As Canadians prepare to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Confederation (July 1, 1867), and also the 375th anniversary of the founding of Montreal (May 17, 1642), this is a fine time to recall the unique role played by this country’s fur trade history.

In fact, fur trading had been practiced for hundreds – probably thousands – of years before Europeans arrived on these shores. Montagnais hunters from what is now northern Quebec, for example, were already trading fur pelts for corn, squash and other foods produced by Iroquoian farmers in the St-Lawrence valley when Jacques Cartier first visited the island of Montreal in 1535.

Fur trading with Europeans probably began when French fishermen crossed the Atlantic to exploit the extraordinary stocks of large codfish off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St-Lawrence. When Cartier landed on the coast of northern New Brunswick, in 1534, he met Indians who clearly had experience with Europeans – they held up fur pelts on sticks, eager to trade.

It wasn’t until Samuel de Champlain built his habitation, in 1608 – to found what would become Quebec City, nucleus of New France – that the North American fur trade began in earnest. In the two hundred years that followed, furs provided the incentive to explore the vast interior of the continent ... and for a long series of wars and skirmishes to control it.

In 1627, Cardinal Richelieu granted a monopoly on fur trading to The Company of 100 Associates. Monopolies were sought to justify the risks involved in purchasing and transporting trade goods from Europe, and (hopefully) returning with furs more than a year or two later. But monopolies could also thwart innovation, with serious repercussions.

Radisson & the Hudson's Bay Company

One of the most dramatic examples is the story of Pierre-Esprit Radisson. At 15 years old, Radisson was captured by Mohawks and lived in their village on Lake Champlain long enough to learn their language and woodcraft – skills that served him well when he was able to escape and return to Trois-Rivières. In 1654, with his brother-in-law, Médard Chouart des Groseilliers, he explored far to the west, into the James Bay region, returning with a rich cargo of furs, and the bold idea that vast new fur supplies might be more easily secured by bringing ships directly into the interior of the continent through Hudson’s Bay.

New routes, however, threatened the politically well-connected merchants who controlled the French fur trade. Radisson and Des Groseilliers were briefly imprisoned and their furs confiscated. When their efforts to plead their case at Court, in Paris, failed, Radisson and Des Groseilliers eventually found their way to the English Court of Charles II. There, with support from the dynamic Prince Rupert, a cousin of the King, a group of influential investors was convened and The Company of Adventurers into Hudson’s Bay was born.

Under the Royal Charter granted on May 2, 1670, Prince Rupert and his partners became “true lords and proprietors” of all the lands drained by Hudson’s Bay, about 1.5 million square miles – one of the largest real estate deals in history. This immense territory, which came to be called “Rupert's Land”, included about 40% of today's Canada and significant parts of Minnesota and North Dakota. (While no longer directly involved in fur trading, the Hudson’s Bay Company is the oldest, continuously-operating, joint-stock company in the world. The 1670 Royal Charter is now on display at the corporate headquarters, in Toronto.)

The next 90 years were marked by intense competition between French, English and American fur traders. LaSalle and other French adventurers had established a string of trading posts and forts down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico, controlling “Louisiana” (named in honour of Louis XIV) and hemming in the fast-growing New England colonies. By 1739, furs represented 70% of the exports from New France. But danger threatened, as the American colonies challenged French control of the Mississippi and points west, while the Hudson’s Bay Company intercepted fur supplies that had passed through Indian trade networks to Montreal and Quebec.

The North West & American Fur Companies

The conflict came to a head with the British conquest of New France, in 1760, but this did not diminish the ferocious competitiveness of the lucrative fur trade. English, French and, especially, Scottish entrepreneurs set up the North West Company (1779), in Montreal, and pushed deeper into the continent through the St-Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, challenging the (London-based) Hudson Bay Company’s monopoly. Competition also intensified south of the St-Lawrence, with the founding of John Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company (1808). In search of new fur supplies, Astor pushed westward; his Columbia River trading post at Fort Astoria (1811) was the first United States community on the Pacific coast.

The current western border between the USA and Canada reflects, to a great extent, the fur territories once controlled by the American Fur Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company. (The HBC was merged with the NWC in 1821.) In fact, it is not at all sure that the young Dominion of Canada – formed in 1867 with the confederation of the provinces of “Canada” (Ontario and Quebec), Nova Scotia and New Brunswick – would ever have expanded to include British Columbia and the Pacific Coast, had not the Hudson’s Bay Company pleaded the importance of maintaining the lucrative Vancouver Island fur trade under Canadian control.

Many North American towns and cities began as fur-trading posts, but probably none was more influenced by the fur trade than Montreal. Montreal became the continent’s most important fur-trading entrepôt because Champlain recognized its strategic position at the intersection of the St-Lawrence and Hudson (via Lake Champlain) river systems, and because the rapids at the west end of the island (Lachine) prevented European ships from venturing further upstream. The Fur Trade Museum, in Lachine, housed in a stone fur warehouse built in 1803 by North West Company stockholder Alexander Gordon, is an excellent place to learn about Montreal’s fur-trade history.

"Beaver Club" Dinners in Montreal

Traces of fur trade history are everywhere in Montreal. One of the city’s oldest remaining buildings housed the convent of the Grey Nuns, who supported their missionary work with fur trading. Beaver Hall Hill, in the downtown core, was the site of “Beaver Hall”, the home of Joseph Frobisher, one of the North West Company’s leading partners, and the host of many of the company’s raucous “Beaver Club” dinners. Perhaps most significantly, the internationally respected McGill University was founded with a £10,000 grant from James McGill, a leading fur trader and founding partner of the North West Company. The university’s main Sherbrooke Street campus stands on the site of McGill’s “Burnside Farm”, which he bequeathed for this purpose.

Montreal’s fur trade remained important into the modern era: the Hudson’s Bay Company’s warehouse and auction sales were located on Dorchester Street (now called “Rene Levesque”), until they were relocated to Toronto after the election of the (separatist) Parti Quebecois government in the late 1970s. And Montreal became one of North America’s most important fur-manufacturing centres (like New York and Toronto), with the arrival in the first decades of the 20th century of hundreds of skilled (mostly Jewish) fur craftspeople – including my own grandfather, who arrived here in 1913.

