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!

After decades of shrinking markets amid incessant attacks from animal rights groups, could real fur actually be on the verge of a comeback? And will it hinge on society's better understanding of sustainability?

Before you dismiss this is as just another puff piece from the fur trade, the mainstream media are asking the same question. Why is fur – real and pretend – everywhere again? asked Vogue this March. Can fur make a comeback? asked the Washington Post in April.

These are both prestigious titles not known for making stuff up, but there are plenty of other articles out there telling a similar story.

So if it's really true, why is it happening now? And should we really be surprised?

Understanding Sustainability

The last two decades have been tough for the fur trade, above all because of effective campaigns by animal rights groups to win over the media and vote-hungry politicians. It's impossible to count the number of media reports and pieces of legislation (particularly in the US) that have relied on half-truths and lies spoon-fed by these groups.

Two anti-fur campaigns have been particularly effective at hogging the media spotlight, in large part because they are highly repeatable. One involves pressuring well-known designer brands and retailers into dropping fur. The other seeks legal bans on fur production and retail at the town, city or state level. When one target has either capitulated or been bled dry of headlines, campaigners just move on to the next.

But while all this has been going on, the zeitgeist of society has changed dramatically. Thanks to the Internet, information is more available than ever before. And the conversation has changed too, and become more inclusive.

Above all, our focus now is on climate change. Scientists have been predicting trouble for years, but until recently they spent most of their time talking to one another, and most of us had little say. But now we're all involved, and many more of us can talk intelligently on topics as diverse as single-use plastics, watershed pollution, habitat loss, greenhouse gases, ozone holes and carbon footprints. Our grasp of these concepts has come on by leaps and bounds in a very short space of time.

As a result, some of the arguments the fur trade has been making for decades are now resonating with a much broader audience, among them the strongest argument in fur's favour: sustainability.

Just to recap the facts, in case you don't already know: Fur is a renewable natural resource, which means it is, by definition, sustainable. In contrast, petroleum-based synthetics like polyester, that now dominate the fashion industry, are non-renewable and therefore unsustainable. And contrary to what animal rights groups may want us to believe, fur is biodegradable, petroleum-based synthetics are not, and the environmental footprint of fur production is insignificant in comparison to that of synthetics.

SEE ALSO: Fur, a renewable resource. Fur Is Green.

Less Gullible

Because most people now get the facts, we are also far less gullible than we once were. How many of the following half-truths and lies did you once believe but now reject?

• Fake fur is better for the planet than real fur, because it does not involve killing animals. This is demonstrably false on several grounds. Both extracting petroleum and producing fake fur are polluting processes which kill millions of animals indirectly. Furthermore, fake fur sheds harmful microplastics into the food chain when washed, and at the end of its life, it's either burned or sits in landfills, causing further pollution.

• For the same reason, "vegan fashion" is good for the planet. Most vegan fashion is made of plastic, while much of the rest uses cotton, with all the harm to the environment that cotton production entails. Do you remember "pleather"? It didn't take a genius to figure out it was made of polyurethane, so marketers rebranded it as "vegan leather". But it's the same thing.

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

• Fur is a special case because it's especially "cruel" and "unnecessary". All animal-users have known for years that this claim is false. Fur is just a soft target, and the ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to end all animal use. In 2022, longtime advocate of sustainable use Canada Goose yielded to pressure to drop fur, hoping animal rights groups would leave it alone. Instead, protesters just took aim at its use of down stuffing instead.

SEE ALSO: Canada Goose retreats from fur. We should all worry, not just trappers. Truth About Fur.

• Inhumane treatment of animals is unsustainable. Despite the fact that animal welfare and sustainability are fundamentally different issues, animal rights groups have enjoyed great success persuading fashion brands and retailers to drop fur by convincing them they are part of the same package. Companies like Gucci and Canada Goose have even incorporated animal welfare into their sustainability policies.

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused? Truth About Fur.

How many consumers now see through such nonsensical arguments is impossible to say, but surely the number is growing, and product endorsements from animal rights groups are fast losing their value.

