The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In… Read More
Six months ago, we kicked off our Great Fur Burial to compare degradation rates of real and fake fur. Here's what we buried: mink on the left, fake fur on the right. How do they look now?
The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In contrast, when fake fur made from petrochemicals reaches the end of its useful, and typically very short, life, it goes in a landfill where it will sit until the end of time. Or will it? In pursuit of knowledge and truth, we decided to do a little experiment: the Great Fur Burial.
On May 14, 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 3 months, 6 months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth two pieces 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?
Six Months Later ...
Two weeks ago we unearthed another set of fur pieces. Our burial spot is marked by red sticks.
The synthetic fur was easy to find (left), whereas we had to be a lot more careful unearthing the real fur (right) as the pieces appeared to be much more delicate.
Once the fur pieces were out of the ground, they were placed, as is, on a tray. The real fur piece is on the left and the fake fur is on the right. As you can see, the real fur sample is much smaller than the fake sample, and not because of degradation. It seems the real fur sample must have been made of two pieces sewn together. The stitching rotted, and we ended up exhuming only one half.
We gently shook some dirt off each piece but as the mud was really encrusted in the fur, we decided to let the samples dry for two weeks so we could clean them without causing damage.
Two weeks later the dirt was dry and we gently shook off as much of it as possible, without having to rub the samples too much. It is quite obvious, looking at the photo below, that the real fur (left) has disintegrated a lot more than the synthetic. The synthetic fur (right) looks pretty much intact, whereas the majority of the hairs of the real fur seem to have disappeared. The leather is frail and the only parts of the real fur sample that seem to be in decent condition are the threads.
This photo shows the backs of the samples, and it is obvious that the real fur is in much worse condition than the synthetic fur.
Let's look at the real fur, close up. The hairs are practically gone and the leather is frail. The sample is disintegrating.
In contrast, the synthetic fur, below, still looks practically intact. The hairs are still soft and the backing shows very little change since it was buried. It is hard to imagine any dramatic change happening between now and our next exhumation a year from now, so it's looking like the story is true: fake fur can sit in a landfill for hundreds of years.
Summary
Equal-sized pieces of real and fake fur were buried side by side. After six months, the fake fur showed no obvious signs of degradation, biological or otherwise. In other words, it was almost perfectly intact. The real fur, however, was in an advanced state of degradation, with the hairs reduced to a few fine wisps, and the leather frail and delicate.
Like all good scientists, we’ll hold back on making conclusions until the experiment has run its course. But the way things are headed, it might not be long before we’re using tweezers and a magnifying glass to find a real fur sample. It will all then be down to the fake fur samples. Will they degrade in five years? Or by the end of time?
Let’s start our November news roundup by celebrating the trapping victory in Montana. Bill i-177, which would have prohibited the use… Read More
Let's start our November news roundup by celebrating the trapping victory in Montana. Bill i-177, which would have prohibited the use of animal traps on public lands, was voted down. Well done Montanans!
In other trapping news, raccoons are part of a legal battle in New Jersey, with animal rights activists fighting against the use of enclosed foothold traps. Did we mention these raccoons are rabid? Let's hope it doesn't take a major outbreak of rabies to make this court case go away. Speaking of legal battles, there is one under way in Maine over incidental lynx trapping (see above), whereas in Canada there has been a proposed private members bill to designate May 20 as National Seal Products Day. We love this idea and give it our seal of approval.
Let's move on to a topic that is a bit more ... fashionable. Canada Goose has opened a new store in New York City (see above), and it includes a few fashionable pieces, like a silk parka from a collaboration they did with Opening Ceremony. While the parka sure looks nice, we are pretty sure the main reason why people buy Canada Goose, or any item with fur, is because it is warm. That's a concept we explored in a blog post, where we discussed the fact that fur is not just for fashion. So if you are looking to keep warm this winter, check out our guide to buying vintage fur, have a look at Lilly e Violetta's everyday furs, or check out the kangaroo fur shoes that all the celebrities are wearing.
Do you need Christmas tree decoration ideas? How about decorations made of fur? They didn't go down too well in this hotel in Munich but we would gladly take the fur fir tree off their hands.
Have you ever wanted to witness the miracle of child birth? Yeah, it's not for everyone, but we are all about witnessing fawn birth. This video is beautiful.
Our most-shared Instagram post was one of these guys wearing buffalo fur coats (see above). We're pretty sure you won't get cold wearing these!
What would you do if your dog ran into a wolf? Most of us would run, but this guy stupidly stuck around to film it. At least it makes for some interesting viewing.
Earlier this year I wrote a blog post listing “5 reasons why PETA won’t make me ditch my Canada Goose”…. Read More
I love wearing fur, but my golden lab Maggie is for pampering. There is no moral inconsistency here.