After the Second World War, the North American fur-manufacturing sector was further strengthened by immigration from Kastoria and other villages of northern Greece where fur-working had been a way of life for centuries. Montreal was also the gathering place for thousands of North American and international fur designers, manufacturers and retailers who attended the association-run Montreal NAFFEM for thirty years, until 2013.

Canada's fur trade history reflects the country's cultural mosaic at its best: First Nations, French, English, Scots, Jews, Greeks and many others have worked together for hundreds of years to build this remarkable industry – a dynamic tradition of competition and cooperation that is well worth remembering as we celebrate these important anniversaries in the history of Montreal and Canada.

The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, fur biodegrades. In contrast, when fake fur made from petrochemicals reaches the end of its typically very short life, it goes to sit in a landfill until the end of time. Or does it? In pursuit of the truth, we decided to do a little experiment: the Great Fur Burial.

On May 14, 2016, we took a mink stole and a fake fur vest, cut them into equal-sized pieces, and buried them. Above is how the pieces looked on burial day. The plan was that after three months, six months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth one piece each of the mink and fake fur to compare degradation rates. This experiment is hardly scientific, but it only has to show one thing: do they rot, or not?

One Year Later ...

Last week we unearthed one of each fur sample, now one year old. Here is the burial site prior to exhumation.

From our last dig, we had a good idea what to expect. The synthetic fur was easy to find, whereas the real fur, once located, called for delicate work with a wooden spoon and fingers to ensure it didn't turn to dust.

Here are the two samples once they were dug up, fake on the left and real on the right. The fake fur appears to be in good condition, while the real fur is seriously degraded, to say the least!

We gently shook off the dust and dirt from the samples, so we could get a better look.

A closeup of the front of the fake fur shows that the "hair" is still in very good condition, aside from the fact that there are roots growing through it. With a bit of shampoo, it might almost be ready to wear!

A closeup of the backing of the fake fur also shows it to be in good shape.

In contrast to the fake fur, the real fur is degraded to the point of being unrecognisable, and only has any integrity at all because of some binding and thread. When you look at the sample close up you can see a few hairs of fur left and some remnants of the leather, but the bulk of the sample consists of thread (cotton), the binding (either silk or synthetic) and roots. This is a very strong indicator that real fur biodegrades much faster than fake.

Summary

Equal-sized pieces of real and fake fur were buried side by side to test the common claim that real fur biodegrades while fake fur does not. After one year, the real fur is in an advanced state of degradation, with the hairs reduced to a few fine wisps, and a few shreds of leather held together by thread and backing. The fake fur, however, shows very little evidence of degradation, biological or otherwise. In fact, it is nearly intact.

As far as the real fur is concerned, we consider this experiment to be conclusive already, and a year from now, when next we exhume our samples, we fully expect to need a magnifying glass and tweezers to find any. But as far as the fake fur goes, the experiment has only just begun. Will it degrade at all, and if so, will it take five years, or until the end of time?

Read the first three installments of this experiment:

The Great Fur Burial, Part 1: Burial
The Great Fur Burial, Part 2: After Three Months
The Great Fur Burial, Part 3: After Six Months

SEE ALSO: New study compares natural and fake fur biodegradability. Conducted by Organic Waste Systems, Ghent, Belgium; commissioned by the International Fur Federation and Fur Europe, 2018.

Undercover videos from animal rights groups came under attack last month for being dishonest and unfair. This is definitely not news to any of us, but it is nice to see the media paying attention. This article questions why the undercover videos showing "poor" treatment of a dog on the movie set of A Dog's Purpose were not released until a year later, to coincide with the movie's release. Suspicious at best. This piece explored the concept that the activists are not interested in the truth about what goes on at farms, because they only release highly edited videos, which are not representative of the truth.

In other activist news, a woman in a dinosaur suit turned herself in for scaring the horses pulling carriages in New York. We still don't understand how scaring and harassing animals can be part of a campaign to protect them. Vice published an article exposing an FBI investigation into animal rights groups, and this piece looks at how veganism comes at a price. If you care about protecting the fur trade against animal rights activists, read our definitive guide on how you can take action to support the people of the fur industry.

Sealing Season Here Again

May was a month for hunting seals, and this is a great piece on why support for sealing needs to be renewed (pictured above). Meanwhile The Guardian published a piece on the why sealing is misunderstood, and this op ed gives us reasons why we need to save our sealers.

There were some great features on trapping last month of which these are our top three picks. Vice published a story of a woman who left the city to trap on her family's trap line. And there were two "a day in the life" pieces, one about tagging along with a beaver trapper and another following a Labrador trapper.

Are you sad about putting your furs away for the summer? Vogue gave us some great tips on wearing fur for Spring (pictured). If you are shopping for new furs, then this shopping guide provides a great list of tips. Bad news if you were looking for a very particular, special vintage piece. The fur coat that was worn on the Titanic and then on a lifeboat already sold at auction, for a cool $80,000.

Let's end with a few good tips:

Buy Domino's pizza and thank them for supporting the farmers

Don't buy Lush cosmetics as they are apparently kicking farmers out of their store.

We suggest you stay away from sea lions, or risk being pulled into the water like this girl.

When you are shopping for your next Bentley, make sure it isn't one with mushroom leather seats (pictured). We think buying a car with vegan leather is a really fungi bad idea.

The sealing industry, like most industries, employs many more people than simply the primary producers. The same can be said for the fur industry in all its aspects. The hunting and trapping industries are no different, nor are the industries that raise cattle, pigs, lamb, sheep or any other animal utilized by humans for food or other products. The saying "no man is an island" applies also to industries.

While sealers are the primary producers in the sealing industry, by no means are they the only economic participants. Economists measuring the value of an industry take into consideration all those whose economic activities are dependent on, and contribute to, the work of the primary producers. This is usually referred to as “spin-off economic benefits”. It makes up the total value of an industry.

