the Northern Hemisphere is the obvious choice for anyone in fur fashion.

There's a traditional appreciation of fur in northern countries, both cultural and because some can be so cold. In contrast, the majority of New Zealand’s fashion audience is in the sub-tropical North Island in cities like Auckland. Given the warmer climate, people there may like my work but they don’t necessarily see it as relevant to their wardrobes. I guess Australia's Melbourne Fashion Week might be a future aspiration for me, as it gets cold enough there in winter.

As for being drawn by the dream of hitting the big time, I think my coats and jackets would look wonderful on red carpets and certain global celebrities.

TAF: Canada certainly has a strong fur tradition, but was there anything in particular that drew you to Vancouver?

JA: It attracted me for a few reasons, both personal and professional.

On a personal level, Vancouver was my husband's home during his tertiary education, so it’s a familiar haunt and we have good friends to stay with.

From a fashion perspective, I considered both the city and the fashion show. At first glance, the city's style may seem to be dominated by puffer jackets and camel overcoats, but there’s also a quiet yet definitive fashion presence there – an "if you know, you know" kind of vibe.

As for the show itself, since VFW was founded in 2001, it has grown to become the second-largest fashion week in North America, after New York.

It provides a platform for designers to show their wares both to a local audience and also, thanks to the digital age, international fashion-watchers too. It does a great job of distributing images to a plethora of fashion-related businesses, including other shows, PR companies, buyers and stylists – everyone with their eyes peeled for potential talent.

TAF: You actually launched Lapin at a smaller fashion week in New Zealand's Dunedin, so VFW was not your first. During the seven years between Dunedin and Vancouver, how did you keep moving forward?

JA: iD Dunedin Fashion Week is an excellent platform for emerging designers in its own right, for getting noticed in our part of the world and also further afield thanks to the Internet. I was spotted, and in the weeks that followed, I received several offers to show by, among others, VFW.

But even though these offers intrigued me, I held them at arm's length. Showing at an international fashion week, no matter how close to home, is a big investment, especially for a new business. It was important for me to establish Lapin within New Zealand first, and eye the big wide world from afar for a while.

Also bear in mind that slow fashion is slow, and I’m only one pair of hands. It would be quite impossible for me to show a new collection every year or even every two years. I struggle with the reality of not being able to realise all of my fabulous ideas in a more timely manner. But hey, I am extremely privileged to be able to work independently in my chosen field, and satisfy the desires of clients paying for my work. It’s amazing really.

So I kept busy, for example producing my own show in 2018, also in Dunedin, in collaboration with a local jewellery designer. And in 2019 I hosted a workshop at my studio. Then came Covid and the years of "pivoting" happened. I supplemented my Lapin work with vintage fur up-cycling and cultivating clients for possum fur decor. Then in 2022 and 2023 we had major family issues, which meant Lapin couldn't take centre stage.

SEE ALSO: Recycling vintage fur New Zealand style. Truth About Fur.

TAF: And then in 2024 came VFW, which must have been a change of pace. What were you hoping to gain from the experience?

JA: When I committed to VFW, I felt like I was putting my dreams and schemes back on track.

Aside from gaining general fashion week experience, my primary objective was securing imagery. I knew that VFW puts out a high-end product devoted to showcasing designers well, so I was sure to come away with good photos and video of my work being worn by professional models on a well-lit, well-attended runway. And I’m pleased with the result. I now have plenty of good stuff for my various publicity avenues, and it'll keep the social media beast fed for a while.

Also, as I hoped, I’ve had a few more invitations to fashion weeks plus enquiries from big city PR companies.

So I’m happy Lapin is being noticed outside of New Zealand, and I now have the confidence to  show anywhere in the world.

TAF: You mentioned the importance these days of digital technologies in getting exposure for designers. Did VFW have any surprises for you?

JA: A big revelation for me was the sheer speed at which fashion images get out now, and viewers react. The posting of photos on Instagram was so fast and furious, it took me days to unravel the likes, shares and message requests!

There were some thrilling surprises too. Digital fashion platforms that featured my looks included Vogue Italia and Vogue México! Imagine seeing my brand on the same page as the “V” word!

I also dipped my toe into the world of fashion influencers and digital creators. I made a genuine connection with a fashion-forward lass from Vancouver Island, Josie Amanda Boulding. She was sitting front row for the Lapin show, and posted the next day how my presentation made her think about fur differently. At New York Fashion Week this February, Josie will be there wearing her Lapin "Incognito" jacket. An "advance guard", I call her!

TAF: How about sales? Did you manage to make any while in Vancouver?

JA: I tried, but it was harder than I thought.

As an artisan designer making bespoke pieces, it’s never been my plan to court major store or boutique buyers. Instead I aim to present to fashionable individuals looking for something exceptional. Still, I thought I stood a fair chance of making some sales while in the city.

But it's difficult for a small brand all the way from New Zealand to generate local media attention, and while VFW profiles the season’s designers on its website and social media, and issues press releases, there’s no venue for displaying wares other than at the catwalk show.

So instead, I arranged private appointments in a hotel suite for interested people to try and buy. But there was minimal uptake. That was all part of the learning experience, I guess!

TAF: So overall, was VFW a positive outing for you? Would you advise other artisans dreaming of the big time to aim for a major fashion week too?

JA: Doing VFW was a big deal for me and I hope it was worth the effort, but quite frankly, I don't know yet. I've had my work recognised, and once again I've been able to tell people the environmental story behind Lapin. But whether major fashion weeks are an important promotional tool for designers like me, there are people far more qualified than I am to answer that. So I’m still in "wait and see" mode.

There are undoubtedly some positive takeaways, like all the professional photos and video you get of your work, that you can use as you see fit, and that appear in online fashion publications.