Earlier this year I wrote a blog post listing “5 reasons why PETA won't make me ditch my Canada Goose”. For anyone who has been living under a rock (or in some tropical paradise), Canada Goose is a popular brand of amazingly warm, down-filled coats with coyote fur around the hood to protect your face from winter’s fiercest blasts.
The article included a photo of me with Maggie, my 10-year-old Golden-Lab rescue dog. In response, several readers asked, sarcastically, why I hadn't used Maggie to trim my parka instead.
Then, in the past few weeks, activists protesting the opening of the first Canada Goose bricks-and-mortar stores – in Toronto, New York, and London (UK) – deployed the same tactic, bringing their dogs to the demos. If we are not ready to use our pets for fur, they argued, how can we justify using coyotes?
At first glance, they raise an interesting dilemma: since Maggie and the coyote are both canines, it seems morally inconsistent to love and pamper one while killing and “exploiting” the other. But is it really?
Here are five reasons why my dog is not a coyote, and why wearing fur is not like wearing your pet:
1. Coyotes don’t sleep in our beds
Fact is, dogs in much of North America and Europe – at least in urban areas – have become members of the family. Dogs have long helped humans with our work; they have been our devoted companions. But now they have moved into our homes, and for many families they have become surrogate children. Parents living with teenagers may sometimes feel that dogs are, in fact, preferable to human children. Be that as it may, it is clear that pets dogs are no longer on the outside looking in, but have become an integral part of the family. Using dogs for food or clothing has therefore become taboo, akin to cannibalism. Trees, plants, and other animals – including coyotes – are in the other category: consumables. That’s how the world works. (Sorry, PETA.)
2. Dogs chose us to protect them
Dogs split away from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago, maybe much earlier. And, as Stephen Budiansky (The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication) and others have argued, it is very likely that dogs chose us, rather than the other way around. According to this hypothesis, wolves that were not aggressive enough to compete in their pack may have approached human settlements, attracted by bones and other food that humans discarded. Because the most docile animals were more likely to be tolerated, there was a “natural selection” for non-aggressive animals that accepted a subordinate role in their new human “packs”. The wild coyote is a very different beast. As one trapper told me about a coyote he found in his trap: “When I looked into his eyes, I was chilled by the cold, evil stare; this was nothing like a dog!” Only people who have had no close contact with wolves, coyotes or other wild canines can believe that they are “dogs”.
3. Dogs and coyotes occupy different spheres of moral concern
While, theoretically, all humans should enjoy equal consideration, we are generally more concerned about our own children than about the neighbour’s children. And more about our neighbours than about people in another city or half-way around the globe. Without such “degrees of moral concern” we would not be able to function at all, knowing that children are suffering hunger and abuse in many parts of the world while we sip our lattes. Similarly (whatever PETA would have us believe) we are more likely to swerve to avoid hitting a child – even on a tree-lined road; even if it means risking our lives – than we would for a dog in our path. Again: rats, bees and other social animals live harmoniously in large groups, but will tear to shreds any stranger that wanders into their midst. It seems to be consistent with natural law to treat those closest to us differently.
4. If we kill coyotes, we should use them
Coyotes are highly abundant and have expanded their range across most of North America. They are now the number one predator problem for ranchers and, when fur prices do not provide sufficient incentive to keep populations in check, state and provincial governments may offer bounties to encourage hunting and trapping. If we have to cull coyotes, surely it is more respectful – more ethical – to use them. Of course, domesticated dogs and cats can also over-populate, and they too are culled. In modern, Western societies we collect and put down millions of unwanted pets in “humane shelters” rather than leave them hungry, sick and abused in the streets as is done in many parts of the world. That we choose not to use the fur or other parts of so many unwanted pets probably reflects our wealth (we can afford to waste these resources) and the special relationship we have with dogs and cats, more than any moral imperative.
5. Dogs, like their human protectors, have been removed – or at least insulated – from nature
In nature, most plants and animals produce more young each year than their habitat can support to maturity; those that don’t survive provide food for the others. This is the great cycle of life. And like it or not, people are part of this cycle. We too need resources from our natural environment to survive, and we too will feed the worms in the end (unless we attempt to shirk our debt with cremation, but even then our basic chemical components will be recycled). In ecological terms, there is nothing unusual about using coyote fur on parkas. What is unusual is the abhorrence we feel in Western society about making mitts with Rover or Prince – or Maggie. Traditionally, dogs had to earn their keep: pulling sleds, herding sheep, killing rats and other “vermin”, protecting property. When they died, their fur and leather were valuable in societies too poor to waste useful resources. But, as mentioned in our first point, dogs have become part of our families, and in that sense have been removed from nature. We found Maggie at the Montreal SPCA when she was one year old; she had been there a month and came close to being put down. Happily, the number of dogs euthanized in North American shelters has been greatly reduced, thanks to spay-neuter programs and “Adopt, Don’t Shop” campaigns. But we cannot manage wildlife populations with spay-neuter programs. And we cannot live without using the resources that nature provides. The status of “honorary humans” that we have applied to our dogs in wealthy Western societies, cannot be extended to all of creation.
