Once you get past the odd title, you'll hopefully find it fitting for the parable that follows. At first glance, it may seem a strange salad, with not only oranges, but also pineapple, roast beaver and giant sequoias thrown into the mix. But if you bear with me, they all come together to confirm my belief that trapping for food and fur is a very sustainable and environmentally friendly way to live.

This story started a few years ago while I was on a trip to the Northwest Territories of Canada. I was up early one morning having breakfast at the Explorer Hotel in Yellowknife. It was around 7:30 a.m. and outside it was still pitch-black and a very frosty -40° Celsius. My journey had brought me north, in the middle of winter, to provide fur-handling workshops in different communities across the NWT for the next 10 days.

Breakfast for me is a pretty simple affair, porridge with a side order of toast, orange juice and coffee. That morning I remember sitting by myself, wondering how the next few days would unfold, as I waited for Francois to pick me up to drive to our first workshop in Fort Providence. And then it struck me: a piece of pineapple had arrived with my porridge as a garnish.

I enjoy pineapple but the thought occurred to me, what did it take to add a small piece of pineapple only a few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle? Pineapples grow in the tropics, with the biggest producers being Costa Rica, Brazil and the Philippines, where forests are cleared just to grow them. So for that piece of garnish to reach my plate fresh enough to eat, it had its share of air miles, and certainly a lot more than I had travelled from my home in North Bay.

In fact, the exotic pineapple was once highly prized in Europe and North America, where it symbolised not only affluence but also hospitality. Evidence of this can still be seen today in the pineapple motifs that architects, artisans and craftsmen incorporated into everything from gateposts, weather vanes and door lintels, to furniture and fabrics.

So I remember thinking this was a pretty extravagant luxury in such an extremely harsh reality. That thought planted the seed for this story.

Less Meat, More Orange Juice?

Fast forward to a recent conversation with my daughter Kasey, at the kitchen table one morning. As she enjoyed her fresh orange juice, she casually remarked to me that we should eat less red meat. Kasey is a very serious young lady who cares about the world she lives in, and she had just watched a documentary about the environmental impact of raising cattle for meat.

Deb and I have four kids and they are all responsible young adults making their way in today’s world. And none of them are vegan, so her statement caught me off guard.

One attribute I have tried hard to instill in my children is to question things and not get caught up in flavour-of-the-moment fads. Just because someone is promoting an agenda doesn’t mean that all their arguments can be proven, or are even true. Kasey is in her third year of nursing at the local university and had just completed a project on northern food security. So she is now well-versed in the problems and issues of supplying a balanced diet to remote communities.

In fact, I had shown her an educational poster that pictured a Cree hunter/trapper roasting a fresh beaver over a fire. The poster explains the importance of the beaver to Cree culture, and the value of the meat far outweighs the value of the fur. Beaver meat sustains a trapper's family in one of the harshest environments inhabited by man. In the same way, seals sustain other northern cultures.

Harvesting meat from seals and beaver is far less intrusive on the local environment than flying fresh meat in from the south. A bonus is the skins that are sold into the fur trade to give the local hunters and trappers income to further sustain a lifestyle that has very low impact on their lands.

Flying southern food into the north has also come at a truly staggering cost in terms of human health, with a rise in particular of obesity and diabetes.   

Humbled by Giants

Rewind again a few years and I am in Las Vegas visiting one of the largest outdoor trade shows, the SHOT Show. While on this trip, I booked a return flight with three extra days so I could take a side trip to Northern California to see the giant sequoia trees, something I had always dreamed about doing.

These massive trees have an estimated life span of between 1,800 and 2,700 years. Stop and think about that for a moment. That’s one heck of a long time compared to how long people live - 70 to 80 years on average!

I was extremely fortunate to be able to share this trip with my son Tyler. We rented a van in Vegas and drove the six hours to Visalia, California where we spent the night, and then drove up to the entrance to Sequoia National Park. On our trip we drove through the desert looking at cactus trees, and then into California where mile after mile of orange tree orchards grow. The journey in itself was a huge eye-opener for us.

As luck would have it, this was in January and Sequoia National Park had just been hit with 36 inches of fresh snow, and was now closed for the rest of the season. Undaunted, we were told that if we drove to Kings Canyon National Park, no matter what, we would be able to see a grove of the giant sequoias.

Back down the valley, another hour and a half drive from just about sea level to over 6,000 feet, we reached the entrance gate only to be told we had to have chains on our tires. Back down to the valley to buy a set of chains and we finally accomplished our mission.

Standing beside General Grant is a humbling experience. If you have the chance, I suggest you visit the parks. Just make sure they are not snowed in!

Mile After Mile of Orange Trees

Back to my story. Because we were not able to make it to one park and had to drive over to the next park across the valley floor, what I saw really opened my mind to what it takes to get that fresh glass of orange juice on your breakfast table.

Acres and acres, mile after mile of intensive agriculture, rows upon rows of orange trees, lemon trees and grapefruit trees, and in the valley floor it was harvest time. One sight that is still vivid in my mind was driving past a factory with at least 50 semi-loads of oranges waiting to be processed into juice.

What really struck me was the intensity of the farming. As a trapper I am always looking at the habitat. I can honestly tell you that between each tree in every orchard there was hardly a blade of grass, never mind any other type of vegetation. No room for anything else but fruit trees.