A word of caution though: if you're looking to get noticed in a world flooded with fashion images, be ready to invest a considerable amount of coin up front. Following up on just one of these invitations to show can cost a lot of money, so small businesses like mine can't say "yes" to all of them. Make good decisions and keep it real!

TAF: So what does the future hold?

JA: I hope I can take Lapin to an international stage again in the future, be that another fashion week, a trade show, or some fantastic opportunity that hasn’t yet presented. But for now, it's back to the work table, and hopefully I can find time to make a few new Lapin pieces.

Lapin’s next outing is in March at the Wānaka A&P Show – real feet-on-the-ground grassroots kind of stuff.  I’ll have a small marquee in a field along with tractors and agricultural produce, displaying Lapin wares and promoting my services with a sign saying "Vintage Fur Clinic".  I’ll be inviting locals to bring along their old furs for a chat about upcycling possibilities. But make no mistake – it's not a backward step. Folk in the lower South Island are very sophisticated. It’s great down here, and the rest of the world should know it!

Meanwhile, I’ll keep asking the universe for a famous somebody to fall in love with my coats and wear one to a sparkling event!

Lately, I forced myself to watch the quite popular Paul Watson : Une vie pour les océans [Paul Watson: A Life for the Oceans], broadcast on the European public service TV channel Arte. After learning that I appeared in it, I sort of had no choice but to check it out, right?

Full disclosure: I don’t like Watson, and you’ll quickly understand why.

The advertising film (because that’s what it really is) tries to ennoble the pseudo captain – a fake title that suits his equally fake character very well.

Because, if the "captain" has neither title nor official certification, he is part of a short list of characters who have managed, like other guys of the genre (for example UFO religion founder Raël, International Fund for Animal Welfare [IFAW] founder Brian Davies, and wealthy televangelist Joel Osteen), to make a living with others’ money, and that, before the advent of web influencers. Applying a well-tested recipe, these characters have all experienced a "moment of awakening". Raël, for example, was abducted by aliens, while Osteen was contacted by God. For Watson, the epiphany came from the eye of a dying sperm whale. In the narrative, it looks chic.

One can, of course, romanticize Watson's life, as Arte has done so well. Or one can see it for what it really is.

Violent Temperament

Like hundreds of thousands of young people, especially in the 1970s, Watson wanted to change the world, and participated in protests of all kinds. Environmental issues were starting to get traction around that time. He joined Greenpeace, which quickly kicked him out in 1977 because of his instability and violent temperament. As he relates in the long Arte commercial, his father was violent, and his mother died when he was still young. Any human being remains marked by this kind of childhood.

A year later, in 1978, he gave an interview to Barbara Frum of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (CBC) in which, in an attempt to take revenge on his former colleagues, he revealed the true motivations and financial tactics of these activist groups. Decades later, their tactics are still the same: using charismatic species to get donations from people. Truly endangered species, if non-charismatic, rarely get attention.

When Watson realized that his strategy did nothing to diminish donations to Greenpeace, he created the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) and used the same tactics, with the same animal that filled the coffers of Greenpeace and IFAW: the seal.

It was during this period that I met Watson in the Magdalen Islands. You can see me for a few seconds in his commercial ... without my permission, of course. I am the only one who speaks in this excerpt (as French is my first language, my English is a little broken!), but not the only one whose images have been used without permission and who would refuse to be associated with such a criminal.

Because that's what Paul Watson is, a criminal.

Endangering Lives

He and his minions would like the world to believe that the Magdalen Islanders expelled him (to put it politely) from their archipelago because they were drunk and hated him for wanting to "save the baby seals", but that's obviously very far from the truth.

On several occasions throughout his career, Watson has instructed his crews to carry out maneuvers that endanger the lives of sailors, fishermen, hunters, husbands, fathers, and friends. The sailors of the Magdalen Islands have not escaped his intimidation techniques and they hated him for his scatterbrained and dangerous behaviour.

In the few minutes that Arte devotes to this episode, Watson tells more lies than I can relate here, but the funniest is when he claims to have "knocked out three of them with my stun gun". Even today, 30 years later, if you were to run into one of these sturdy guys, you'd quickly realize that the "captain" was no match for anyone in the group, even with the stun gun he invented to make it sound more Hollywood-like.

More precisely, when the dozen hunters entered the room, he crashed to the floor, livid, fear having sawed off his legs.

He knew exactly what he was doing when he came to taunt them on their own turf with his wacky proposal. As usual, he came to collect media images that he would use in fundraising activities. Efficient deceptions still require some effort and investment.

Since he was born not far from the Magdalen Islands, in New Brunswick, he would have been well aware of the affable nature of the people of the Maritimes. He certainly wouldn't have been treated with the same leniency in several other regions, as he surely knew very well.

Paul Watson has built his entire career on provocation. In 2008, when four Magdalen Island sealers lost their lives at sea, Watson couldn't resist shining a spotlight on himself by sullying their memory. His comments enraged all sailors worthy of the name, and, in solidarity, fishermen from the French territory of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon cut the moorings of his boat while docked on their archipelago. "Il peut revenir, mais à ses risques et périls," their representative said at the time ["He can return, but at his own risk."]

In truth, Watson is a troubled, megalomaniacal and dangerous being. Not in great physical shape, he's had no choice but to calm down with age, but that does not forgive his past actions.

It’s nothing short of a miracle nobody has died because of his reckless actions. Sure, lots of alcoholics drink and drive their whole lives without killing anyone, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taken out of circulation for everyone’s sake.

Shifting to Whales

Watson only shifted to the whale-saving business because most of the funds intended for the rescue of "baby seals" was going to other organizations that were similar to his own but more effective in their propaganda and disinformation campaigns since they used media stars to reach people’s pockets. At the SSCS, he was the star, and he couldn't stand sharing the spotlight.