When I mentioned that I was writing this article, a friend suggested a sixth point: she said that we can’t use our dogs for clothing or meat because “they love us”. Unfortunately, as much as I love my dog, I am not at all sure that this sentiment is really reciprocated. I suspect that Maggie’s interest in me is directly proportional to the quantity of kibble, table scraps, ear scratching and interesting walks that I provide. But then, perhaps the love that humans share is not all that different?
So what can we conclude? Animal activists argue that it is an arbitrary distinction to pamper some animals while “exploiting” others. But this short analysis suggests that such distinctions are not so much “arbitrary” as they are culturally determined; they are based on wealth, urbanization, the changing nature of the family, and other socio-cultural factors. Aboriginal people in North America – and traditional societies everywhere – used dog fur and leather, as many still do. Most dogs used to live and work outside; we have brought them into our homes and families. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to use plants and animals and other resources that nature provides.
So the "moral inconsistency" raised by pampering some animals while exploiting others is more apparent than real. And Maggie would almost surely agree, if she were capable of this sort of rational thought; she certainly appreciates the meat, bones and other animal products we offer.
Ironically, animal-rights purists (including PETA) now also oppose the keeping of pets, which they denounce as a form of paternalistic slavery. I am not sure that Maggie would agree.
“Fur farms in the U.S. are the only sector of animal agriculture unregulated by the federal government,” charges People for the… Read More
Fur farming in the US is subject to a host of government regulations which it then interprets in developing strict industry standards. Photo: Fur Commission USA.
"Fur farms in the U.S. are the only sector of animal agriculture unregulated by the federal government," charges People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And it's no throwaway statement either, making it onto PETA's list of Nine Shocking Fur Facts. When presented with no context, the casual reader will conclude that US fur farming is unregulated, period. But this could not be further from the truth.
The trick employed by PETA here relies on the fact that most readers will only see "unregulated by the government", and not even register the word "federal".
In common with all livestock in the US, almost every aspect of furbearers' lives comes under the jurisdiction of state departments of agriculture, not the federal government. State departments of agriculture are, of course, still government bodies, and love regulating just as much as the federal government. So are fur farms regulated by government? You bet they are, but - like most of animal agriculture - mostly by state and municipal governments.
Where the federal government does get involved in livestock production is in regulating the slaughter of animals raised for food, because there are human health concerns. Since farmed mink and fox are not produced or sold for human consumption, their production (including euthanasia) is mostly the responsibility of state governments.
That said, it's still not true to say that fur farms are completely exempt from federal regulation. While the federal government largely delegates implementation of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to states, these are still federal laws, and fur farms must comply just like any other livestock operation.
Working with Government
Some opponents of fur take a different tack when trying to create the impression that US fur farming is unregulated. Fur farms, they say, just follow standards developed by the industry itself - a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop. While it's true that the industry places great importance on its own standards, that does not mean that farmers can do whatever they want.
First, it's important to understand that having industry standards is totally normal. In American agriculture, fur farmers were pioneers in developing such standards, but today every livestock sector has them. They have some important functions.
Standards are a basic tool for an industry that is committed to policing itself. This relieves some of the burden on government which typically does not have the resources to conduct regular inspections of every small farm, and may visit only when a complaint has been filed.
Standards also help farmers improve their operations because they incorporate the findings of research in areas where the industry is the recognized authority. In the case of fur farming, these include nutrition, housing and disease control (bio-security).
Standards also provide a buffer against attempts - for example by animal activist groups - to introduce arbitrary regulations that are based on ideology rather than scientific research.
However, the important point here is that industry standards are not alternatives to government regulations. Rather, they complement and build on them. This is why regulations governing livestock farming typically evolve through consultation between government and industry stakeholders, while taking advice from independent experts.
Animal-Welfare Statutes
A good example of how this works is in the area of animal welfare. Animal-welfare statutes are many and varied, covering everything from mistreatment and neglect, to intentional cruelty. Such statutes, however, can be short on specifics; it is neither possible nor desirable to regulate every scenario that might face every kind of animal. So this is an area where specific industry standards – for example concerning nutrition and housing – can complement and build on more general government statutes.
Thus, in the case of mink farms, industry association Fur Commission USA (FCUSA) has a certification program which includes, among many other requirements, a minimum size for mink pens. By setting this standard, and enforcing it through inspections by independent veterinarians, the industry complements more general government animal-welfare statutes.
Euthanasia is another example. Again, rather than developing statutes from scratch for every kind of livestock, states refer to recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association in its AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. FCUSA takes the same recommendations on euthanasia and incorporates them in its industry standards. In other words, while it can be said that the industry "sets its own standards" on euthanasia, these standards are, in fact, based on the same recognized authority as states rely on; they effectively respect state statutes while adapting them to the specific characteristics and needs of fur farming.