Mob Wife Look

So against this backdrop, why do some media pundits think fur's comeback may be happening right now?

Almost every story about fur's comeback in the last few months mentions a fashion trend called the "Mob Wife aesthetic". Born on TikTok, the Mob Wife look asks ladies to dress how they think the wives of Sonny Corleone, John Gotti or Tony Soprano dress. And the look is not just for clubbing. If you're visiting the grocery store, throw on your leopard-print jumpsuit, high heels, giant shades and bling jewellery, and top it all off with a fur stole.

SEE ALSO: TikTok’s ‘mob wives’ trend is fueling a resurgence of fur. CNN Style, Feb. 1, 2024.

But where did the Mob Wife look itself come from? Fashionistas theorise that there's a rebellion against the "clean girl" and "quiet luxury" looks, but at a deeper level, there may also be a connection with our improved understanding of sustainability.

Here's the logic. As we question "fast fashion", reliant as it is on petroleum-based synthetics, we are turning to "slow fashion", with investment pieces made of more durable, natural materials. And as part of this trend, we're also seeing a surge in recycling, including buying used clothing at thrift stores.

Enter vintage furs. They're both slow fashion and recycled – and an integral part of the Mob Wife look.

On balance, growth of the vintage fur market must be beneficial to the fur market as a whole. A nuanced ethical debate is now being played out by people who – for now, at least – say they reject new fur because it involves taking animal life, but embrace vintage fur because the animals are dead anyway. Indeed, putting their fur to good use, they say, is actually more ethical than throwing it away.

So now there's a mix of people out there, wearing new, vintage and fake fur, all acknowledging its beauty and functionality, while having a spirited debate about which is more sustainable. This is far more positive than the predictable pro- and anti- arguments we've been hearing for decades (and that the media are probably bored with).

Meanwhile, realists point to the fact that supplies of vintage furs are limited, and that as supplies dwindle, some of its fans at least will switch to buying new.

What the future holds for fur is hard to predict, but we are now in an age of greater awareness about sustainability, and are counting on consumers to make wise choices. An obvious loser will be petroleum-based synthetic garments, while winners will come from a range of renewable natural resources. That should include fur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And where do they go from here?

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

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

SEE ALSO:

On February 6, the Fur Institute of Canada returned to Ottawa for Fur Day on the Hill 2024. Supporting us were our friends at Summa Strategies, and joining us were our colleagues from the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, Canada Mink Breeders Association and Saga Furs.

FIC Board members had approximately 30 meetings with Members of Parliament, Senators, representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministers. Topics covered ranged from re-establishing Canada as a fur leader, supporting Canada’s sustainable and humane seal harvest, and defending the use and trade of fur around the world. Targeted support to promote Canadian fur at home and abroad, continuing the Canadian Seal Products campaign, and a strategy to work collaboratively between the diplomatic corps and the FIC to combat disinformation and trade bans on fur, are all initiatives that the Institute team discussed with decision-makers.

We also hosted Parliamentarians and allies from the nation’s capital for a cocktail reception, where they were able to experience fur garments from Créations GAMA in Montreal and Ottawa’s own Pat Flesher Furs. The chilly February Ottawa weather gave a great opportunity for FIC members to wear their own furs, and for MPs to bring theirs as well.

Building strong relationships with Parliamentarians and government decision-makers is an essential part of FIC’s mandate to advocate on behalf of Canada’s fur trade. By re-establishing Fur Day on the Hill as an important part of the Ottawa calendar, the Institute is gaining allies of all political stripes, and making sure that more of the people who make decisions that affect our industry are familiar with our organization and our trade.

The FIC staff and Board will continue to engage with governments at the federal, provincial and territorial levels to support and defend Canada’s fur trade throughout the year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was first published in Country Squire Magazine on Jan. 12, 2024, and has been slightly edited. It is reproduced with permission.