The same kind of economic analysis applies to all the industries mentioned above. A cattle ranch, for example, does not operate in a vacuum. It is dependent on many others, and in turn provides income for those who interact with it ranging from the ranch hands to the grocery stores to the furniture or clothing stores who sell the various products a cattle ranch provides. In fact there is a complete chain of people whose contributions and earnings make it possible for any primary producer to survive. Hunting, trapping, fur farming and so on – it is all the same. It is people earning a living.

Harp seals off the Canadian east coast number about 7.5 million animals and are not now nor have ever been placed on any reputable list of endangered or even threatened species. The same applies to other seal species hunted by Canadians.

There are many thousand, mostly rural, Canadians (Americans, British and Europeans) who are dependent on sealers, hunters, trappers, ranchers and others mentioned for parts of their income. Rural people rarely have “salaries” so their income is dependent on bits and pieces of work much of which comes from primary producers who raise animals for slaughter or kill them personally. The work of these people enables the primary producers to operate their enterprises and provide the others in the chain with an essential part of their livelihood. It is a circle of interdependence.

Parts of the income of these people are threatened by attacks on the sealing industry which is the primary target of the animal rights corporations. But sealing is not the only target. Sealing is merely the main target – a prime fundraising source for these multi-million-dollar American-headquartered corporations. Their goal is the elimination of human use of all animals for any purpose. Attacks on sealing are the driving fundraiser to facilitate attacks on the fur industry, hunters, trappers, ranchers and farmers who raise animals for food and other products. The end result, if these animal rights corporations are successful, will be the elimination of work for all people in all these industries.

Who are these people whose work enables the primary producer to operate successfully?

Sealing Industry: A Cross Section of Society

In the sealing industry they are the people who sell fuel, groceries, insurance (both personal and vessel), rifles and ammunition – sealers shoot about 99% of the seals they kill – and tools of the trade to sealers who go to sea under adverse conditions. Not to mention shipyard workers who repair damaged sealing vessels. For other primary animal-based industries, the people involved may do the same and other things, but the principle is the same.

They are truckers who transport seals from landing ports to the plants and buy gas and food in the process. Furs, cattle, pigs, lamb, sheep and other animals also have be transported from one place to another by truckers.

They are the plant workers who process the seal pelts (hides) and the plant owners who sell the resulting skins and oil – oil which other plant workers in other places turn into omega3 capsules. The other industries discussed also need primary plant workers and a complete chain of people supplying the trades needed to make their products available to the market.

They are the people who create things. They are clothing manufacturers who produce coats, boots, shoes, hats, gloves, slippers, purses, ties, wraps, etc. They are makers of sofas, chairs, saddles, automobile seat and steering wheel coverings, and so on and so on. All this from the pelts they buy and transform into products for sale to the general public. Seals or cows or pigs or lambs or sheep, the same process applies.

They are food processors, food trucks, grocery stores, caterers and restaurants who sell seal meat they have purchased from sealers or plants; or other meats obtained from other animals bought from other sources.

They are artists and artisans who create products from seal pelts and a wide variety of other animal hides and sell them through galleries, wholesalers, retailers, or directly to customers.

In short, they are a cross section of society. They are men and women with a common dependence on the activities of the sealers and all animal-based primary producers for portions of their annual income.

They are men and women working to provide food and necessities for their families.

Inuit Reject EU "Exemption"

Anti-sealing propaganda, anti-fur propaganda, is an insidious thing and unless countered by a critical press and politicians asking hard questions, it will continue as long as it is profitable. Animal rights corporations have hundreds of millions of dollars so it is little wonder they have politicians to do their bidding. It is little wonder that media, starved for copy, are in their pockets as nothing sells like "cute" animal stories.

It is time for politicians and media to remember the immortal line of Pogo: I have met the enemy and he is us.

Anti-sealing, anti-fur, anti-animal-usage corporations constantly make pious, politically correct statements that they are not against sealing or other forms of hunting by indigenous peoples. However, Inuit organisations – including the Inuit Circumpolar Conference – have rejected the EU “exemption” on their seal products as being economically meaningless, paternalistic, and colonialistic.

The recent World Trade Organisation (WTO) enquiry found that the EU “seal ban” was illegal, but to protect the so-called “morals” of EU citizens, the ban would stand. An interesting decision given that many countries within the EU legally kill seals as do Americans and Russians. They both also ban Canadian seal products. Of course they all also kill all the other species Canadians kill. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

When the WTO uses questionable “moral standards” based on propaganda as a basis for upholding individual state bans they have declared to be illegal, all importers and exporters of all products based on animal killing should be worried. Today's bans are on seal products, but tomorrow's will be on what? Products derived from cows, pigs, lamb, muskrat, mink, wolverine, beaver, etc.? Sealers are today's victims. Tomorrow's could be you.

Canadian sealers, Canadian furriers, Canadians in all animal-killing industries simply want all citizens of all countries to have their democratic right to choose for themselves to use, or not to use, animal-based products, and not have that right denied by bought politicians.

History proves that when propaganda triumphs, democracy loses.

Attacking the sealing industry or any of the other animal-based primary producers is attacking all of the people involved in the chain.

When scientifically established quotas ensure the stability or growth of a species' population; when laws, licensing and training ensure humane killing; when there is no question of a population being either endangered or threatened; when markets are viable and ensure an income to the workers; the only possible objection can be an "animal rights belief" – a belief held by less the two percent of Western society. Sadly, animal rights advocates and their celebrity friends “own” both the media and international politicians, and the result is a huge threat to the livelihoods of many thousands of Canadians, Americans and other rural peoples.

Unless you take George Orwell’s Animal Farm literally, no species is more equal than the others. There is no “Aryan” species. No industry is an island. It is more like a continent.

The sealing industry is a continent populated by citizens victimized by propaganda and political correctness as expressed by the one per-center celebrities in the thrall of the animal rights corporations.

What are you doing to protect fur and the industry? The fur trade has faced many difficult challenges over the past few years. These include fast-changing lifestyles, new and cheaper (and usually synthetic) clothing materials, vertically-integrated companies, multi-national fashion-marketing giants ... and, of course, sensationalist animal-rights campaigns that spread disparaging and false information about our industry.