He says it himself in his interview with CBC: "There are over a thousand animals on the [US] Endangered Species List, and the harp seal isn't one of them." And nor is "the whale" because there is no such thing as "the whale". There are almost a hundred species of cetaceans. Some populations are doing well, others less so, but Watson does not trade in subtlety; it would become too complex for his generous admirers.

It was more valuable to create "THE whale" – the majestic, singing, intelligent, protective, wise one – the charismatic one. The one that brings in money for its valiant defender.

Watson went all-in with the bad boy persona (as much of the Sea Shepherd artwork proclaims loud and clear), and he naturally had the personality to match: the one who decides right and wrong, who doesn't have to follow the laws of inferior beings, i.e., all those who think otherwise. An interesting marketing strategy.

To simplify things further, Watson decides alone who’s poaching – not the competent authorities, the scientists or the sovereign nations. And whoever contradicts him obviously becomes the villain in his narrative. Sometimes in a Hollywood movie, the one who defies authority becomes the hero, but, unfortunately for him, in reality, that's also what defines a criminal.

"Empathetic Predator"

For decades now, I’ve been wondering why even seemingly brilliant minds sometimes fall for such devious characters and their masquerades.

Religious gurus have been around since the dawn of humanity, a phenomenon that is well documented. But environmental gurus (the environment being sort of the new religion) operate on new parameters.

When I discovered the fascinating work of the French ethnologist Charles Stépanoff, I found some clarity as a couple of our specie’s particularities caught my attention. Cooperative parenting, as an example, incites us to take care of offspring other than our own. And trans-species empathy allows deep feelings for otherness. The plethora of interactions between humans and other species, mixing ownership, companionship, domestication and sometimes even a form of family love, presents a complexity that is, indeed, difficult to match elsewhere in nature.

Most of the time, people living in natural, rural settings weave complex links with animal otherness. For example, a farmer can consider a dog or cat as a family member, spend nights watching over a sick cow, and also slaughter pigs. The entanglement of those forms of relationship are common and widespread. These people usually see themselves as an integral part of nature. Stépanoff qualifies their interspecies relationship as a “réseau dense" ["dense network”]. They love nature so much that they choose to live in its midst.

On the other hand, urban faunae maintain much simpler links with nature and other animal species. In the city, plants are potted, birds are caged, and cats are neutered. As for the people themselves, they visit a countryside they would prefer to be virgin and wild, like the ones they saw on National Geographic channel. They observe nature from afar and want to protect it, while removing any sign of it from their sterile environment at home. For the ethnologist, they maintain a "réseau étendu" [“spread network”] with animal otherness. Their lack of closeness with nature makes them vulnerable to animalist groups’ simplified rhetoric.

Besides, from a young age, we’re all comforted by plushies, anthropomorphized critters and Walt Disney’s cartoons. Some simply never really grow out of it.

On top of that, our world is increasingly urbanised, and those dense pockets of voters hold the balance of power in most democratic societies. In other words, those of us who are the most disconnected from nature are the ones calling the shots for us all, which explains in large part why our environment is deteriorating.

Paradoxically, urbanites believe they are part of the solution, not the problem. At best, letting them decide what’s ecologically sound is counterproductive. Most of the time, it is eco-colonialism in its purest form.

Stépanoff speaks of Homo sapiens as a "prédateur empathique" ["empathetic predator"]. Our ability to imagine ourselves in our prey’s position makes us an excellent hunter, but, without discernment, our empathy also requires us to question the morality of taking lives. Indeed, if you picture yourself in the prey's position, killing becomes a tragedy to avoid.

Some groups and individuals have turned this human duality into a business and prey on those of us who don’t maintain a dense network of relations with animal otherness. I don’t give them credit for that finding. Brian Davies, founder of IFAW, was one of the first to uncover the immense economic potential of this human singularity with seals in the 1970s, but that was a total fluke.

Most of those groups are disembodied ideological organizations such as IFAW, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) or Greenpeace. Others, such as the SSCS, rely heavily on a single persona – in this case, "Captain" Paul Watson.

His feat is to have succeeded in convincing an impressive number of people of his act. Many have tried to apply the formula: "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth," but before the Internet, few have succeeded on a large scale. It’s also true that the lone ranger fighting against the evil corporation story fits well in the now popular “conspiracy theories”. It’s all very poetic and everybody loves bedtime stories.

Logo, slogans, shocking images, charismatic species, good vs evil … the man knows how to manipulate the media and the masses, I’ll give him that much.

Does he still believe his own actions are well-founded? Of course. They've brought him fame and fortune, and his entourage identify him with this facade. After just a couple of years of that regime, there was no turning back. He became the character he had created, and it served him well too. I’m sure it’s the same with Raël and all other gurus.

Here, I would like to make a distinction. Most followers of these activist groups are sincerely hoping to do some good for the environment. Because of their urban living and natural empathetic disposition for otherness, they just don’t know any better. Leaders of those movements don’t have such excuses. Being fatly paid full-time to improve their knowledge on those issues, they either should know better and are being dishonest about it, or suffer from intellectual deficiency which, to that extent, is unlikely.

Beyond lying, individuals who take advantage of other humans’ weaknesses to enrich themselves leave negative impacts in their wake. Watson is no different.

Ecological Criminal

By helping to over-protect seals, Watson has also contributed to weakening the Gulf of St. Lawrence’s ecosystem in Eastern Canada. Since the debacle of the sealing industry, over-predation by these pinnipeds has had a huge negative impact on the marine biodiversity of the region. Hunters and fishermen predicted that much as early as the 1980s, but today, it is scientists who have no choice but to admit it. The grey seal population in Eastern Canada has grown from about 5,000 in the 1970s to 400,000 today. Multiply the population of any apex predator by 80 in any given ecosystem and, of course, you’re going to create havoc.