Now don’t read me wrong here, I am not against drinking orange juice or eating the odd grapefruit. What got me thinking was the fact that the average person has no clue what it takes to have fresh food on the table in front of them, for just about any meal they eat. Singling out beef farming as environmentally unfriendly while telling folks that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables is a tad bit hypocritical.

The challenge for all of us is to produce things in a sustainable manner, and look at the whole and not just a single part. We need beef just as we need orange juice.

In this day and age, it is so easy to be against something and jump on a bandwagon and shout out your superiority. I urge you to stop for a minute and gather all the facts, not just what someone spoon-feeds you.  Next time you are reading your news source, whether off the web or an old-fashioned newspaper, keep in mind you are reading someone else’s opinion of the facts and not necessarily the whole story.

The next time you sit down to drink a glass of orange juice or eat your morning grapefruit, keep in mind that they travelled thousands of miles, and were handled by a number of people, before they reached your breakfast table. Don’t be so judgemental of a trapper or hunter harvesting fur and food from a landscape that they didn't actually have to change in any way. They are harvesting in a sustainable manner that has gone on for as long as the giant sequoia trees have been growing.                

***

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

Vegan fashion is a buzz term for clothing that doesn't use any animal products. Often promoted by activists as "cruelty-free" fashion, it's all the rage in some circles. But for every consumer who refuses to wear anything but plants and petrochemicals, there's someone else eager to explain that such choices may be doing more harm than good. Needless to say, the fur trade is extremely interested in this debate.

"There's a strong ethical case for wearing leather and fur" is one of the best overviews we've seen in the war of ideas between animal-based clothing and vegan fashion. True, it's a book review, of Putting on the dog: The animal origins of what we wear by Melissa Kwasny, so it's like reading CliffsNotes. But it makes all the right points. Consider this a "must read".

Fashion United also took a hard look at "Vegan vs animal-based fashion: which one is more sustainable?" "What is sold as vegan 'leather' is often nothing but polyester or polyurethane," writes Regina Henkel. "In other words, a plastic fiber that first of all, is made from crude oil and is therefore not renewable. Second, it is not biodegradable and thus littering our planet and third, reaches the food chain in the form of microplastics."

The Daily Mail also piled into vegan fashion. "Plastic fibres that pollute our oceans, factories using toxic chemicals, clothes that never decompose: Devotees think they’re saving the planet but we reveal the guilty secret about vegan fashion."

The Daily Sabah looked at the damage being done to the planet by fast fashion, singling out vegan leather for special criticism. "... for companies using vegan leather, they have to be more transparent with their customers and declare the chemicals that they use while processing the fake leather and explain every step that the vegan leather goes through before reaching its customers."

That's called traceability. Increasingly, consumers want full disclosure about how products are brought to market, and TruthAboutFur is happy to report that the fur trade is ahead of the curve. A comprehensive new certification program, FurMark, is set to be rolled out next year.

Meanwhile, riding on the popularity of vegan fashion, PETA et al. are pushing hard to have all animal products expunged from the fashion scene, even those that don't involve killing. In "First fur, now wool?" Bill Wirtz of the Consumer Choice Center explains that "The war on animal products is bad for conservation and bad for the poor."

"Gibb's Adventures"

The name Jim Gibb is familiar to Canada's trapping community. When he's not trapping, he's keeping bees, operating a saw mill, and serving as chairman of the Fur Institute of Canada. Jim recently launched a YouTube channel "to showcase how we, as rural people, live our lives. I am very disappointed by how people are portrayed by others who don’t understand trapping, hunting, fishing," he told Timmins Today. "My plan is to showcase what we do and how we do it so that those who are interested can see for themselves." Check out "Gibb's Adventures" on YouTube here.

In other hunting and trapping news, coyotes continue to grab the headlines, thanks to the amazing popularity of coyote-trimmed parkas. Aside from being a boon to trappers, this is also benefiting companies selling the parkas, and Canada Goose wants to give back. It commissioned 14 Inuit seamstresses to create one-of-a-kind jackets, and all proceeds from their sale will go to the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, a non-profit serving Inuit communities in Canada's north.

In case you're wondering whether there are enough coyotes to go round, fear not. "It's been shown over and over again that coyotes can't be eradicated," says Laura Palmer with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife to the Messenger-Inquirer. "Their density is so high and they're so resilient that neighbouring coyotes will just move [into their place] in just a matter of months and you're going to be back to square one."

SEE ALSO: Will urban coyotes change the animal rights debate?

Farewell Karl Lagerfeld

Last month, the iconic creative director of both Chanel and Fendi, and owner of his eponymous fashion label, Karl Lagerfeld, passed away. Articles celebrating his life were all over the media, so here are just a couple of good ones, from The Independent, and Women's Wear Daily. He will always be remembered as a fierce champion of fur, saying: “In a meat-eating world, wearing leather for shoes and even clothes, the discussion of fur is childish.”

And in other miscellaneous news ...

• Are you a fur retailer? Is business slow? Maybe you can pick up some tips from TruthAboutFur's blog post "The art and science of making sales".

• A price of Facebook's popularity is that it is under enormous pressure to censor the content its users post - and we're not just talking fake news. Presumably as a knee-jerk reaction to complaints from animal rights groups, it's been blocking ... then unblocking ... then blocking ads by an Alaskan native selling sea otter fur hats. The same thing has been happening with sealskin products.