The fur trade has done a remarkable job of dealing with these challenges, especially considering its small-scale, decentralized and largely artisanal character. The increased use of fur in small pieces (vests, jackets), trim (on parkas) and accessories (hats, scarves, handbags) has made fur more accessible to more, and younger, people than ever before. We see more fur now on the catwalks and in the streets than we have for decades.

Nonetheless, we know we still have lots of work to do. Animal activists continue to spread misinformation that can confuse consumers. Their latest strategy is to pressure fashion and outerwear retailers to drop fur from their inventories. And such pressures can be very difficult for consumers and retailers to resist, especially if they are not sure whether the fur trade is responsibly managed.

The truth, like it or not, is that our industry is too small to expect our professional associations and breeder groups to solve these problems alone. We all have to pitch in to protect fur tradespeople and get our messages out to consumers, designers, retailers, media, politicians, and the general public.

Here are some ideas about things that YOU can do to help.  And we’d love to hear some of the other things that YOU are doing to let people know about our remarkable, heritage industry.

If you are a fur designer, manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer:

• Be active online. Comment on news articles and on social media, presenting polite and knowledgeable arguments to defend the trade. Even if people don’t comment back, people are reading. Let’s present ourselves as an industry that is confident about its processes.
• Answer customers' questions honestly, and if they press you about issues, respond accordingly. Have the information ready and know the facts. Our industry has often been misrepresented, so we need to be especially open with our customers.
• If you have a company website, add our link to your website so people can click through to get facts about the trade, and refer customers/associates/suppliers to TruthAboutFur.com
• Add the video The Fur Industry in 2 Minutes Flat to your website using this embedded link: <iframe width=“560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sydmyD8ouxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you are a trapper:

• Take guests out on the trap line from time to time. It may slow you down, but it is worth it. Read more on taking people out on your trapline.
• Volunteer to hold classes and teach people about what trappers do.
• Educate the young. The key to sustaining this wonderful activity and to protecting fur trapping is to get young people interested in it.
• Be active online about what you do, how you do it, and why you do it. Trapping is very complex and it is important to understand the benefits trapping brings to wildlife populations and how licenses fund responsible conservation.
• Ally yourself with hunters and fishermen. Sportsmen need to work together to strengthen and protect their rights.
• For strong debate arguments, check out our Q&A section about trapping.

If you are a fur farmer:

• Open your farm up to visitors. Inviting people onto your farm gives you the chance to educate them on how the industry works, and show you have nothing to hide. Contact your local or national fur farming association (Canadian Mink Breeders Association or Fur Commission USA) for information on how to organize such an event.
• Answer questions. Fur farming should be easy to defend. Animals must be treated well in order to have nice fur, and even the activists can't deny this obvious fact. If people have questions about the animals’ pens, food, and health, be honest and tell them what you do and why you do it.
• Remind people that fur farms are an integral part of the human food chain, and that the animals eat leftovers from chicken farms and fisheries.
• Be active on online. Many farmers show photos of their animals and the daily life of farm work. Being open and transparent about your work is key to ensuring we protect fur farming and get people to support it.
• Ally yourself with other farmers and support the farming trade. Sticking together is key to protecting the farmers of North America.
• For strong debate arguments, check out our Q&A about fur farming on our website.

For everyone who supports or works in the fur trade:

• Be active online! Comment on articles and social media. Share the truth, dispel myths, and remind people that there are lots of us that support the trade.
• Work hard to debunk myths and share positive fur trade information on all of your personal networks.
• Check out the Truth About Fur website to brush up on the facts, and refer people to it if they have questions about the trade.
• Support brands who sell fur, and try to avoid brands who have an anti-fur stance.
• Buy fur! Whether you are buying new, vintage, a coat, or an accessory, one of the best ways to support and promote this remarkable heritage industry is to buy and wear fur products.
• Support real animal welfare and conservation, not “animal rights”! Make sure you know the true agendas of any charities you support. If you care about pets, always donate to your local shelter and not the national “animal-rights” groups such as PETA and HSUS. Read up on charitable donations.
• When you wear fur, tell people why you do it. Be vocal about your support of the trade and don’t shy away from expressing it.

Stay in touch! If there is an important issue we need to address quickly, contact us by email, Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Do you have an amazing story to share? We want to post it in our Truth About Fur blog. Help us be the go-to place to represent the true image of the industry. Send us your beautiful pictures. We welcome your comments and contributions.

Some of our useful resources include answers to the most frequently asked questions:

• Are animals skinned alive for their fur?
• How are farmed mink killed?
• Is fur processing bad for the environment?
• How are fur animals trapped in the wild?
• What happens to the rest of the trapped animal once the fur is taken?
• Do fur farmers and trappers get a fair price for their products?

Of all conflicts between advocates of sustainable use of wildlife and advocates of animal rights, none has been more enduring than the sealing issue. For more than 50 years, sealers have been on the front line in a war to decide how we manage our wildlife – so long, in fact, that there is a danger their supporters will lose interest. To everyone who recognises the importance of keeping this traditional harvest alive, I say, renew your support for sealing. It's needed now as much as ever.

Sealing was not always the cause célèbre of the animal rights movement. Back in the 1960s, when the anti-sealing campaign began, the prime target was whaling. Despite the little-known fact that the whaling industry had already halted the excesses of its past, animal rightists (and not a few conservationists) were determined to shut it down completely. And they nearly succeeded.

This cleared the way for the anti-sealing campaign to grab the headlines – something it has been doing ever since. Half a century on, the beleaguered sealers are still fighting, with the current battleground being the EU.

SEE ALSO: CANADA CELEBRATES ITS FIRST NATIONAL SEAL PRODUCTS DAY

What makes the sealing story so remarkable is that it has lasted this long. Most of the credit belongs to the sealers themselves – both indigenous communities of the High North, and the descendants of settlers – for their refusal to die. Thanks also must go to a handful of governments for their unflinching support.

The sealers, of course, are fighting for the future of their cultures and one of the few livelihoods available to them. Anyone who has visited the northern reaches of the world will understand why. We are struck by the natural beauty of the rugged landscape, the purity of the air, and the abundance of life in the oceans. This beauty continues to exist because people maintain traditional ways of life, and central to this is utilizing local natural resources, including seals. Fishermen and hunters tackle the seas and the ice to bring home their catch, and what they don’t consume, they sell.