Yes, you’ve read that right; Captain Watson is also an ecological criminal.

Isn’t this the ultimate irony? Animalist groups have created the perfect loop: the more money you give them, the worse the environment becomes. And the worse the environment becomes, the more money people give them.

Of course, society needs people to take care of nature's biodiversity, but not just anybody. Ecosystems are complex, more so than, let’s say, air traffic control. Would you let someone without any proper training or credentials direct plane landings? Of course not. So why trust a fake captain with it? If we’re not happy with the way our ecosystems are being managed, we need to train those in charge better, not follow the first self-appointed guru.

There it is. The grand illusion. People who give support to these groups think they’re contributing to a better planet while doing exactly the opposite.

Now you know. The disappearance of Atlantic cod, yellowtail flounder, white hake and many other fish species does not bother the noble captain in the slightest.

It is not Watson who will go bankrupt; it is the evil fisherman in his 17-metre boat. Watson is not the one who will have nothing left to feed his children, since his fortune is assured. It is not his community that will decline since he now lives in France. Who cares about uncharismatic species that are not even good for a small fundraising activity? Biodiversity? Bah … who cares?

Not Arte’s hero captain, in any case.

This article first appeared in French in La Presse on Dec. 9, 2024 as part of its series Planète bleue, idées vertes,, and is reproduced in English with permission.

As a child, did you ever dive headfirst into a mountain of fur coats piled on a bed?

This question, which takes us straight back to the 1970s and 1980s, came up while La Presse was visiting the Créations GAMA workshop on rue Saint-Georges in La Prairie.

Behind an armoured door where the temperature is kept at 12°C, with controlled humidity, hundreds of large coats are lined up under an industrial-height ceiling. There's pearly white, gold, long-haired chocolate, short-haired black …

Designer and fashion manager Gabrielle Mailhot-Côté's mission is to restore fur to its former glory through remodelling. She is dedicated to the circular economy in a world of luxury.

All this, often with nostalgia for those evenings spent at an aunt's or grandmother's house, with laughter muted in the kitchen, recounts the woman who, in 2021, went ahead and relaunched Spécialités André Morin cuir et fourrure, which will be remembered by the not-so-young.

In the GAMA showroom, the creations all make you want to bundle up. The "before and after" of a long, heavy coat, now a jacket in recycled pearl mink, with spiral sleeves, is breathtaking. There's also the unrecognisable before and after of an old red fox turned sophisticated reversible coat.

The designer is aware that this natural material has lost its lustre to so-called "vegan" fur. But, she points out, it's important to remember that we're talking about recycled furs here, which can easily last up to 70 years if properly cared for. She believes there is a resurgent interest.

In Canada, the fur trade began in the late 17th century, when Europeans began buying beaver pelts from Indigenous peoples. The industry was long run by the Hudson's Bay Company. In Montreal's Fur Trade at Lachine National Historic Site, an old fur shed has been converted into an interpretation centre. These days, you need a licence to trade in the fur of a trapped or hunted animal. And several species are governed by strict export laws, such as the wolf, river otter, lynx and bear.

It's a different story when it comes to remodelling existing fur. Simon Ward, Director of Communications for the Fur Institute of Canada, a national spokesperson for the sector, explains that there is currently no directory of fur remodelling artisans. A few companies are fairly well known in Quebec, including Fourrures Robert Émond. For hats and mittens, there's Harricana. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, Art'Abaska, a start-up from the Victoriaville region, made a name for itself by offering mittens to Premier François Legault.

Self-taught

Marie-Claude Girard and Martin Brûlé have become passionate about remodelled fur mittens, earmuffs and moccasins. Almost all their Art'Abaska creations bear the names of the grandmothers or great-aunts to whom the coats belonged. On the other end of the phone, the couple tell us that two years ago, they received a lynx coat to transform from a niece of Éva Morin, a nurse and midwife from Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Using her fur, she travelled through the colonies in a Bombardier B12 snowmobile in the 1940s to deliver hundreds of babies.

There are also mittens and moccasins from Laurette made by Rita and Annette. Each item is unique and comes with its own certificate. They take between eight and 25 hours to make, they say. The leather for the trimmings is new, they point out, but it comes from scraps collected from leather and upholstery suppliers. They remember the bright red new scraps that came from the banquettes of Nickels restaurants, once associated with Céline Dion.

"We started out during the pandemic," says Martin Brûlé. "We're self-taught. I remember the first mittens. … Marie-Claude broke three needles with her little Singer sewing machine. Today, we have fur sewing machines and three embroidery machines in our basement. We work during the day, we reshape the fur at night, we love what we do, we eat it."

Did you know that the province of Quebec has a thriving trapping group whose members are all women? While it's true that the trapping world is dominated by men, every other trapping organisation opens its doors to male and female trappers alike, so why bother? Truth About Fur spoke to the founder of this unique group, Cathy Naud, to find out.

Truth About Fur: You started Trappeuses du Québec in 2020. What inspired you, and does it meet a real need?

Cathy Naud: Women-only communities are nothing new, and their aim is not to segregate women from men. They're about creating environments in which women can shine, grow, and contribute to fields traditionally dominated by men.

So when I launched Trappeuses du Québec, we already had women-only groups for hunting and fishing, but female trappers had been overlooked.

We offer a safe environment for women to empower themselves, and the fact that we already have over 1,500 members clearly indicates the demand was there.

TAF: You say you offer a "safe environment" for women as if mixed-gender groups are somehow unsafe. What do you mean?