• Continuing a long tradition, started by Joe Namath, of gracing the Super Bowl wearing in-your-face fur, rapper Big Boi joined the halftime show at LIII in a full-length red fox fur coat. Inevitably, PETA had a hissy fit.

• We're assured this is an isolated incident and polar bears are not taking over, but the inhabitants of Novaya Zemlya in Russia have had enough! Following a huge influx of bears, a state of emergency has been called, but hunting them is banned, reports the Siberian Times. What to do?

Consumers today have expectations about everything they buy, from electronics to clothing to furniture -- and manufacturers and retailers of these products are being held to ever higher standards. A big part of consumer confidence is the traceability of products they buy, and the good news for the North American fur trade is that we are well ahead of the curve.

If we order fish in a restaurant, we want to know that it's safe to eat. Hopefully, it also came from a sustainably harvested stock, and the people who processed it enjoy good working conditions. We want our meat to be free of harmful drugs, and to come from farms that observe high animal-welfare standards. Traceability becomes more complicated, of course, when raw materials come from several countries, the product is assembled in a different country, and sold in yet another.

While most industries are running just to keep up with emerging traceability requirements, the North American fur trade has a head start. After years of having every aspect of our operations closely scrutinized, today we are a world leader in the key standards of animal welfare and sustainability. We are also perfectly positioned to meet the standard of traceability now being demanded by consumers.

Development of FurMark

This was clearly revealed when the international fur trade began looking into the development of a new global program called FurMark. This promises to be "an independent, world-class comprehensive certification and traceability program that addresses and assures sustainability and animal welfare."

The impetus for FurMark began with fur farmers and the European fur trade wanting full traceability for their products, to satisfy the requirements of international fashion companies. The desire was for a mark or brand, backed up by a certification program that could assure everyone in the supply chain that the fur they were buying met prescribed standards of animal welfare and sustainability. That motivation has since spread globally, and a full roll-out of the program is now targeted for 2020.

While originally intended to provide reassurance about farmed fur, producers of wild fur inevitably also wanted to be part of this important new program. In response, experts in North America compiled a full list of requirements to assure standards of animal welfare, sustainability and traceability, from the trapline to the finished product. The initial goal was just to make a list and see where there might be any gaps, but then a funny thing happened. When everything was put on the table, it was discovered that there really weren’t any significant gaps beyond some proprietary technology issues (related to things like coding and tags).

In essence, standards and traceability for wild fur were already fully assured by way of a full suite of government, industry and independent requirements and documentation (including, but certainly not limited to, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, CITES, ISO standards, etc.). Those elements support the highest possible levels of regulation, science, permits, enforcement, traceability, animal welfare and sustainability. Everything that was needed was already there!

North American Wildlife Conservation

The fact that everything was already in place for an effective traceability program will not really surprise anyone who understands how North American wild fur is produced. Our wildlife conservation model is the best in the world, and the wild fur trade is a very important part of that model.

Just consider the basics of wild fur. Animals are taken only from abundant populations, with a focus on achieving balanced ecosystems with protections for threatened or endangered species. Trappers are trained in the use of traps that have been rigorously tested using the most advanced scientific methods to assure animal welfare. Trappers also function as providers of scientific data to professional wildlife managers. The pelts they harvest are then tracked all the way from the dealers who first purchase them, to the auction houses, and on to their final buyers. And at every stage there are strict government regulations and permitting and licensing systems, all backed up by science.

In short, the North American model not only works, it exceeds expectations. When our wild fur experts  finished studying how to be compliant with FurMark, they realised they had already put decades of work into an issue that many other industries are still struggling to catch up with.

Cloud-Based Blockchain

To ensure traceability, FurMark comes with a cloud-based blockchain system with a company called ChainPoint that will trace pelts from the auction houses through all the stages of manufacturing.

Fur farmers will attain FurMark certification by undergoing animal welfare and environmental audits by independent third parties.

Dressers and dyers will also be subjected to independent testing and certification. They must use only chemicals from an approved list; undergo government inspections of factory outputs; and agree to random spot-checks of dressed/dyed pelts to ensure compliance.

But it is not FurMark alone that will be providing assurances. Auction houses, manufacturers and retailers are developing their own programs to compliment and enhance the FurMark effort.

Animal welfare in the North American wild fur industry is supported through the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, ISO standards, Best Management Practices, and various Federal, State, Provincial and Territorial regulations that ensure traps and trapping meet the most stringent, scientifically proven humane harvesting standards.

Humane, Sustainable, Traceable

So what does all this mean?

If you are a North American producer of fur, be it a farmer or a trapper, it means you should be proud of all you have in place to ensure that your harvests are humane and sustainable, and that the end products will soon be more traceable than ever before.

For trappers, it means there are no further government or industry regulations needed to achieve traceability or consumer reassurance, because they already exist and are working extremely well. Canadian fur farmers have adopted codes of practice developed by veterinarians and animal scientists under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council, and are now putting into place a system for third-party audit and certification.

If you work in other sectors of the fur trade, from the auction house to the retailer, it means you are buying and selling a sustainable product that comes with all the standards and traceability that a modern industry should have.

And most importantly, if you are a consumer thinking about buying North American fur, it means you can do so with the utmost confidence that you are making a responsible choice.