In summary, US fur farms are regulated just like any other livestock sector, except that they are not subject to federal regulations for food animals. And industry standards are not alternatives to state statutes; they interpret and complement them. Therefore, PETA's "shocking" assertion that fur farming is "unregulated by the federal government" is as meaningful as saying, "Michael Jordan doesn't wear Under Armor shoes!" Of course he doesn't. He wears Nike.
One of the arguments I hear over and over again is that fur is wrong because we are killing animals… Read More
One of the arguments I hear over and over again is that fur is wrong because we are killing animals "for fashion". Fur’s main purpose is not for fashion and I think it is time to set the record straight about why the majority of us wear fur.
Furs from Neiman Marcus: a sable coat from Oscar de la Renta (left), and a mink jacket from Gorski (right). Both look good, but their primary purpose is to keep the wearer warm.
Defined as “A popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behavior” (Oxford Dictionary), fashion is constantly changing. When someone buys something to be fashionable, it is usually an item of clothing – or an accessory – whose life-cycle as a fashionable product is relatively short. That print, silhouette, or shape that is considered fashionable today is probably not going to be so next season or next year. On the other hand, classic clothing could be considered as wardrobe staples that do not follow trends and can be worn for many years. Would you not consider fur to fit into the latter? Fur coats are made to last and while some may be considered fashionable, nearly all are designed to have some degree of longevity.
Modesty and Protection
Let’s consider the purpose of clothing. We wear clothing for a lot of reasons, sometimes it is for fashion, other times status, or for identification purposes (a uniform, for example). But the majority of us wear clothing primarily for modesty and for protection from the elements.
Fur plays a huge role in protecting us from the elements. The majority of human beings live in climates where it is necessary to wear clothing throughout the year to protect ourselves from the sun, rain, wind, and cold. We have many options when the weather turns cold, and we have discussed the unintended consequences of wearing synthetics here.
But it goes without saying that we need to wear something.
If you are feeling the urge to buy and wear something fashionable, you probably don’t think “fur!” A new dress, a pretty pair of shoes, or an interesting accessory usually come to mind when I think about wearing something fashionable. And funnily enough, people don’t complain about cows being killed “for fashion” because they are made into lovely shoes. Right? Or that sheep are being raised on farms “for fashion". Not really. They just go out and buy that new wool sweater.
Coats available for purchase at Matches: an embroidered fur coat from Etro (left) and a fur and shearling coat from No. 21 (right). These might be considered fashion pieces but they are also very good winter clothing.
But if you were in the mood to make a fashion statement, would you really choose an expensive garment you can only wear for four months in the year, that requires expensive storage and cleaning, and takes up a lot of closet real estate? No, most would choose a pair of earrings instead.
Yet some people claim it is wrong to wear fur because it is just for fashion. I don’t think fur is for fashion, it is for keeping warm. It is a beautiful, stylish way to keep warm, but there’s a reason why you don’t see a lot of mink coats on the streets in July. That’s because fur is worn as protection from the elements. In public opinion research conducted by the Fur Council of Canada, the majority of women who wore fur said that it was primarily for warmth.
Canada Goose Irony
I find it ironic that one of the brands that gets the most flack for killing animals “for fashion” is Canada Goose. Canada Goose is not a fur brand but it trims its parka hoods with coyote fur because it considers it to be the best material to protect your face from wind and cold. I have a Canada Goose parka, and I love fashion, and I can tell you right now that my least fashionable coat is probably my Canada Goose parka. Look at the silhouettes, the colour palette, the finishings. These coats aren’t fashionable, they have Velcro on them! Velcro! Probably the antithesis of fashion.
Canada Goose parkas: warm, practical, long lasting, and good quality. But not exactly high fashion.
They might not be fashionable, but do you know what Canada Goose coats are? WARM. Practical. Reliable. Long-lasting. Made in Canada. Did I mention warm? That’s why people buy them and that’s why the company has done so well. Sure, it has great branding and it knows how to market its product, but the brand wouldn't have done well if its coats couldn’t stand up to the harshest winters. The majority of people don’t buy Canada Goose parkas as fashion statements, they buy them to keep warm. And you don’t need to live in the Arctic to need to keep warm. Try standing still at a bus stop or in a dog park for 20 minutes in the middle of a cold winter. If you’ve done it wearing Canada Goose, you’ll understand how fantastic these parkas are.
The same applies to many fur coats. Sure, there are some that are fashionable. But they are mostly being worn in fall/winter. Sure fur is soft and stylish and pretty ... but first and foremost, it is warm.