Being an Old Testament bloke, I usually reply in kind to those rude people who call law-abiding farmers, hunters, field-sportspeople and wildlife managers “murderers, killers and evil monsters”. I insult people who tell blatant lies about trophy hunting, and I mock demented Animal Rights (AR) evangelists who are so blinded by zealotry that they can’t tell a human from a hippo. It is therefore with awful sadness and restraint that I comment on one of my heroes and favourite people on TV, the wonderful Stephen Fry, whose appearances in Blackadder as Lord/General Melchett over 30 years ago and as the genial host of QI over 20 years ago (I know!) has enriched my life a bit and made him a firm favourite with the nation.

But now he has gone and done his own round of QI’s “General Ignorance”, concerning the bearskins worn by His Majesty’s Guards. Fry has unfortunately seen fit to front a campaign by PeTA ostensibly aimed at getting the Guards to use fake plastic fur instead of real fur bearskins – and fake sums up the whole AR campaign.

PeTA (also known as “PeTAnnihilation” from its habit of killing pets) you might recall, is the global AR behemoth (UK income £6 million, Global income $66 million and part of the $88 million that the network of mega AR parasites rake in annually). PeTA’s founder, stark-raving Ingrid Newkirk (“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth”), who openly condones ecoterrorism, set up PeTA to spread the mental disease of AR and oppose any use of animals by humans – no pets, no seeing dogs, no mine-detecting rats, no drug dogs, no farming animals, no nothing.

Unfortunately, since all of our physical resources and clearing land for any building work or farming, even vegetable farming (yes, vegans) or any other primary industry, involves killing animals, it is a simple fact of life that we humans couldn’t exist without killing animals, so the AR ideology is, in reality, an intellectual cow-pat. This is hardly surprising because Newkirk, like the rest of the AR souls, was apparently intoxicated by reading Peter Singer’s brain-fart of a book, Animal Liberation. He, in turn, is infamous for suggesting that, given a choice, competent monkeys should be given more rights than mentally incompetent human infants and he is AR’s founding father. There is, in fact, no such thing as animal rights, as any deer fawn can explain, shortly before being torn to shreds by an omnivorous black bear.

As Baldrick might have put it, “AR is a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”. AR is just about as realistic as that, too.

This story isn’t new. Bears and the King’s Guards, like naked women and red paint, make for wonderful press photos, so they have been a favourite target for PeTA for years; in fact the suggestion has been made that PeTA might want to let this particular golden goose live on. In the past, PeTA organised the usual petition and got their empty-vessel, willing donkey MPs to waste time in the Westminster Asylum debating their anti-bearskin nonsense and waste money taking the MOD to court in 2022. Bears are very charismatic in the UK – you will notice that AR souls make much less fuss here about rats, but even then, PeTA suggests that rats “should be caught gently in live catch traps and released not more than 100 yards from where they are caught” – an idea with obviously only one oar in the water, like most AR souls’ ideas. This is really all about publicity, not bears.

And what of the bears?

Well, according to Canadian government wildlife authorities, who may know a tad more about fur than either nut-roast PeTA or vegetarian Mr Fry, black bears are abundant and common in Canada. There is an estimated black bear population of about 500,000 black bears in Canada that is both healthy and stable. Black bear hunting and trapping has a very long history and is strictly regulated by both season and quota. In Canada, it contributes to food security and economic sovereignty in Indigenous communities and is an important source of rural income, especially where alternative economic opportunities are few. Bear meat and red offal are eaten, while grey offal is laid out for the natural scavengers or buried if you don’t want a bear’s picnic. There is nothing strange about any of it. We humans have been predators since before we were humans. Hunting by modern humans and our ancestors goes back at least 1,600,000 years.

PeTA has been around for about 43 years.

Stephen Fry is simply wrong when he repeats PeTA’s dishonest but obligatory “Trophy hunting” jibe – harvesting bears per se is not trophy hunting. He’s having a stir. Trophy hunting (usually conducted by hunting tourists) is something entirely different – trophy hunters keep their bear skins for a start. The Canadian bear harvest is not a “sport” – it is closer to subsistence hunting, an ancient and honourable human activity aimed at sustainably harvesting a natural resource, like rabbits, deer or fish in the UK and, like all predation, it doesn’t have to be “fair” – it’s not some kind of frivolous urban game to be played.