Anti-fur protesters and animal rights activists are an elitist cult. Not only do they have opinions based solely on short-sighted emotion, and not on science, sustainability or ecology, but they also feel the need to seek out and harass people for not sharing those beliefs. That’s a special type of narcissism.

The word “cult” applies to a group with a set of ideologies that revolve around an excessive devotion toward a particular figure. For animal rights cultists this “God” figure is animals, and anyone who uses animals in any way is evil. Little do they know - or care to acknowledge - that in their quest to protect animals they are among the guiltiest of sinners, causing harm to the very critters they worship.

When anti-fur cultists are outside fur stores, attacking small businesses, spitting on Indigenous and Canadian heritage, and claiming to be animal saviours, they are dressed head to toe in synthetic clothing that will never biodegrade, and will pollute habitats and kill animals en masse for millennia. Do these activists care about the pollution caused in manufacturing their clothes then shipping them across the world? Or that their clothes are contributing to the dire situation with plastics in our oceans? Their choices suggest absolutely not.

SEE ALSO: "Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur", by Truth About Fur.

SEE ALSO: "It's time to say 'no' to anti-fur hate groups", by Alan Herscovici, senior researcher, Truth About Fur.

Environmental Impact of Fur Negligible

Fur is biodegradable, so when several generations of a family are finished using a garment, it can be composted.

Anti-fur protesters like to focus on the tanning agents used to preserve the fur as their argument against the environmental positives of fur, but the truth is that these agents are becoming increasingly environment-friendly, plus they are reused multiple times. The impact per garment is negligible and a moot point.

There is little to no long-term environmental impact from sustainably harvested fur, and in Canada the fur trade is tightly regulated to ensure that sustainability is achieved. Unfortunately when it comes to sustainability though, anti-fur protesters and animal rights activists have no foresight. Their thought processes seem incapable of grasping the real, long-term impacts of our clothing choices.

"Cruelty-Free" Has No Substance

Likewise, their thought processes don't consider a reality of nature, which is that wild animals don’t grow old and die peaceful, pain-free deaths.

Wild animals get eaten alive by other animals who have no regard for a humane kill. They lose their ability to hunt and die cruelly while they starve. They get overpopulated and die of disease and starvation. Anyone who would prefer that, over a quick and humane harvest where the animal gets put to good use in a way that is positive for the environment, can’t claim to be compassionate or care about animal welfare.

Animal rights cultists, who preach about being compassionate and “cruelty free”, are the same people who have threatened to dissolve my five-year-old daughter and I in acid. They have zero credibility.

“Cruelty-free” is now a popular buzz term that can pull on people's heart strings, but it has no substance. If we examine every stage in the production of “cruelty-free” clothing, from its inception to a thousand years after it has been discarded, the negative impact and scale of animal harm is staggering. These so-called "cruelty-free" clothes are usually made from oil or a plant material that requires thousands of hectares of land to be clear-cut. Both of these options contribute to animal harm.

Many “cruelty-free” clothing items are assembled by sweatshop workers, including children, in Third World countries. Then they are shipped across the world to consumers in far-away lands. Through this international shipping, animals like the endangered North Atlantic right whale are killed by ship strikes. Ships also emit an astonishing quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and we all know about the devastating impact of climate change on animals.

SEE ALSO: "Animal rights agenda anti-human, harms nature", by Larry Simpson, veteran of Canada's far north.

Once the clothing items are discarded, the “cruelty-free” vegan plastics permeate our landscapes and oceans and literally choke animals. These items will not decompose and they repeatedly victimize habitats and animals themselves.

The same principles apply to “cruelty-free” cosmetics. A makeup item may not have been derived from or tested on animals, but the ingredients have probably been tested on animals at some point. And what happens when the item is made overseas and then transported to consumers? Or when the plastic packaging is discarded? Or when the plastic mascara tube filled with “cruelty-free”/vegan product is thrown away after a few months of use?

Short-Sighted Choices Harm Animals

Wildlife is suffering planet-wide because misguided activists are using silly labels and short-sighted choices to make themselves feel better. It’s ironic that animal rights and anti-fur protesters who claim to speak for “voiceless animals” are actually physically preventing the animals from breathing because of their choices.

This is narcissism, hypocrisy and shortsightedness at its ugliest. Animal rights cultists put a tag line on their lifestyle to feel better about themselves, and it’s at the expense of our planet and all the creatures that inhabit it. These uninformed cultists cause more widespread harm to animal populations than any sustainable harvest or biodegradable products do.

When all the non-renewable resources are used up and the vast majority of animal habitats are clear-cut for farms, the San Franciscos and LAs of the world that want to ban fur sales will be kicking themselves for contributing to this destruction, as they shift back to relying on the abundant renewable resources and biodegradable clothes that they shuttered.

Meanwhile, those of us who understand the importance of using sustainable, renewable resources like fur are years ahead of the curve. We are already following a lifestyle that others will have no choice but to return to.

SEE ALSO: "Proposals to ban fur sales are anti-ecological", by Alan Herscovici, senior researcher, Truth About Fur.

In Canada we are fortunate to still have the connection to our lands and resources that Hollywood knows nothing about. Whether animal rights activists want to admit it or not, almost everything they do, in fact, negatively impacts animals. Their labels and misguided choices may help them sleep better at night, but that doesn’t translate into the same for the animals that are dying thanks to their ignorance.