This beauty continues to exist because people maintain traditional ways of life, and central to this is utilizing local natural resources, including seals.

Governments, meanwhile, have supported the sealers for a variety of reasons. They recognise their right to self-determination, they want to keep people “on the land” (not flooding into overcrowded cities), and they recognise the role played by wildlife use in ecosystem management. Because seals consume commercial fish and forage species, and sustain others such as sharks and orcas, governments are increasingly focusing their research on the impact of seals and seal harvesting on the ecosystem as a whole.

This approach reflects a need to ensure that seal populations will continue to thrive. It also ensures that we live up to a moral responsibility to understand the impacts of harvesting choices on other species. This can mean limiting seal harvesting or encouraging it, depending on particular regional circumstances.

Finding the right balance between prey and predators makes the marine ecosystem more productive and preserves its biodiversity.

Veterinarians, too, have supported sealers by denouncing the message of animal rights groups that sealing is inhumane. The most common method for harvesting seals is using a rifle, while use of the "hakapik", a traditional harvesting tool, is increasingly rare today. Veterinarians consider both to be humane because they consistently cause instant unconsciousness before death.

The sealers have also received broad support from advocates of sustainable use with no direct interest in sealing. Croc farmers, kangaroo meat harvesters, you name it; across the globe, wildlife users have thrown their support behind the sealers. Meanwhile major conservation groups such as the IUCN and WWF have acknowledged that sealing does not pose any conservation issues.

Yet despite the perseverance of the sealers themselves and the breadth of support for sealing, all is not well in paradise. The relentless attacks from groups with seemingly inexhaustible funds have tested our support to the limit and found it wanting. Proof of this is the fact that sealers are still losing ground with the recent closure of the EU market (except for that reviled exemption for products from indigenous communities). The enormous potential US market, meanwhile, is just as far off as ever. The US has banned all marine mammal products since 1972, and no one, not even the governments of sealing nations, is willing to mount a serious challenge to this ban.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

So to any wildife user wavering in their support for sealing, I recite the classic poem of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

As advocates of sustainable use, we should be enormously thankful that, against all odds, the sealers have survived the last 50 years. But we must not take their survival for granted. They are under constant threat and cannot be allowed to disappear, if for no other reason than that we may be next.

FROM OUR WEBSITE: IS IT ETHICAL TO PRODUCE, BUY OR WEAR FUR?

It's seal hunt season and with that comes the onslaught of lies and propaganda surrounding the hunt. This article describes how PETA is hurting the Inuit with its anti-sealing campaign while this one covers the food insecurity faced by the Inuit (pictured above) because of the decline of the seal skin trade. But it is not all bad news for the seal hunters; the Norwegian hunt has renewed interest thanks to a documentary, Angry Inuk, the Inuit seal hunt, which is having a very positive impact. And the lies about the suffering of the animals during seal hunt season are being exposed by articles such as this.

Since we are on the topic of animal rights, let's see what activists have been up to in the last month. Foie gras protesters outside a restaurant in the UK haven't given up, even though their antics seem to have resulted in increased trade for the restaurant. PETA found itself locked out of a LVMH shareholder meeting (boohoo for them). This Member of Parliament in the UK, whose party advocates veganism, was caught eating fish and has had to issue an apology. And we loved this article exploring the issue of white privilege in the vegan movement. Our blog finally put pen to paper on the very important and often confused issue about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights philosophies. (We'll give you a hint: the first is great, the second isn't.)

On the fashion front, this article does a good job explaining how a fur coat now represents status in menswear. Or you could just wear fur on your eyelids – mink, to be precise – as it is very popular in the world of eyelash extensions. If you are looking for some home decorating ideas, then look no further: this penthouse is practically covered in fur. Here's an important story for our vintage fur retailing readers: this store owner in San Francisco is being charged for selling endangered furs because she didn't realize that the laws changed last year. Speaking of old furs, here's how to make them last: store your furs properly (pictured above).

There's been no shortage of trapper features recently, and our picks include a feature on the Yankee trapper in Arkansas and this Yellowknife trapper following in his late father's footsteps. Since we are on the topic of tradition, read about Canada's trapping traditions here or learn about a new innovative fur product (pictured above) and the wonderful history behind it in this Truth About Fur guest blog post by Brenda Dragon. Good news for Northwest Territory trappers: the last set of auction results were very promising.

Next time you get in a debate with someone claiming there are "benefits" to fake fur, you may want to show them this article. It's yet another piece describing the serious environmental damage caused by synthetic fabrics.

Let's end this month's round up with some of our favourite animal stories.

This 15-foot python scares the heck out of us.

This beaver has added cattle herding to his list of skills (pictured above).

It's usually deer that get hit by cars, but in Canada, they've got humans getting hit by deer.

Spring is the time to put away your furs, and correct storage during the off-season is essential if you want to enjoy the warmth, comfort and beauty of your furs for many years. Storing fur coats and jackets is usually best done with a professional retail furrier, although there may be occasions when you want to store some items at home. (More on this below.)

If you own valuable furs (valuable financially or sentimentally), you should definitely store them professionally during the summer months. A good furrier will have a storage facility which is kept in a range of 50-60F (10-15C) and 45-55% humidity, which has been shown to be the ideal conditions for preserving furs. Most people store their furs through the summer months, and bring them home when the cooler weather returns in the fall.

Another reason for storing fur with a professional is that it provides an opportunity for your retail furrier to thoroughly inspect your fur at the end of the season. Small tears, missing buttons, worn spots or other damage can then be identified and repaired before they become bigger and more costly problems.

Your retail furrier is also equipped to properly clean your fur, removing oils (e.g., around the neckline) and small particles of dirt or grit that can damage fur follicles. Professional cleaning also restores the natural brilliance and beauty of your furs.

Just like you would service a car, maintain a house, or correctly clean and store silverware, caring for your furs will protect your investment and assure many more years of use.