Practical AND Stylish
And don’t even try to argue that if fur coats are primarily practical, why are they designed with trends and fashion in mind? Good design is integral in every aspect of our lives, and just because we want to wear fur because it is warm, doesn’t mean we don’t want to look good. It is absolutely acceptable to make a practical garment and also consider what it will look like, from a fashion perspective. When you are paying that much for a garment, you want it to be as stylish as possible, which is why fur coats and jackets tend to be cut to be flattering and fashionable, as well as being practical. But there is no denying that their primary function is as a winter clothing garment.
People have many reasons to argue about fur, and you are free to choose not to wear it. But stop saying that it is wrong to use fur because it is "only for fashion". It's only people who don't wear fur who make this claim, Protection from the elements is not a question of fashion, it is a question of comfort and sometimes survival. You can choose to wear a synthetic coat made from petroleum by-products to keep you warm, you can wear a down-filled parka with a coyote-trimmed hood, you can wear a full-length mink coat, but whichever you choose, the primary reason for that purchase is not fashion, it is function. And fur is nature's best answer to winter, People who wear fur know this.
Have you ever wanted to buy vintage fur? If you’ve ever been to a secondhand store or an antiques market,… Read More
Have you ever wanted to buy vintage fur? If you've ever been to a secondhand store or an antiques market, you'll know that there is a huge selection of beautiful furs available for sale. Whether you are an eco fashion warrior who tries to choose secondhand, or a new fur coat is out of budget for you, secondhand furs can be an excellent way to add newness (and warmth) to your winter wardrobe. If you choose to go vintage, then there are a few things you need to consider before making your purchase.
You too can look like 1950s fashion icon Suzy Parker.
Here are our tips on avoiding moths, dry rot, and tears when shopping for your next piece of vintage fur.
• If the fur has a yellow tinge, then it means it is oxidized. The discolouration shouldn't turn you off buying a fur if it is a great piece, but it does affect the colour of the pelts. Look for the yellow tinge on the areas that are exposed to the sun, for example the shoulders, and the sleeves.
• If the fur and its leather have a brittle feel, then do not buy it. Fur and its leather should be soft and supple and skins that have dried out or have dry rot tend to be brittle and crunchy.
• Test the leather for dry rot by gently stretching the reverse (leather) side of the fur. (You can usually access this through the lining, and most are open.) The fur's leather should have some elasticity when you gently stretch it. If you don't feel any elasticity, then don't buy this fur because dried-out, brittle leather is more likely to tear or fall apart.
• Check for rips. They can be a sign of bad wear and tear, or again, of dry rot. If there are several rips in the coat, chances are the fur is dried out. Check areas like the arm holes, shoulders, and neckline for rips.
• Is the fur shedding a lot? This could be a sign of moths. Keep in mind that some delicate furs can break (for example rabbit or chinchilla) and most furs shed a little bit, but if there are a lot of hairs coming off the garment, or the hairs are coming out in clumps, then do not buy the coat.
Now that you know the tips and tricks to buying vintage fur, it is time to go shopping!
The time of year is approaching when the main thing on many people’s minds is trapping. But we aren’t just talking… Read More
Montana trapping is under threat. All sportsmen should pull together to protect this right.
The time of year is approaching when the main thing on many people's minds is trapping. But we aren't just talking about where and when to go trapping, or what to say to your boss if you want to skip work to go trapping. We're also talking about a very important Montana trapping ballot coming up on Nov. 8. If it passes, it will ban trapping on the state's public lands. Vote Clinton or vote Trump, that's your decision, but please make sure you vote NO on i-177. The campaign has been primarily funded by out-of-state animal rights groups. If they win this, they'll be one step closer to banning all trapping and hunting, and to their ultimate goal of making us all vegan. We're serious, that is their goal.
Other states are also considering the future of outdoor pursuits, notably Kansas which will soon be voting on whether fishing and hunting are a right or privilege.
Leah Remer, 10, shows off her plaque from the Minnesota Trappers Association and a pine marten pelt.
Meanwhile, the activists are up to their usual shenanigans. Pamela Anderson is trying to promote her anti-animal-use lifestyle while praising Vladimir Putin. "He loves wildlife," she opines, but he's also an avid hunter. Should someone tell her? And these heartless people hurled abuse at a child with terminal cancer because he wanted to try bullfighting, with one telling him to "just die".
Parkas lined with fox fur are all the rage this winter!
As winter is rolling in, we are thinking about fox fur-lined parkas (above) and otter fur scarves, like the ones the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wore when they visited Canada in October. And if you know anyone who is on the fence about wearing fur, be sure to share the following TruthAboutFur post. We think it is a pretty clear explanation about Why we must wear leather and fur.
The royal family of Greenland resplendent in seal skin!
Other articles that caught our eye included this one about the cost of groceries in the far north of Canada. We hope this makes activists think twice about criticizing the way of life up there, including the hunting. One of our contributing editors was a guest on a fashion podcast and talked about the fur trade. We've got your wildlife lesson sorted for this month with some interesting information about mink and bobcats. And our fur photo of the month award goes to the Royal Family of Denmark, who were photographed in seal skin for the latest Greenland stamp (above). Animal rights activists were not impressed but we certainly were.