Animal rights cultists live in glass houses and shouldn’t be throwing stones.

***

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

Our favourite story last month came from Minnesota where coyote fur is helping to fight cancer! A lot of creative ways are used to raise money for charity, but this is the first time we've heard of a coyote hunting event, appropriately called Coyotes Fur Cancer. A bunch of hunters spend the day stalking the critters, then they bring their catch to a popular gathering spot, Blooming Prairie Cue Company, where their families and friends are tucking into chili. There's a silent auction and a raffle, the coyotes end up with a buyer, and all the proceeds go to the Blooming Prairie Cancer Group. In its inaugural event last year, Coyotes Fur Cancer raised $17,000, and we've heard that this year's event made $25,000!

Of course, the reason coyote fur currently makes a good fundraiser is the high prices pelts are fetching, buoyed by the popularity of fur-lined parkas. At the first sale of the season by the Ohio State Trappers Association, the Sandusky Register called coyote pelts "the stars of the auction. ... Although the softer, paler-colored western fur is preferred, the demand cannot be met without using eastern pelts, too."

More evidence of the popularity of coyote-lined parkas was seen in Chicago during the recent super-cold snap. Eight people wearing Canada Goose coats had them stolen right off their backs at gunpoint!

Fur-lined parkas are hugely popular in England too. A TruthAboutFur member put boots on the ground there over Christmas, and was astonished to see fur-lined parkas (real and fake) everywhere. See "Brexit, fur-trimmed parkas and trendy vegans in London Town".

Coyotes also continue to make the news for the wrong reason: their increasing, and sometimes scary, presence in built-up areas. In Destin, Florida, coyotes are now “a really bad problem”, while residents of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, are alarmed at the increase in coyote sightings.

SEE ALSO: Will urban coyotes change the animal rights debate?

Furbearers in BC, Fishers in Montana

In wild fur news, all is not well in the forests of British Columbia. According to trappers, furbearer populations are declining because prime habitat is being lost to a host of causes, like over-logging, herbicides, wild fires and pine beetles. It's interesting to note that it is trappers who are sounding the alarm here. They are an important source of information for wildlife managers and conservationists.

SEE ALSO: Trapping and Sustainability, on TruthAboutFur's website.

Meanwhile, it's unclear how the Northern Rockies fishers of Montana are doing. A campaign has been launched to ban all trapping in fisher habitat, with supporters saying trapping, including accidental catches, is a serious threat to the species. But a federal study found no evidence of this. The one thing everyone agrees on is they don't know how many there are.

REMIX, Black Women in Fur

On the fashion front, 10 finalists have been selected to compete in REMIX 2019. This prestigious contest, hosted by the International Fur Federation and supported by Vogue Talents, nurtures young international designers who love working with fur. The final will be held in Milan on February 24. “The new generation is our future," said Sara Sozzani Maino, deputy editor in chief of Vogue Italia and head of Vogue Talents. "Never before in our history has it been so essential to look at sustainability and start thinking about producing in a sustainable way. REMIX gives designers the opportunity to enhance the concept of sustainability by creating special projects.“

The New York Times ran a piece last month with a take on fur that we've not heard before: "A Black Legacy, Wrapped Up in Fur". Is there really a race angle to anti-fur campaigning? “As soon as black women could afford to buy mink coats, white society and white women said fur was all wrong," is the claim. Whether you think there's something to this or not, this will get the grey cells working.

It's unofficial, but apparently a fur-trimmed coat from Copenhagen-based brand Saks Potts is the "most highly documented coat on all of Instagram." Says the blog Who What Wear, "Log onto Instagram on any given day and you'd be hard-pressed not to come across one of the many candy-coloured creations styled by fashion girls or worn by one of the brand's many celebrity fans like Kendall Jenner and Cardi B."

Industry Overviews

The fur trade strives to educate the public about how we operate, so it's great when the media help to spread the word. Last month we were spoiled for industry overviews.

The Cache Valley Daily took a look at the state of mink farming in the US through the eyes of an Idaho family and Michael Whelan of Fur Commission USA, with over-production being a particular concern. “Retail sales are as good as they have ever been. We do see light at the end of the tunnel,” Whelan said. “At its peak, there were 80 million pelts on the market. We are down to 40 to 50 (million) pelts this year, more in line with the demand.”

Women's Wear Daily also did an overview of the fur retail market. Negative news tends to grab the headlines, but sales tell a different story. "While designer labels like Gucci, Burberry and Michael Kors have vowed to go fur-free, the fur trade is estimated to be a $35.8 million business at retail," it reported.

On the trapping front, have you ever wondered what trappers do with their pelts after they're dressed and ready for market? And here's a realistic look at the state of trapping in West Virginia, including why lovers of the pastime still do it. "It is easy to see where the lure (no pun intended) of trapping can get you," says lifelong outdoorsman Roger Wolfe. "When you are checking your set ups it can feel like Christmas morning. You never know what might be just up around the bend."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Judo of Selling Fur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was time for some first-hand observations.