CN: By a "safe environment" I mean one where women can express themselves freely without fear of judgment. This builds their pride and confidence, and encourages them to share their expertise.

Of course we work with mixed-gender organisations all the time, and have received strong support from the Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires du Québec and trapping businesses. But the reality is that mixed-gender groups, especially online, can be unwelcoming to women.

Some men are still dismissive of our skills as trappers and struggle to accept that we can trap as well as they do.

For example, sometimes a woman asks a genuine question, only for a man to give an unhelpful or mocking response. Or she'll ask a novice question and be ridiculed. Or she might recount her success in trapping a more challenging species, only to be met with surprise or even disbelief.

Of course, we must also deal with inappropriate comments like "nice beaver".

TAF: So how does your group ensure women have a more positive experience?

CN: We have several unofficial rules that I go through during the interview process. For example, every question deserves a respectful and thoughtful answer. Experienced trappers are expected to be generous with their time in mentoring beginners, and they are.

We also encourage members to share their successes, learn from their mistakes, and grow – all without fear of judgment or hostility.

TAF: In general terms, who are your members?

CN: We are more than just a group of individuals; we are a network where women help one another, celebrate their shared passion, and contribute to ethical and sustainable practices. From beginners to seasoned trappers, every member plays a role in fostering a welcoming and supportive atmosphere.

We come from all over the province, are from diverse backgrounds, and have different skill levels. Most of us speak French – the language of our website and social media – but it's not a requirement, and thanks to artificial intelligence, online translating is easier than ever before!

TAF: More specifically, how are your members involved in trapping?

CN: A significant portion are part-time hobbyists who trap to connect with nature, practice traditional skills, and harvest materials ethically. Many of these are also passionate about hunting and fishing.

But we also have several professionals engaged in nuisance animal control or managing wildlife populations for parks or municipalities.

And then we have artisans and craftswomen who work with fur, bones, and even beaver tail leather. They create beautiful, handcrafted items that honour the animals they harvest.

TAF: So aside from emphasizing respect and support for one another, are there areas where female trappers can teach men a thing or two?

CN: Women bring a distinct approach to trapping that often emphasizes patience and precision, and respect for animals and the environment.

Women tend to be more meticulous and careful than men when preparing animals they have harvested. For example, they may take more time skinning them to avoid damaging the hide. Men, in contrast, may prioritize speed and quantity over quality, which is more likely to lead to mistakes.

Women also tend to be more empathetic and ethical towards the animals they trap. They may spend extra time to ensure their traps are set perfectly to minimize harm to an animal and maximize efficiency. Again, some men prioritize speed and quantity.

And female trappers tend to share more and compete less than their male peers. They are more likely to ask questions, seek advice and collaborate, which can lead to a stronger sense of community.

Another important difference is our physical strength. Many women face challenges with trapping tools, and would like to see more of them designed specifically for us. For example, one member is currently developing an easier-to-use clamp for activating Conibear 330 traps.

TAF: It sounds like the differences between male and female trappers are the same as between men and women in general. Indeed, most men would agree that women are nicer, or at the very least are less likely to start wars! Is this an accurate assessment?

CN: That's correct. Women tend to be more patient, more empathetic, less competitive, and of course physically weaker than men. Trappeuses du Québec understands these differences, and seeks to provide a supportive environment in which women can feel empowered in their journeys as trappers.

After decades of leadership from the Fur Council of Canada, the "downstream" sectors of Canada's fur trade will once again have full representation following the absorption of the FCC by the expanding Fur Institute of Canada (FIC).

Both national associations always had members from all sectors of the trade, but each had its strengths.

The FCC, founded in 1964, had a downstream focus, working on trade issues, marketing and promotion, and producing educational materials for consumers and schools. The FIC, meanwhile, was launched in 1983 to administer Canada’s world-leading trap research and development program, and became the national forum for a wide range of trapping issues, notably implementation of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS).

Together with the Canada Mink Breeders Association, these three national associations provided strong leadership for the Canadian trade.

Fur Council's Heyday

“The Fur Council of Canada was one of the most productive and creative fur associations in the world,” recalls Alan Herscovici, who was raised in the Montreal fur manufacturing sector, and served as the FCC’s executive vice-president for two decades. “In the 1990s and early 2000s, the Fur Council produced major fur advertising campaigns, including billboards, and multi-page spreads in Vogue and other leading fashion publications."

“We also had programs to assist retailers in modernizing their stores, and engaged top fashion and marketing experts to help manufacturers to innovate and open new markets. We coordinated design competitions to encourage fashion students to work with fur. Not least important, the FCC was a leader in promoting the fur trade’s environmental and ethical messages, with printed materials for retailers, billboard campaigns, videos, and websites like Furisgreen.com and TruthAboutFur.com.”

Through the Canadian Fur Trade Development Institute, its manufacturer/wholesaler arm, the FCC also organized the North American Fur & Fashion Exposition in Montreal (NAFFEM), from 1986 until 2013.

But with the contraction of fur manufacturing and retailing over the past decade, it became increasingly difficult to maintain multiple associations. Several years ago, the FCC closed its Montreal office, and its administration was taken over by the FIC.

Merger with Fur Institute Formalized

SEE ALSO: Dilan and Emmy: Young Québecois furriers join forces. Truth About Fur.

Earlier this year, the merger was formalized. “Several wholesalers, retailers and other downstream operators who were former FCC members have now joined the FIC, and were invited to our annual meeting in Newfoundland last June,” says FIC Executive Director Doug Chiasson.

“Our objective these days is for our membership to represent all stakeholders in the fur trade because of the synergies this can bring," says Chiasson. "So bringing downstream operators under our umbrella is a major step in this direction. If we can help retailers and wholesalers to sell more fur products, that supports prices for primary producers and everyone through the entire supply chain, including auctions, processors, and brokers.”