Fur storage costs are usually based on the value of your garments. So storing a coat valued at $500 may cost as little as $32 (or $39, including a year-round insurance policy). At the higher end, a $4,500 coat might cost $86 for storage (or $133 including year-round insurance) – i.e., about the price of one decent cup of coffee per week. [Storage prices vary depending on rent and other costs in different regions.]

But what if you have vintage pieces that aren’t in top-notch condition, or other inexpensive garments, trims or accessories? Or maybe there’s no furrier in your area? Is it possible to keep your furs in reasonably good condition at home?

Unfortunately, it is near impossible to duplicate the controlled atmosphere of a professional fur-storage vault in your home closet. But here are a few tips to help protect your furs as well as possible in a home environment:

• Avoid storing fur in a basement, where it can be too damp. Too much humidity can result in a moldy lining.

• Ideally you want to store the furs in a place where there is no direct sunlight, and not too much heat. A bedroom is often a good choice, providing you don’t keep yours too warm.

• The furs need to hang freely and have a bit of air, so don’t try to stuff too many in a closet.

• Use a proper fur hanger, with shoulders, to preserve the shape of your coat.

• If you don’t use your furs frequently, or during the summer months, cover them with cotton garment bags or cotton sheets.

• Never store your furs in plastic; fur needs to “breathe”.

• Removable fur parka trims, scarves, or other accessories can be stored on hangers or in uncovered boxes in your closet.

Sometimes a particular aroma can bring back vivid childhood memories leaving you awash in feelings of love, comfort, and belonging. It may be cinnamon buns or fresh laundry for some. For me it is the smells of hides and fur. Wild fur is a part of my family heritage.

My father came from a line of French Canadians who trapped fur bearers in northern Alberta, including the beavers and muskrats of the Athabasca Delta. At 19, he moved to Fort Smith, Northwest Territories and continued to trap on the Alberta side of the border. At the age of 23, he married my mother, who shared his life for 56 years – his perfect match.

My mother is a Chipewyan Dene from Northern Saskatchewan. She moved to Fort Smith as a young teenager. Having left her home community early, she’d had little opportunity to learn the traditional skills of her people. As the young wife of a trapper, she instinctively turned to the elders of her new community for their knowledge and experience. Chipewyan was the language spoken, and I remember their happy faces and the sounds of laughter when it was my job to bring tea as they worked preparing meat, or skinning and fleshing beaver and muskrat.

When my father’s trapping partner was forced to retire because of health problems, I remember being proud of my mother when she convinced my dad that she was the one who should take up the job. She was excited and eager, and I still remember her delight in making a very special lynx-fur hat – a hat befitting a lady trapper.

It was the trapper’s way of life that defined my parents. It gave them an intimate connection with the natural world. They were hard-working people. After a long day on the trap-line, my father would head downstairs to tend to the raw furs while mom sewed late into the evening. She became a well-respected and expert sewer of fur and hides. My parents kept our large family well fed with healthy wild meat and dressed in the warmest of furs. The six “little Dragons” were northern kids who didn’t know the meaning of cold!

They often shared colourful stories about their days together on the trap-line, like the times the wolves out-smarted them, or the afternoon dad went out for a couple hours and came back with four beautiful lynx. The trap-line always brought new adventures for more stories. My parents were also keenly aware of the health and numbers of animals in their territory, and they managed these populations much as a rancher would.

When my father passed away a few years ago, I thought a lot about my parents' remarkable life together, the trap-line, and the barrels of fur he left behind that my mom continues to sew with to this day. I wished for a way to carry on the family tradition.

It was about this time that I moved back to the North. My son, Joel, who had been enjoying snowboarding in the mountains of British Columbia, was now outside every day in -40 weather. I was continually adding fur to the inside of clothing, for both him and his buddies, as my mother had done for us. I was reminded of how effective an insulator fur is as I watched them out in the frigid temperatures for hours. I soon found myself cutting little pieces of fur into squares and gifting them to friends as hand-warmers they could slip inside their mitts.

My ah-ha moment came when, after a while, those cozy warmers had my friends asking for more. I realized that this gift from nature could be shared with more people. Not knowing anything about business or developing a retail product, I began taking steps into that world. I chose sheared beaver primarily from the Genuine Mackenzie Valley Fur Program and went on to develop branding, packaging, and marketing strategies.

Encouragement and sage advice came from my mother, as well as from those who purchased and loved those first Aurora Heat™ hand and foot warmers. Soon I began to hear from people with circulatory problems and arthritis about how my fur warmers were making a difference for them. We celebrated the first anniversary of Aurora Heat in March, and it is now available on-line and in stores across the North and beyond.

Am I excited? You bet I am! I love everything about my new fur business. I love continuing my family heritage and traditions, sharing my mother’s Indigenous culture and ancestral knowledge of thousands of years, and celebrating my parents’ love of the land. I love that I am part of a way of life that continues to thrive in Canada with our cold winters and open-minded people.

I especially love being part of the societal awakening of our need for natural and sustainable products. I love the beauty and the usefulness of fur. There is something about having a piece of nature in your mitten, socks or pocket that is incredibly grounding. We can’t all afford a beautiful fur coat, but anyone can own a pair of reusable, all-natural fur hand or foot warmers to keep fingers and toes toasty-warm year after year.

My vision for Aurora Heat is to offer more people an opportunity to experience the warmth and comfort of natural fur, and look forward to developing more products. I truly believe that if we rely more on nature for our needs, we will come closer to living in harmony with this earth. And, I know my father would have just the biggest grin!

May the fur be with you!

***

SEE ALSO: Hudson's Bay Company stocks Fort Smith line of fur hand warmers. CBC News, March 9, 2019.

Visit Aurora Heat's website or follow it on Facebook. Email Brenda at [email protected].

The public debate about fur (and other animal products) is often distorted by confusion between two important concepts: animal welfare and animal rights. These terms sound similar and are often used interchangeably, but they describe two profoundly different ideas. Caring about the welfare of the animals we use – for food and other purposes – is very different from assigning them the rights that activist groups are now proposing.