I recently sat in on a conservation meeting in a sportsmen’s lodge outside Concord, New Hampshire. The topic for discussion… Read More
Sportsmen are "one of the most unorganized groups of people in the country".
I recently sat in on a conservation meeting in a sportsmen’s lodge outside Concord, New Hampshire. The topic for discussion was the lack of camaraderie amongst sportsmen and women, and the toll this has taken on conservation and wildlife programs throughout the state and region. One man said his piece on what was wrong with the current state of hunting and trapping across America. “I’m going to say something that may offend some of you," he cautioned us, "but it needs to be said. Sportsmen groups are one of the most unorganized groups of people in the country.” There wasn’t a single rebuttal from anyone in attendance; everyone knew full well what he meant, and furthermore, what it means for the future of consumptive outdoor activities in the region and the country.
It’s a subject that not too many hunters and anglers recognize, or want to admit, but those of us in more “niche” activities like hound hunting and fur trapping know it all too well. Let’s face it, you may be a big-time duck hunter and passionate about your sport, but when a bill comes before your state legislature to restrict or ban bear hunting, are you as a duck hunter, going to take the time to write to your representative to save bear hunting when you know full well you’ll never hunt bear? I’m guessing the answer, nine times out of ten, would be “no”, and that's one of the reasons why consumptive outdoorsmen and women are constantly under scrutiny from anti-hunting and anti-consumptive organizations nationwide.
Decades ago this type of mindset was unheard of. If you hunted deer, chances were you also dropped a line in the creek for trout and trapped muskrats along the marshlands during duck season. In many states and provinces, this way of life still prevails as larger populations of rural folks hold tight to their outdoor self-reliant roots. But for many of us, the community of consumptive sportsmen has become fragmented. We are passionate about our own particular practices, but fail to recognize hunting, fishing and trapping as an all-encompassing benefit to conservation and outdoor recreation.
Divisions in the Ranks
Now I know there are plenty of you reading this and wondering what I’m talking about, thinking that it's only common sense to support all forms of hunting, trapping and angling. Unfortunately nowadays, your train of thought is in the minority, and this concept is seldom heard when the proverbial deer piss hits the fan.
Yes, we should support and commend one another for having the common sense to want this natural world managed and regulated as a resource for all consumptive practices. However, every state and province in North America has divisions within its hunting ranks. Many bird hunters don’t care for trappers; many deer hunters don’t care for hounds-men; many anglers don’t care for hunters. These divisions rise to the surface every fall, and sometimes disputes over wildlife management spill into clubs and departments, causing greater divides and offshoots.
When a bill or piece of legislation does come along threatening the current ways of hunting and trapping, it's usually only those whose hides get affected (pun intended) that spend time voicing opposition.
Meanwhile, the animal rights groups and “hands-off" environmentalists have a field day presenting themselves as the majority, when in reality this is clearly not the case.
Join Your Sportsmen's Group
So what exactly am I asking for? Am I seriously trying to convince every New Hampshire deer and pheasant hunter to show up at the next hearing on anti-trapping legislation? Well, frankly, in a perfect world that’s what I’d like to see, and I recall a time when that would not have been an outlandish request.
What I will realistically settle for is for all of you to join your local sportsmen’s group - not your local skeet club or shooting range, but your state organization dedicated to preserving hunting, fishing, and trapping for everyone. The Sportsmen’s Alliance for instance, is a national organization that champions such values. This group serves as a lookout to protect deer hunters and bass fishermen, as well as fur trappers, hound hunters, and turkey callers. While national groups like the Sportsmen's Alliance do an excellent job, we must also support one another at the state and regional levels. Almost every state and province has some kind of consumptive sportsmen’s group; Maine has SAM, New Hampshire has the NH Wildlife Federation, and so on from Vermont to California. These groups not only support all major forms of regulated hunting and fishing, but also serve as a bridge of unity between the different classes of these outdoor activities.
When each of you took your hunting or trapping education classes, you learned about concepts like carrying capacity, wildlife management and conservation. I can tell you the Primos hunting decal on the back of your F-250 doesn’t mean a thing if you don’t support the other aspects of conservation that go along with its meaning. It really doesn’t matter how much you spent on your duck blind, or which Pro-Staff you belong to - if you aren’t willing to recognize and support the other aspects of wildlife conservation, such as fur trapping and bear hunting, your Real-Tree camo pajamas are nothing more than a fashion statement. More than 90 million U.S. residents (16 years old and above) participated in some form of wildlife-related recreation in 2011. With numbers like this, it’s a downright embarrassment that we must constantly fight to keep trapping and hunting relevant today.