Fur-Trimmed Parkas Everywhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fashionable Vegans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unscientific Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Educating people about the fur trade and related lifestyles can take many forms. Sharon Firth, a four-time Olympian and Northwest Territories skiing legend, is lobbying senators and members of Parliament to incorporate fur into the next Canadian Olympic uniform. Firth and her late twin sister Shirley were the first female Indigenous athletes to represent Canada at the Winter Olympics. "The last time they had real fur was the 1972 Olympics and I'm proud to say that I was there wearing real fur on my parka," Firth told CBC. She specifically called out the red parkas worn by Canadian athletes at the 2010 Olympics, which were adorned with fake fur. "The fur industry has a history in the North and then to have fake fur on coats, that's crazy. We're not plastic people. It's pitiful."

In New York, the public High School of Fashion Industries has revived its teaching of working with fur, with all materials provided by Fur New York. The school is located just south of the city's old Fur District, once home to more than 450 fur businesses. Now only 130 remain, employing 1,100 people, many of them nearing retirement, and Fur New York is eager to see new workers enter the trade.

Meanwhile, the Nova Scotia association Women that Hunt has started serving meals of wild meat to families who use local food banks and shelters. Helping the Hungry is a joint initiative of the hunting community and Feed Nova Scotia, which allows hunters to donate a portion of their deer, moose or bear meat to help feed families. In turn, Women that Hunt hope to educate and inspire women and youth into the hunting and fishing lifestyle.

Or you can educate people by taking to the air waves, like Jen Shears, owner of Natural Boutique in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, specialising in seal products. Shears has some choice words for protesters outside her store, calling them an “elitist cult” engaged in “a special kind of narcissism” based on “short-sighted emotion” and “racist and unsustainable beliefs.” But at least business has been good. "Business has been booming the last couple of days thanks to the advertising that has come about because of these protesters," says Shears. "When you make a bunch of Newfoundlanders mad then they really support you and support the messages around the sustainable culture that we have here."

Chanel Drops Exotic Skins, but Continues with Responsible Fur

Designer brands are headline-grabbers when it comes to the debate about sustainable use and fashion. In 2017, it was Gucci's misguided justification for dropping real fur that focused media attention on the sustainability of real fur versus fake fur and other synthetics made of petroleum. A question inevitably raised at the time was how Gucci could justify dropping fur while continuing to use exotic skins like alligator and python. Gucci dodged the question, but that is harder to do now that rival brand Chanel has announced it will be dropping exotic skins while maintaining responsibly sourced fur.

According to a Chanel statement: “We are continually reviewing our supply chains to ensure they meet our expectations of integrity and traceability. In this context, it is our experience that it is becoming increasingly difficult to source exotic skins which match our ethical standards.”

In reality, it seems to have been a purely business decision, less about ethical standards and more about Chanel's failure to maintain supply chains for top-quality materials. Business of Fashion said Chanel had simply been squeezed out of supply chains controlled by other brands, while Christy Plott, an operator of crocodile and alligator farms in Florida, told BoF, “This is 100 percent the case of Chanel being a loser in this market and being pushed out by Hermès, Kering and LVMH."

But whatever Chanel's real reason for dropping exotic skins, the principles involved in the conservation and sustainable use of crocs and pythons are precisely the same as those applied to some furbearers. It was thus important when representatives of the International Union for Conservation of Nature pointed out the positive role played by luxury skin markets both in conserving certain wild species and providing livelihoods for humans who live with and depend on these wildlife.

Fake Furs Shown to Share Problems with Other Plastics

Meanwhile, the industry's effort to point out the serious problems with fake fur continues to gain traction in mainstream media, including WWD's "Plastic waste fuels the fire in faux vs. real fur debate," The Frisky's "How does faux fur compare to real fur coats", and The Independent's "Fashion industry turns a blind eye with unsustainable fake fur, says MP Mary Creagh." The debate is also being thrashed out on a local level in Dallas, Texas, where, despite the balmy temperatures, a furrier says he hasn't seen even the slightest dip in business over the last few years. "We have so much business we don’t have to advertise," Marcene Reiss says.

Despite some attention being given to the environmental problems of fake furs and other petroleum-based synthetics, TruthAboutFur's senior researcher, Alan Herscovici, decries the paucity of facts and serious analysis in the media's coverage of the fur debate, and would like to see more in-depth coverage of fur's sustainability credentials.

Nonetheless, TheFashionLaw.com suggested that "The conversation about fur became far more nuanced in 2018." Most interesting, TheFashionLaw makes a case for an important view that's rarely heard in the media: that designer brands are dropping fur simply to increase profits. "Fashion companies can save a lot of money and increase their profit margins by making faux fur coats and selling them at a similar price to real fur coats,” says one interviewee, journalist Alden Wicker. ”The motivation is money, not altruism.”

Another is "Fur and the necessity of consumer engagement". "Buying a faux fur coat does not make one an ethical consumer, and neither does eschewing plastic straws," explains Alison McArthur. "... Educating ourselves on these issues will allow us to become more conscious consumers and to make better informed decisions about our purchases. It would allow us to consider, for example, why many of us wouldn’t wear real fur, but would be perfectly content to buy a leather handbag or shoes."

Bits 'n' Bobs

The US Congress has agreed to make it easier to kill sea lions to help protect runs of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River and its tributaries. In addition to helping conservation efforts, this move is a rare case of introducing flexibility to the application of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which has banned all takes of marine mammals since 1972.