Now several of the FIC's new members are in the process of setting up a committee to support fur product promotion and marketing, among them former FCC vice-president Christina Nacos of Natural Furs International.

“There’s no magic bullet that will solve all the industry’s problems," says Nacos, "but working together from within the Fur Institute is a cost-effective way to leverage our strengths. With the new committee being set up, it’s important now that as many designers, artisans, wholesalers and retailers as possible become FIC members, so we can really give this our best shot!”

Canadian retailers and wholesalers – and other downstream members -- who have not yet done so are invited to contact FIC Executive Director Doug Chiasson, at [email protected].

Now available on the web are a new series of instructional videos showing trappers how to avoid accidental catches of non-target species, and what to do if they occur.

Trapping associations take this matter very seriously, for a few important reasons. Among these, catching the wrong species can be wasteful, or could interfere with conservation efforts. It also poses an existential threat to the future of trapping: when a pet dog is accidentally caught, anti-trapping campaigners use this as ammunition to call for an end to all trapping.

SEE ALSO: When pet dogs are accidentally trapped, why are media reports so unbalanced? Truth About Fur.

Eight original videos have been produced in French by the Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires du Québec (FTGQ), with the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) then dubbing on English translations. The websites of both organisations are showing the French versions, while FIC is also showing the English versions. The role of host in all the videos is played by trapping instructor and FTGQ managing director Gaétan Fournier.

The videos cover strategies for avoiding accidental catches in restraining traps, killing traps and snares. They also cover a range of animals, including semi-aquatic furbearers (muskrat, otter and mink), birds of prey, cervids (moose, deer, elk and caribou), and domestic animals (mainly pet dogs).

No fewer than three of the videos focus on pet dogs, including one that deals exclusively with what dog-walkers and trappers should do if a dog is accidentally caught.

"No trapper wants to catch a pet dog," explains Pierre Canac-Marquis, Coordinator of the Canadian Trap Research and Certification Program, who collaborated on the project along with fellow FIC member Ryan Sealy, a trapping instructor in Yukon. "Indeed, most of us have dogs of our own, so we understand the grief a family goes through when they lose their pet."

"But the reality is that on those rare occasions that a dog is accidentally caught in a trap, anti-trapping campaigners seize the opportunity to present all trapping in a bad light."

"For this reason in particular, trappers must strive to eliminate accidental catches of dogs. The future of trapping, with all the benefits it brings for conservation and communities, could depend on it."

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur.

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

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

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

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

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

Danish Debacle Sets the Scene

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influence of Animal Rights Groups Suspected

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

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

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

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

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

Government Lawyers Resist Court Order

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

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

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

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

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

"Cruel and Cynical Game"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypocrisy at Play

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

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

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

*  *  *

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current crop of reality TV shows suggests that not only are many North Americans interested in living closer to nature, they actually crave it. This should bode well for the future of all outdoor activities that involve the taking of animal life, including fur trapping.

This is not a new idea, at least not for me. A decade ago I wrote a piece entitled "Mountain men wannabes: Allies of the fur trade", asking whether we were doing enough to tap into a large base of reality TV fans interested in getting their hands dirty in the great outdoors.

What I wasn't sure of was how many other people were thinking the same thing.

And then I read a July 29 article entitled "Interest in trapping doubles in five years". Town and Country Today had interviewed Alberta Trappers Association president Bill Abercrombie, and one of his comments caught my eye:

"I’d say definitely there is some increased popularity and interest from reality TV shows," said Abercrombie, "but most of all I think because trappers have many skills based on self-sufficiency, sustainable living on the land and bushcraft knowledge."

Agreed, reality TV shows don't deserve all the credit, or maybe even a large part of it. Above all, people's interest in "sustainable living on the land" is growing because of our hugely improved awareness of issues like climate change, pollution, and habitat loss.

SEE ALSO: As society’s grasp of sustainability improves, is fur making a comeback? Truth About Fur.

Still, reality TV is playing a role in all this, whether it's because producers are setting trends or pandering to those that already exist. It's also vindicating for me to hear someone else actually say it!

Swamp People

A major exploiter of this genre is the History Channel, though there are several others.

For an impressive 15 seasons, History's Swamp People has been shooting Louisiana alligators in the head, while dispensing tidbits of advice on family values, protecting communities, and occasionally wildlife management. The show is also now on its third spinoff series, Swamp People: Serpent Invasion, in which cast members bag giant Burmese pythons in the Everglades. A lot of the action is surely staged, but the conservation message about invasive pythons is very real.

Then there's Mountain Men, now in its 12th season, that teaches viewers to chase mountain lions with dogs, haul logs, roast squirrels, and grow shaggy beards.

And for 11 seasons, the survival series Alone has taught us how to fish with thorns, trap rabbits, shoot grouse with a homemade bow and arrow, and build an earth shelter.

Sanitised Killing

An important part of these shows is that they don't – can't – dodge the fact that killing animals is an intrinsic part of whatever lifestyle they are promoting.

Sure, the actual killing process is sanitised (i.e., not shown), but it takes little imagination to guess what happens off-camera.

Thus in Swamp People, we never actually see a gator take a bullet in the skull, but we do see a rifle muzzle being discharged while someone yells "Choot it!"

In Mountain Men and Alone, we know the wounded rabbit or grouse had its neck wrung, though we are spared the sight.

Serpent Invasion is more ambiguous. Pythons are caught live and by hand, then thrown in sacks, so sensitive viewers can kid themselves they end up in pet stores or zoos. But local law says they are actually dispatched on site by a trained professional, usually with a captive bolt pistol.