Deceitful Anti-Hunting Groups
Despite what anti-hunting activists may say or think, I know lack of support for these “niche” activities isn’t due to lack of individual sympathy for the cause, but rather a lack of motivation to see the fight through. This is where we all, as outdoorsmen and women, must stand together against those who wish to abolish all forms of hunting and fishing. If you don’t believe your brand of outdoor hunting could be targeted, take a look at the current headlines to get a snapshot of how anti-hunting groups deceitfully operate. They know how difficult it is to push a man off his stool. They know it's much easier to whittle away at each supporting leg of that stool when he’s not looking, and watch him fall on his ass in sheer shock and surprise!
Keep in mind these organizations don’t protest hunting and attempt law changes on principle. Their primary motivation is donations. Take a look at any of the anti-hunting groups like HSUS, PETA and Furbearer Defenders, and you’ll see their websites plastered with “donate-now” buttons. They parade state-to-state crying injustice, corruption and animal cruelty while soliciting for donations. Once the deed is done, and they’ve won the argument, they’re on to the next state to suck the life out of their outdoor conservation groups. The wildlife these groups claim to support end up suffering in their wake as they continue to follow the money. Its common knowledge that most of the people who speak against hunting at these state hearings are paid to be there – it’s much more motivating to “save the animals” when you’re collecting a large paycheck in the process. But instead of standing and fighting these anti-hunting groups, sportsmen are busy pushing their neighbors under the bus in the hope these groups will move on if trapping and bear hunting are banned. This is a huge mistake, as even the most basic research on these groups will show this is not their end game. Staten Island is already experimenting with controlling its deer population by castrating bucks rather than allowing hunting; it’s happening right in front of your eyes and I’m sorry to say the “Redneck pride” sticker on the back of your truck isn’t going to stop it.
It’s not all doom and gloom; there is a light at the end of this ever-growing tunnel. You can start by becoming an active member of your local sportsmen’s club and keeping an ear to the wall for anti-hunting and trapping legislation. Find out who your local district and state representatives are and let them know you are a hunter or trapper. Whether they’re Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, most representatives listen to what their constituents are saying. Sending a handwritten letter introducing yourself and your outdoor activities is a good start to breaking the ice before legislation is introduced. It doesn’t take a lot of time either - I work a full time job, maintain and run a pro-trapping website for free, and take an active role in my local conservation groups with time still left over to hunt and trap!
To summarize, whether you hunt to put venison in the freezer, fish for sport, bird hunt with dogs or set traps for natural fur garments, you are an integral part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Your support is needed as our society is overcome by tablets, smart-phones, self-driving cars and Kardashians. Our self-reliant ways of life are ALL in jeopardy as habitat loss and out-of-touch citizens continue to constrain and restrict our activities. It’s time we start pushing back and regain our freedoms as fixtures of the natural world. United We Stand, Divided We All Fall.
Unfortunately, this could happen to anyone working with fur these days, especially retailers selling any sort of fur or fur-trimmed… Read More
Ingrid Newkirk, queen of the animal-rights bullies.
Unfortunately, this could happen to anyone working with fur these days, especially retailers selling any sort of fur or fur-trimmed products.
A veteran North American retail furrier – who shall remain nameless here, to protect the innocent – has participated for the past ten years in a high-profile fund-raising fashion show, in support of a local charity. About a month before this year’s show, he spoke with the organizers who confirmed that they were looking forward to working with him again. Then the animal-rights bullies showed up.
Just two weeks before the event, he received a call from the fashion-show producer. She informed him that the Events Committee had decided they could not include his products in the show this year. “One of the sponsors is against fur,” she said, as if this explained everything. The committee had made their decision and nothing could be done, she told him bluntly.
And that might have been the end of the story, except this retailer is not the sort who likes to be told that “nothing can be done” ... especially when it involves mindless kowtowing to anti-fur bigots. Sensing that the show producer was not open to discussion, he went above her head and contacted the charity’s Events Coordinator. What he did next should be an inspiration to all furriers – and, indeed, to everyone who believes in democracy.
Here is a summary:
First, he introduced himself and explained that his company had supported this charity event since its inception, a decade ago.
Then, he suggested that it wasn’t wise for a medical charity like theirs (they support palliative care) to give in to activist pressure tactics. Animal-rights bullies also oppose laboratory animal research, he reminded her. PETA-boss Ingrid Newkirk is on record saying that she opposes animal research even if it can find cures for AIDS or other terrible diseases. (He had the Event Coordinator’s attention now.)
And what about the retailers who were showing wool and leather products? Would they also be banned from the show if that was the next activist demand? (Hmmm ... maybe this wasn’t so simple after all?)
Then he asked what they were serving for dinner for the fashion evening ... (She was chuckling now.)
It was time to drive home his main argument: “Listen,” he told her. “We’re not saying that everyone has to wear fur...or leather…or eat meat and dairy either. Each of us can have our own opinions and make our own decisions. Isn’t that what democracy is all about? But that doesn’t give us a right to impose our ideas on everyone else!”