According to John Zander of raw fur company Zander & Sons, China is playing an important role in the raw fur market, due to high demand for finished products and low dressing costs. "We know two things, one is there are a lot of Chinese who want to wear fur and second, the manufacturing end over there is a fraction of what it costs us. To dress a coyote here costs us $15. They do it for $6 in China. Over there they dress a muskrat for $1. Here it costs $6 which is more than the original price of the pelt.”

And last but not least, here's a great video on trapping in Saskatchewan, with a focus on the role trapping plays in the conservation of wildlife populations.

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

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

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

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

Vegans Say We're Evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *

Fur – An Ethical Choice!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some populations of large wildlife appear to be thriving, on both sides of the Atlantic, which is great from a conservation viewpoint, and sometimes good for hunters and trappers, but usually not so good for the people who live alongside these dangerous animals.

One species of large wildlife that's causing conflict across North America is the "urban coyote", so it's fortunate that the market for coyote pelts is strong, thanks in large part to Canada Goose's coyote-lined parkas and their imitators. In Saskatchewan, producer of some of the finest coyote pelts, trappers are now setting records. The coyote harvest in 2017-18 was the highest on record, accounting for a staggering 83% of all income from wild furs. Not surprisingly, the number of trapping licenses issued was also up, which the president of the Saskatchewan Trappers Association, Wrangler Hamm, says is a national trend.

Staying in Canada, experts still can't agree on whether polar bear populations are going up, down, or sideways. Most authorities, including Environment Canada, say the overall trend is down, but Inuit in Nunavut say there are so many now, they're a threat to human safety. A proposed management plan, to go to public hearing this week, calls for a relaxation of hunting restrictions.

Meanwhile south of the border, the US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would remove gray wolves nationwide from protection under the Endangered Species Act and open them to state hunting and trapping seasons. Farmers and ranchers won't be celebrating just yet though. Similar bills have passed the House in recent years but stalled in the Senate.

And over in Europe, it's great that conservation programs for wolves and bears are working, but inevitable that conflicts with humans, in particular farmers, are increasing. In France alone, wolves killed 10,000 sheep in 2016. Now the EU has promised to stick taxpayers with the bill for compensating farmers for any damages, plus costs for electric fences and guard dogs. Culling has its supporters, and that support will only grow the more successful these conservation programs are.

Plastic Clothing No Good - All Agreed?

The opinion now appears to be unanimous that plastic fast fashion, including most fake fur, is bad for the environment, but it bears repeating until everyone gets the message. Remember, the revelation that plastic microfibres are turning up everywhere has only been on everyone's lips for a couple of years. So it's bitter-sweet to learn that plastic has now been found in the poop of fur seals and, inevitably, humans.

Blogger and influencer Samantha De Riviziis, a.k.a. Lady Fur, told Italian wire service ANSA that purveyors of plastic clothing must be more honest about what they're selling. "There's a lot of confusion," she says. "Designers should communicate more clearly with consumers, defining what it means to be 'organic', 'eco', 'green', 'fur-free', 'vegan' and 'eco-fur', because it doesn't always mean respect for the environment."

One designer who got a dressing down for setting a bad example is Stella McCartney. Wittingly or not, McCartney is promoting faux leather made of plastic, says British fashion designer Patrick Grant. "Almost certainly Stella is using the very best alternatives [to real leather], but the problem is that all the people that have seen what she’s doing have copied her and polyurethane has taken off as an alternative to leather. But it is bad s**t: the way it’s made and the way it doesn’t biodegrade." Grant has also Tweeted words of wisdom about where the real problem lies (see above).

Truth About Fur Audience Growing

Truth About Fur wants to reach as wide an audience as possible, so we were elated that our blog posts in November were among our most popular ever.

Our senior researcher, Alan Herscovici, discussed everything that society stands to lose if the recent spate of fur retail bans spreads beyond California. "The recent surge in anti-fur campaigning makes me feel angry, but also very sad," he writes. "Angry, because most anti-fur rhetoric is so completely misinformed and malicious. Sad, because the public debate about fur is based on a grotesque caricature of the fur trade that completely ignores the unique knowledge, skills, culture and, yes, values maintained by this remarkable heritage industry."

And Derek Martel of the Fur Institute of Canada interviewed proud Cree trapper Robert Grandjambe, who is also the focus of a new CBC documentary, Fox Chaser: A Winter on the Trapline. “People need to better understand the importance of what trappers do, because I don’t think they get it,” says Grandjambe. “We must educate people to understand that everything the trapper does contributes to a natural and sustainable way of life and the environment, and is crucial for the culture and health of our communities.”

Thank you to all our readers who "Like" and "Share" our posts on social media, and please consider joining our 64,000 followers on Facebook and let us know what you think.

Looney Tunes

People have been saying for years that we should ignore PETA's publicity-grabbing stunts, but the media were all over this one so it's too late. PETA wants an English village called Wool to change its name to Vegan Wool because its current name "promotes hideous animal cruelty". As PETA no doubt anticipated, the village council refused to even discuss this stupid proposal, but heh, PETA got its free column inches!

Equally absurd was a lady guest on the TV show Good Morning Britain who got torn apart by host Piers Morgan. According to this animal lover, guide dogs for the blind are unethical because the dogs haven't given their consent to be used in this way!