History Channel even gives us scenes of butchery, albeit minus the blood and in an unlikely setting. On its hugely popular reality show Forged in Fire, newly crafted blades are often tested for sharpness and strength on bled-out pig carcasses, salmon and ram skulls.

PETA and Friends Silent

Against this backdrop of animal slaughter and butchery, the silence of animal rights groups has been remarkable.

It's tempting to trot out an old argument that since most people hate crocodilians and snakes (and spiders) anyway, campaigning for their rights would be a lost cause. But that doesn't quite hold water given that PETA et al. are now fighting hard to ban "exotic skins" from croc and python farms.

Another old argument that no longer works is that you don't protest against leather at a Hell's Angel rally. Sure, gator hunters tend to be large and survivalists are ridiculously healthy, but in this age of remote protesting afforded by the Internet, the chances of them gutting and skewering you are zero.

My explanation is far more positive.

Commercial TV executives, and the bodies that regulate what programs can show, are all about giving us what we want – with obvious exceptions. And that means that a group of people sat down somewhere and discussed topics like:

• Is it ok to show alligators being shot in the head?

• Is it ok to show rabbits being trapped or grouse being shot with an arrow?

• Is it ok to show pig carcasses being cut to pieces?

Obviously regulators approved all these, with conditions, suggesting that showing such scenes has been judged beneficial – educational even – to society as a whole.

If my logic is sound, it tells me two things.

First of all, it tells me that the majority of North Americans accept the killing of animals as part and parcel of living close to nature.

And second, it underscores that the targeting by animal rights groups of wild fur trappers is arbitrary and therefore unjust. We need to stress this in our public relations.

If the North American public are ready for scenes of gators being shot in the head, rabbits being trapped, and pig carcasses being cut to ribbons, it's also ready for scenes of fur trappers at work.

And before you say it, many furbearers also make extremely good eating.

On June 21-22, the Fur Institute of Canada held its Annual General Meeting in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador, and presented three awards honouring lifelong contributions to animal welfare and conservation of furbearers.

The awards vary from year to year, with this year's presentations being the Neal Jotham Award, the North American Furbearer Conservation Award, and the Lloyd Cook Award. .

SEE ALSO: Lifelong contributions honoured at 2023 Fur Institute awards. Truth About Fur.

Neal Jotham Award

First presented by the FIC in 2014, the Neal Jotham Award recognises its late namesake's contributions to animal welfare, and in particular his leadership in creating international standards for humane trapping systems.

SEE ALSO: RIP Neal Jotham: A Life Dedicated to Humane Trapping. Truth About Fur.

Sponsored by the Saskatchewan Trappers Association, this year's award went to Ross White, a prominent figure in the wild fur trade for many years.

White is a long-time active member of the Trappers Association of Nova Scotia, including serving on its Board. Above all, he is known as a tireless advocate for trapper education and engagement, and for introducing the next generation to trapping.

White played a key role behind the scenes in negotiations in the mid-1990s on the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). Though officially an inter-governmental process involving Canada, the US, the EU and Russia, Canada's negotiating team recognized the value of accessing the best available knowledge that only trappers could provide. White was key in making sure trapping associations provided the funding needed to enable Howard Noseworthy (see below) to stay in Brussels to support and advise North American negotiators.

Said FIC Board member Mike O'Brien in his presentation speech, "He ‘got’ the changing world that trappers are working within and the need for trapping practices and trapper education to develop and evolve to respond to the changing world. He understood fully the importance of improving trapping practices and trapper knowledge and skills, and of achieving inherent acceptable levels of animal welfare as critical to maintaining the social licence to trap and sustainably harvest wildlife."

North American Furbearer Conservation Award

The North American Furbearer Conservation Award, initiated by North American Fur Auctions and continued by the FIC, recognises individuals and organisations that have made significant contributions in the sustainable management of furbearers. This year’s award went to Newfoundland native Howard Noseworthy.

In 1981, Noseworthy became President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association, overseeing the province's implementation of a mandatory trapper education program. Upon stepping down as President, he assumed the role of Trapper Education Coordinator.

From 1992-97, he served on several joint Canada-US delegations to the EU, meeting with parliamentarians and bureaucrats to explain North America's trapping regime and model of wildlife conservation, and the need for the AIHTS. Concurrently, he was a member of the Canadian Advisory Committee to ISO TC 191 on the development of humane trapping standards, eventually leading to the trap-testing standard that now underpins the AIHTS.

As a resource person to the Canadian delegation negotiating the AIHTS, Noseworthy was described by Don Maclauchlan, then with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, as "a rock – a reliable and steadfast fountain of insightful and accurate information that we so desperately needed."

During the same period, Noseworthy also facilitated the union of the Canadian Trappers Federation and Trappers Alliance into the Canadian National Trappers Alliance, serving as President until 1997.

From 1997 until 2008, Noseworthy served as General Manager of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, which took on many of the former roles of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, including trapper licencing and education.

In 2008, Noseworthy moved to Fur Harvesters Auction, still in Ontario, as Director of Planning & Development, a position he holds to this day. At the FHA, he has overseen efforts to promote wild fur internationally, including playing a major role in the development of the North American Wild Fur Certification protocol which acts as the basis for audits of wild fur certified under the International Fur Federation's Furmark program.

Said Nova Scotia trapper Ross White of Noseworthy, "This man has the ability to take a big problem and reduce it with just a few words. He is thoughtful, respectful and forward-thinking. ... Having this man, as intelligent as he is, representing the fur industry is a big plus when things have to move forward."

Lloyd Cook Award

First presented by the FIC in 1993, the Lloyd Cook Award recognises the commitment of its late namesake to excellence in trapping, trapper education, and public understanding of wildlife management. Among the posts held by Cook in his lifetime were President of the Canadian Trappers Federation and of the Ontario Trappers Association, forerunner of today’s Ontario Fur Managers Federation.