Do you believe that farm animals should be treated humanely and spared unnecessary suffering? Then you are a proponent of animal welfare. Animal-rights advocates, by contrast, argue that humans have no right to use animals at all – not for food, clothing, or anything else. They believe that all livestock production should be shut down completely. “Not better cages, no cages at all!” is their rallying cry.

It is rare that we agree with PETA on anything, but its views on the chasm separating animal welfare and animal rights are spelled out clearly on its website for all to see:

“Animal rights means that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation ... Animal welfare allows these uses as long as ‘humane’ guidelines are followed.”

Let’s see how this distinction plays out in the real world.

Eating Meat, Fish and Dairy

Animal-welfare advocates have worked for the past 100 years to ensure that the animals that provide us with meat, dairy products and eggs receive good nutrition and care. Thanks to their efforts we have humane-slaughter regulations, codes of practice and other provisions to minimize stress and suffering. This is an on-going process. For example, while modern production methods have made animal protein more affordable for millions, promoting healthy brain development for infants and children, they also raise new animal-welfare challenges.

Animal-rights advocates do not seek better conditions for farm animals. Rather, they oppose all killing and consumption of animals no matter how humanely this is done. Their openly-stated goal is to shut down all livestock farms and to end the consumption of meat, dairy, eggs, and any other animal products – even honey. They demand everyone becomes “vegan”, and argue that animal-welfare improvements only serve to justify what, for them, can never be justified, i.e., the killing of animals.

Wearing Leather, Fur, Wool and Silk

Again, animal-welfare advocates work to ensure that animals used for the skin, fur, feathers, hair, or other materials are treated humanely, with minimal suffering. Their efforts have driven North America’s world-leading trap-research program, and the development of codes of practice for fur farms.

Animal-rights campaigners oppose any use of all animal products for clothing or accessories. They often show examples of shocking abuse in their campaigns against fur, leather, and wool – which can make it look like they are concerned about animal welfare – but their goal is not better standards or regulations. They don’t believe humans have a right to use animals at all, which means no more wool, leather, fur, cashmere, down or even silk.

Owning Pets

Animal-welfare advocates believe that owning a pet is a privilege that comes with responsibilities. A pet needs to be housed, fed, and cared for properly, to ensure an acceptable level of well-being.

Animal-rights activists consider pet ownership to be a form of slavery. In their Brave New World there would be no more cats, dogs, fish, hamsters, bunnies, budgies, or other pets. In fact, the shocking kill-rate at PETA’s “shelter” confirms that it prefers to euthanize pets rather than find new homes for them, despite receiving more than $50 million annually from well-meaning donors.

Animals for Entertainment

Zoos, circuses, racetracks and other activities that use animals for entertainment are obliged, by law, to respect the welfare of their animals, ensuring they receive appropriate nutrition, housing and care.

Animal-rights activists, by contrast, want to ban all such activities. If they have their way, there will be no more animals in circuses, no more horse-back riding or dog shows, not even zoos that support breeding programs for endangered species. If giant panda conservation had been in PETA's hands rather than those of the Chinese government, it would probably be extinct by now.

Animals for Medical Research

The efforts of animal-welfare advocates ensure the responsible care of animals used for medical research. The “3-Rs” require that researchers “Replace” animals with other techniques when possible, “Reduce” the number of animals used to the minimum required to achieve their objectives, and “Refine” experiments to minimize suffering. Experiments using animals must be justified to show that the benefits could not be obtained otherwise.

Animal-rights activists want to ban any use of animals for medical research, no matter the benefits. To understand the implications of this position, consider that, according to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, “Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.” This does not impress animal-rights activists. According to PETA’s founder Ingrid Newkirk, “Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

Animals at Work

People have long used animals for all sorts of work: horses and oxen pull loads and plow fields; pigs root out truffles; service dogs help a range of people in need while others pull sleds and sniff out bombs; and now, falcons are taking down intrusive drones. Most people who work with animals care about their partners and provide them with excellent care, and these animal-welfare concerns are increasingly codified in regulations.

Animal-rights activists seek to end this important relationship that humans have long enjoyed with animals.

Bottom line: while “animal welfare” recognizes that animals enrich our lives in many more ways than we usually consider, “animal rights” denies that humans have any right to use animals for our own ends.

Groups like PETA blur this distinction by showing extreme examples of animal abuse in their campaigns. Their goal is not to improve the treatment of animals we use. It is to end all animal use completely.

Fur retail had a great month in March! Let's start with the Canada Goose IPO, which soared 27% on the Toronto Stock Exchange on its first day. We guess the crazy protesters outside their stores aren't scaring off investors and customers. And there are other stores celebrating, too! Sch'dy Furs is celebrating 50 years in business, and Hinsdale Furriers has made it to 65 years. And hats off to Gently Loved Furs who have made it to their 10-year anniversary and the Anchorage furriers who are adapting their businesses to the changing times.

Speaking of changing times, the Fall 2017 fashion trends are leaning towards fur, very colourful fur to be exact. We were thrilled to hear that We Are Fur counted fur on 67% of the Fall 2017 catwalk shows. What's it like to wear fur-lined shoes every day? This guy tried it out and enjoyed it thoroughly. If you are looking for some new fur, then check out one of Lysa Lash's trunk shows; this Canadian designer is well known for her personalized service in fur retail.

But not everyone is rushing out to buy furs, some people are standing outside fur stores protesting. But the fur protesters outside Canada Goose stores are the least of our worries. These activists stormed a church demanding animals be treated like Christians, while this crazy woman crashed her car into a truck carrying chickens because she is vegan. PETA says that being vegan makes you less aggressive but we are pretty sure there isn't an ounce of truth to this. And next time an activist tells you to switch to fake fur, remember to tell them the bad news: many fake furs aren't even vegan (above).

Sadly we are coming up to the key "season" for animal rights activists: the commercial seal hunt starts soon and this is the activists' main opportunity to raise money by using photos of baby seals (that aren't even hunted). If you want some facts (real facts) about the seal hunt, the Seals and Sealing website is a good start. The film Angry Inuk continues to have an impact on how people view the seal hunt, but we still need to work hard on spreading the good word about this traditional, sustainable hunt.