Robert Grandjambe Jr. takes a long, deep breath followed by a pensive sigh when he’s asked the question, even though he likely knew it was coming: “What is the key for the future of trapping and wild fur in Canada?”

It’s understandable he would have to pause to consider the question, given the deeply rooted connections he has to his indigenous ancestry, the north, trapping and living on the land. Trapping is not merely something he does; trapping is who he is.

“I think people need to better understand the importance of what trappers do, because I don’t think they get it,” Grandjambe says after a few moments of consideration. “We must educate people to understand that everything the trapper does contributes to a natural and sustainable way of life and the environment, and is crucial for the culture and health of our communities.”

Woodland Cree

Grandjambe is the subject of the 2018 CBC documentary Fox Chaser: A Winter on the Trapline (currently only available online in Canada). At just 34 years old, he is a young man, yet he comes across as having seen and experienced more than most people twice his age.

A resident of Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, he is a Woodland Cree whose roots go back to Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, where generations of his family trapped to survive.

Time was, the land in that area sustainably produced upwards of 100,000 muskrats per season for hundreds of trappers that called it home. But then, in a familiar refrain, the area’s bounty vanished, not because of over-trapping but because a new dam caused the fertile river delta, which the muskrats called home, to dry up.

Ever resourceful, the trappers diversified to other species. But then, as prices for each one fell with the continued onslaught of misleading animal rights campaigns, those opportunities too fell by the wayside, leaving little in their wake. Despite what animal rights groups say, indigenous people do need to be able to sell product as part of their lifestyle beyond just subsistence.

It’s a lifestyle Grandjambe knows well. He started learning the ways of the trapper and the trapline with his father at age six. The education has proven invaluable, especially considering how complicated trapping can be where he is. He traps near his hometown of Fort Smith, straddling the border between the Northwest Territories and Alberta, and within the confines of Wood Buffalo National Park, which means lots of layers of management and rules and regulations to know and deal with. But if it means better outcomes for trappers and trapping, it’s a complication he can deal with.

Despite what animal rights groups say, indigenous people do need to be able to sell product as part of their lifestyle beyond just subsistence.

“Trappers always want to do the right things,” Grandjambe explains. “Sometimes the many systems we have to deal with make it very difficult, but we do it. Really, trapping is a universal thing for both the trappers and the animals.

“I’ve always done it (trapping), no matter what else I was doing - it provides such freedom, it is a gift to be a trapper out on the land.”

Leaving a Legacy

The education Grandjambe has had is one he is now determined to pass on. Out of trapping season, when he's  not working as a contractor, he spends a lot of time doing presentations about trapping for young people. He goes into schools and teaches students about culture, trapping, craft-making, hunting and gathering.

But he admits he may have another, more selfish reason for being so focused on youth: his two-year-old daughter. And as you might expect, she is already getting her first taste of the wild fur trade.

“As a father you want to leave a legacy. I want to give her all my knowledge and experience from the trapline, and from there she can choose her own path,” he says. “So I will continue to bring her into this world, so she can understand and know it well.”

It’s not just the youth, and his own daughter, that drive Grandjambe though. It's the whole community, including the elders. He works to provide food for as many people as he can from his time on the land, whether it’s moose, ducks, bison, bear, geese or any of the other wild bounty that comes from his choice of lifestyle. He views food as “the thing that brings us all together at the same table and sustains us, no matter who we are or where we come from.”

Conibear Connection

Grandjambe also has one more interesting connection to trapping, to Frank Conibear, one of the founders of the humane trapping movement. Grandjambe’s great-great-grandfather trapped mink in the early 1900s alongside Conibear, near Taltson River, NWT.

Working alongside indigenous people, Conibear grew his appreciation for exercising respect for animals, and he started noticing the equipment he was using wasn’t always conducive to good animal welfare. He was inspired to construct the original body-gripper trap, a more humane device that would later become Conibear’s legacy and form the foundation of humane trapping.

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

Grandjambe says animal welfare has always has been important to trappers, from the time of his great-great-grandfather and Conibear up to the present day. "We always ask ourselves, how can we do it better when it comes to animal treatment?” he says. “The standards have improved dramatically over the years and we still strive to keep improving. As trappers, we always focus on only taking what we need, and making sure we respect the animals and the environment.”

And despite the many challenges facing trappers, Grandjambe has a positive outlook for wild fur. He may not have all the answers as to how to set the future stage for wild fur, but he’s confident the pieces are all there to make it happen.

He points out the great success that the Genuine McKenzie Valley Fur Program has had “restoring pride and interest” in wild fur by providing trappers with access to new markets internationally. The result is trappers back on the trapline, doing the work they have always done - work that Grandjambe says remains as important today as it was in the time of his forefathers.

“I truly believe trappers and wild fur will always have a place in this world,” he says. “We needed it once just to survive, but today it is about much more than that: It’s about social and cultural values, family values, our health and well-being, and protecting nature, ecosystems and the environment.

“There is a lot of pride in being a trapper. Trapping is beautiful.”

***

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

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

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

1. Fur Craftsmanship – a Remarkable Heritage

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

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

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

2. Fur Trappers – True Stewards of the Land

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

SEE ALSO: Trapping and sustainability.

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

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

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap.

3. Fur Farmers – Supporting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities

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

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

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

Natural, Renewable, Recyclable, Long-Lasting, Biodegradable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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