Sponsored by Fur Harvesters Auction, this year’s award went to Frank Phillips, who unfortunately was unable to attend our AGM.

In the 1980s, Phillips was instrumental in starting trapper education within the Wildlife Department in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador. He adapted the Ontario trapper education course for use in Newfoundland and Labrador, and also authored the province's version of the manual.

He also conducted trapper education and pelt-handling courses throughout Labrador, often traveling by snowmobile. Among his teachings were how trappers could get better prices for pelts by dealing directly with their provincial trappers association, and the importance of switching from traditional leghold traps to more efficient and humane traps, such as conibears.

On May 28, representatives of Canadian sealing communities descended on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill to mark National Seal Products Day, and discuss the future of sealing with Ministers, Senators and MPs. Inaugurated in 2017, this event is a celebration of the cultural traditions, economic importance and sustainability of sealing in the lives of coastal communities.

The event was jointly organized by the Fur Institute of Canada and the NCC Investment Group. The FIC runs two marketing projects under the umbrella of the Seals and Sealing Network: Canadian Seal Products and Proudly Indigenous Crafts & Designs. The NCC Investment Group is an Inuit-owned property management, construction and development company that operates throughout Nunavut.

Centre stage went to a wide range of seal products, from fur garments and accessories, to healthy and delicious foods and omega-3 oil supplements for both humans and pets. But National Seal Products Day is also an important opportunity for representatives of Canada’s sealing communities to discuss pressing issues with the country’s political leaders.

“In all our meetings with government representatives, we emphasized our consistent dedication to environmental stewardship,” says Doug Chiasson, Executive Director of the FIC. “This commitment is vital for the well-being of sealing communities, both environmentally and economically.”

In practical terms, what are these gatherings intended to achieve?

“Our main objective is to grow existing markets for seal products, both in Canada and overseas, and hopefully open up new ones,” explains Chiasson. “These markets suffered terribly from animal rights campaigns starting as long ago as the 1960s, and for decades it was a question of whether they could even survive. But at long last, we believe we’ve turned a corner on the road to recovery.”

“Our political leaders have a vital role to play in this, and it’s for this reason that we gather each year in Ottawa for National Seal Products Day. As this year’s attendance showed, many politicians share our commitment to promoting seal products, so the domestic market at least faces a brighter future. Whether we can persuade international markets to share our vision, that’s the biggest challenge facing us all.”

Where does this optimism – for the domestic market at least – stem from? Above all, it is society’s growing preference for products that are both healthy and good for the planet.

“More than ever, consumers are demanding food and clothing products that are natural, healthy, and sustainable,” says Chiasson. “Seal products fit the bill perfectly, and it’s our mission to spread this message.”

SEE ALSO: As society’s grasp of sustainability improves, is fur making a comeback? Truth About Fur.

This May saw the launch of the Truth About Fur Podcast, a collaborative effort of the Fur Institute of Canada and the Blood Origins Canada Foundation, the national branch of a global nonprofit dedicated to telling the truth about hunting and promoting conservation. Hosting duties are shared by the FIC's Executive Director, Doug Chiasson, and Mark Hall, Director of the Foundation and host with his son Curtis of the Hunter Conservationist Podcast (Apple Podcasts; Spotify).

In this first episode, Doug and Mark discuss current trends in auction prices for wild furs, and the state of Canada’s Atlantic sealing industry. You can listen in on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or watch it on YouTube.

So why has the FIC decided to dive into the world of podcasting?

"It's really a case of the right opportunity coming along," explains Doug. "The Hunter Conservationist Podcast has been around since 2019, and I've already been a guest on a few episodes, so I know the effort and attention to detail that Mark puts into his podcasts.. Plus the Foundation is the perfect fit for us. When it comes to sustainable use of wildlife resources in Canada, we're on exactly the same page."

SEE ALSO: Doug Chiasson: What does the Fur Institute’s new ED bring to the table? Truth About Fur.

Mark is also onboard with the new partnership.

"The Fur Institute of Canada is a global leader in the industry," he says, "so I'm honoured to be co-hosting the new Truth About Fur Podcast. Trapping and sealing are integral to Canada's economy and to the well-being of so many Canadian families. We live in the information era, so it is important that people in the fur/seal industry have a trusted source of news and updates from across the country and even abroad. Our goal is for the Truth About Fur Podcast to be that trusted source of information."

Target Audience

The first episode of the new podcast runs for 1 hour 10 minutes – a sizable chunk of time. So who do Doug and Mark hope will tune in?

“One of the most important tasks of the Fur Institute of Canada is to share information with anyone interested in the fur trade, and reaching as many people as possible requires multiple approaches," says Doug. "We already have a website, three social media channels and a newsletter for members, and we interact with mainstream media. Now we're adding a podcast, which fills a special niche. The audio format, plus of course the duration, enable us to dig deeply into issues while catering to people who can't be glued to a computer screen."

So who might these people be?

"If you enjoy listening to the radio, you'll enjoy podcasts," says Doug, "Maybe you're a trapper who spends hours behind the wheel of a truck, or in your fur shed. Your hands and eyes are occupied, but you can still listen. Or maybe you're just making dinner or washing dishes. With a podcast playing in the background, you can learn something while hopefully being entertained too."

"We also hope we'll attract listeners from the Hunter Conservationist audience. Trappers and hunters are both parts of the same outdoors community, and face many similar issues. So we're excited to explore these areas of common interest, and hopefully bring hunters and trappers closer together."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ping-Pong Debate

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

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

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

“Good point.”

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

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

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

Why Bother?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking of which, the salmon was delicious!