Things get killed. It is a way of life and a cultural tradition. The number of Canadian bears annually harvested by legal hunting and trapping is only a maximum of 6% of the total population and the harvest is RATS – Regulated, Accountable, Transparent and Sustainable. The meat is eaten while skins, bones, claws, and grease, etc. are important by-products of this harvest and are sent to market, no different to leather, feathers, hide glue, deer antlers for handles or dog chews that end up in UK pet shops.

Could someone please tell critics that the MOD don’t look at a tatty old bearskin cap and immediately phone someone in Canada to go out and club a bear to death for a new one. The MOD has nothing to do with the Canadian bear harvest or its market any more than it buys steel for its guns or leather for its boots. The MOD buys their bearskin caps from a supplier, representing (in number) a minuscule 0.04% of the skins available from the bear population and if those suppliers did not buy them, it would not make a blind bit of difference to either the sustainable bear harvest or its market.

It is therefore not true for Fry to suggest that buying them “encourages hunting”. Bear pelts are a natural commodity like any other. As of 2020, there were 14 countries whose militaries used bearskin as a part of their ceremonial uniforms and there is an interesting piece about making the UK bearskin caps on the excellent and most illuminative Fieldsports Channel.

Of course, the public are not Royal Guards, so PeTA and Fry and their usual posse of rich, virtue-signalling slebs can pretend to their doting and donating public that plastic fur makes a better substitute and from there imply deceptively that it will save bears’ lives.

Wrong on both counts, as usual.

The MOD have made it clear here that fake fur isn’t up to scratch (so to speak) and, as you can see from the link, using fake fur won’t save a single bear. Quite apart from these practical and sensible considerations, there is also the serious matter of military tradition and esprit de corps.

AR souls, whose self-indulgent, look-at-me ideology is only possible because they are safe and well protected by the sharp sword and bright armour of the military, have no more idea about military tradition than they do about hunting culture. In the earlier debate about bearskins in the Westminster Asylum, Martyn Day MP (nothing to do with the shamed Al Sweady lawyer) got up to pee on military tradition, saying, “As the writer and philosopher G. K. Chesterton wrote: Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” He omitted to acknowledge that the sacrifices of those dead allowed him to stand in Parliament and freely spout his wrong-headed opinions.

Dear Readers, there is another serious, real-world note. Fake fur is made up of millions of tiny oil-based plastic fibres that snap off in sunlit use and inevitably break down into smaller and smaller pieces. We all know that trillions of micro plastics are shed by synthetic plastic clothes (up to 700,000 in a 6kg wash), exfoliants (up to 94,000 in a single use) and tyres (18,000 tons annually), making up 65% of the micro plastics released into UK surface waters that end up in the oceans and inside us. What we should be doing is stopping using fake plastic Franken-fur, not promoting it. It may well be poisoning all of us (and, ironically, the bears in Canada) just to keep a handful of gobby urban head-bangers happy.

Natural fur, on the other hand, has another story. It is an unbeatably warm and beautiful, sustainable and replaceable natural resource that can be absorbed back into nature’s own cycle – one that we have been using for the whole of our history. It is bio-degradable and uses fewer chemicals to produce than, say, leather. Sustainably utilising natural resources like fur and meat while managing wildlife populations is an excellent use for vast areas of remote wilderness, ensuring that it is self-protected from development or other uses such as farming. In doing so, all the other fauna and flora is conserved, too. Armchair conservationists may grumble and the AR happy clappers may moan, but hunters on the ground are often the first eyes and ears monitoring the condition of the environment and its residents.

Looking at the state of the world at the moment, surely we have much more important problems to attend to rather than waste time and money, pointlessly pandering to PeTA the Parasites or to the twisted ideology and emotions of rich, virtue-signalling AR souls – even souls of the otherwise exemplary stature of Stephen Fry, bless him.