While we are on the subject of tradition and wild furs, these articles highlight the traditional aspects of trapping in Kansas and Vermont, and this Canadian trapper is passing on the know-how of his trade. We firmly believe that wild fur is the most eco-friendly clothing choice and trapping is an activity that must continue.

Let's end our roundup with some news stories we found extremely useful or interesting:

This article encourages farmers to be ambassadors for their trade;

Eagles are now the weapon of choice against drones (pictured above);

This is how to protect yourself against a mountain lion;

Canada Goose isn't just a clothing brand, it is a dangerous predator!

This article was first published in The Villager, March 16, 2017. 

As someone brought up in the Canadian fur trade and who has spent much of the past 35 years studying the environmental ethic of North America’s founding industry, I am troubled by the arrogance and ignorance displayed by self-appointed “animal-rights” activists protesting the opening of the Canada Goose boutique in Soho.

Responding to complaints about neighbors disturbed and consumers harassed, activists Nathan Semmel and Leonardo Anguiano recently argued in these pages that “it is solely the vile ethics of the Canada Goose corporation that brought about our presence.” (“Call of the Wild: Why we protest Canada Goose,” talking point, March 2):

By “vile ethics,” they mean that Canada Goose uses animal products — goose down and coyote fur — to make their remarkably warm parkas.

Goose down and fur are two of nature’s best insulators, but it is not surprising that these protesters object. Most of them are — or aspire to be — vegans, and embrace the radical “animal-rights” philosophy, which means they oppose any use of animals, even for food. Most Americans, however, do eat meat, fish, dairy and eggs. Most of us also wear leather, wool and silk. This does not mean we condone the mistreatment of animals. Research confirms that most people believe that humans do have a right to use animals, but only if four important criteria are respected — namely, that animals should be used sustainably, humanely, for an important purpose and with minimal waste.

Let’s see how the use of coyote fur stacks up against these widely accepted ethical criteria.

Sustainability: Only part of the natural surplus produced in abundant wildlife populations is used for fur today, never endangered species. This is assured by strictly enforced state, national and international regulations. Coyotes are highly abundant and expanding their range across North America; they are, in fact, the number-one predator problem for ranchers in many regions. There are also increasingly frequent reports of coyotes devouring pet dogs and cats. And even if we did not use fur, coyotes (and other predators) often must be managed to protect nesting birds, the eggs of sea turtles, and other endangered species. When fur prices do not provide sufficient incentive to control coyote populations, several states (and Canadian provinces) have been obliged to offer bounties. But if we have to cull some of these animals, surely it is ethical to use them.

Humaneness: Millions of dollars have been invested over the past 35 years in scientific research to ensure that humane methods are used to capture wild, furbearing animals. Many coyotes are now taken with quick-killing devices. Others are taken with live-holding traps designed to minimize injuries to the animals. These are the same traps used by biologists to capture and release wolves, Canadian lynx and other animals, unharmed, for radio-collaring (for research) or reintroduction into regions where they were previously eliminated. Clearly, these are not the diabolical instruments that activists would have us believe. Nor are nature’s ways of controlling wildlife populations — starvation and disease — necessarily preferable. A coyote with sarcoptic mange (a parasitic mite) may scratch itself raw for weeks before dying. Nature is not Disneyland. If humaneness is the concern, modern trapping methods may actually reduce suffering, by maintaining more stable and healthy wildlife populations than would occur naturally.

Important Use: Animal activists claim that the killing of coyotes or other animals for fur is “unnecessary”, and therefore morally indefensible. Leaving aside the tricky question of determining which, if any, products are really “necessary,” humans do need clothing, and fur is a natural, long-lasting and ultimately biodegradable material. By contrast, fake furs and other synthetics promoted by animal activists are generally made from petrochemicals, a nonrenewable resource. More troubling, recent research reveals that synthetic microfibers can cause considerable harm to wildlife. According to EcoWatch: “When washed, plastic microfibers break off and a single jacket can produce up to 250,000 fibers in washing-machine effluent. Less than 1 millimeter in size, they make their way through wastewater plants and into marine environments where they have been found to enter the food chain. Microfibers make up 85 percent of human-made debris on shorelines around the world, according to a 2011 study.” Perhaps natural fur and down are not such frivolous choices after all.

No Waste: Most of us are comfortable wearing leather because it is “the envelope that dinner came in,” but we may wonder what happens to the rest of the animals that provide fur. In fact, beaver and muskrat are often eaten by northern Cree and other trappers and their families in remote regions where store-bought food is very expensive and alternate income may be hard to come by. Raccoons, opossums and other furbearing animals also provide food in more southern regions. And while coyotes and other predators are not usually eaten by humans, their carcasses are returned to the bush where they feed birds, mice and other animals through the winter, when food is scarce. Nothing is wasted.

This short review shows that the North American fur trade does satisfy the four criteria that determine whether the use of animals is morally acceptable for most people.

Furthermore, while we all “care” about nature, most of us now live in cities with little direct knowledge about what really happens in the wild. Activists protesting against Canada Goose, for example, claim that “trapped coyote mothers leave behind starving pups.” They are apparently unaware that trapping occurs in late fall and winter when the young of the year are no longer dependent upon their parents.

Trappers, by contrast, live close to nature and have the knowledge — and a direct interest — to sound the alarm when wildlife habitat is threatened by industrial activity. It is trappers, for example, who lobby and work with timber companies to maintain uncut forest corridors for wildlife around waterways or important nesting areas. It is the destruction of habitat — not hunters or trappers — that threatens the survival of wildlife.

While animal activists like to see themselves as “progressive,” their words and actions reveal an arrogant disregard for the knowledge and values of the hard-working rural people who feed and clothe us.

None of this means that anyone is obliged to wear fur. But it does cast doubt on activist claims to have a “moral” justification for imposing their personal choices on the rest of us. If those promoting the radical “animal-rights” philosophy want to maintain any credibility, they would do well do show more tolerance toward those who make different choices. Too often, while preaching “compassion,” their actions seem to be driven by ideological fundamentalism, aggression and “alternate facts.” Surely, we have enough of that already in Washington.