She promised to speak with her superiors. And, sure enough, 24 hours later the retailer received a call from the charity’s CEO. It was Friday afternoon.
"Not the Way We Do Things"
“I wanted to call before the weekend so you wouldn’t have to worry; you’re back in the show,” she said. The activists were not “sponsors” of the event; they had bought a table, like many others. In any case, the Committee should never have made this sort of policy decision without consulting with her. “This is not the way we do things,” she said. The charity appreciated the support his company had offered for so many years; they were delighted that he was ready to participate again. Have a lovely weekend!
Two weeks later, the fashion-show evening was a wonderful success, with almost 500 people in attendance. “I was pleased to see that several of the charity’s board members placed bids for the fur scarf we contributed to the silent auction,” says the retailer.
“I was worried that the activists would make a fuss when my fur scene came on,” he says. “But there was nothing but applause. I found out later that the activists had cancelled their table when they learned that they couldn’t impose their will on the organizers. See how phony their support really was all along!”
The retailer sent a note to the CEO after the show, congratulating her on a wonderful evening – and thanking her for having the intelligence and integrity not to give in to the activists’ bullying tactics.
With fur season revving up again, we hope that his little story will provide encouragement to any retailer who is harassed by activists. Truth About Fur will be preparing a “tool kit” of resources you can use to defend your business, including blog posts like the one cited above.
And if you have a story about tactics that have worked for pushing back against activist bullies, please share it with us!
The world is changing and, with it, our approach to consumption. As the impact of global warming worsens, many consumers… Read More
The world is changing and, with it, our approach to consumption. As the impact of global warming worsens, many consumers are rethinking what they buy, and how much of it. "Local", "organic" and "minimalism" are all buzzwords many of us are drawn to, and some people question the need to eat animals, or wear leather and fur. Where does that leave us with animal use?
The use of animals is an ethical dilemma that many people question, but most people agree that if animals are well-treated, they are not in danger of becoming extinct, none of the animal is wasted, and the animal is put to good use, then it is acceptable for us to use and consume them.
Animal use is an integral part of many people’s lives, and is linked to essential products in our everyday life, such as medication, food, and clothing. Animals are used in medical testing in order to find cures to life-threatening diseases. We eat animals and while some people question the need to do this, there is plenty of evidence it can be done without harm to our planet. In fact, lots of land is better suited for pasture than for cultivation. And remember that animal manure is used to replenish the soil to grow crops. But if we are concerned about possible impacts, a small reduction in the amount of meat we consume – and waste – can go a long way. And lastly, we wear many types of animal products in order to protect ourselves from the elements. Fashion may not be essential, but clothing is. The need to keep warm in cold weather is a matter of life and death.
If you live in a cold country, you’ll need clothing that can protect you from the elements, and your choices should involve leather, fur, and other animal products. Why? Because there are no viable alternatives.
If we really care about the environment (and we all should because nothing else matters if we don't have water and food and clean air), we will want to buy sustainable fashion products that use production processes that are not too harmful to the environment, that are long-lasting, and that are biodegradable. That is exactly what animal skins are. Yes, they aren’t perfect; leathers and furs use chemicals in their processing and finishing (like all other textiles), and sometimes the farming has an environmental impact. But when you consider how long a good fur coat or high-quality leather bag lasts, you’ll realize that the environmental damage is minimal compared to the lifespan of the item.
So here they are, the five reasons why we must all wear leather and fur, and these reasons all point to the fact that there are simply no viable alternatives.
1. There are no alternatives that are biodegradable. The synthetic alternatives to fur and leather take much longer to biodegrade (50 years for treated leather vs. 500+ years for pleather), and even when they have “biodegraded”, there are still remains of the plastic particles in the soil, which we are now finding in our oceans and inside fish. Truth About Fur is in the process of conducting an experiment to prove that real fur biodegrades much faster than “faux”, and the results are more dramatic than even we expected.
2. There are no alternatives that are sustainable. Synthetics are made from petroleum by-products. You probably know that petroleum is not a renewable resource. The problems caused by the extraction and transport of petroleum are only a part of the issue, let’s not get started on the political issues (read: wars) that are caused by petroleum. Animals are a renewable, sustainable resource. (Actually, wool, down, and cashmere and other similar materials are sustainable, so these are certainly viable alternatives when it comes to winter coats. But the animal rights activists are against those, too, since they come from animals. Usually a sensible winter wardrobe would combine fur, leather, down, wool, and cashmere – you’ll never be cold.)
3. There are no alternatives that are as long-lasting. While a fake fur or leather jacket may be sitting in a landfill for a few hundred years longer than its real counterpart, that doesn't mean it is longer lasting in a fashion perspective. When well cared for, fur and leather items can last for decades, but fake leather and fur hardly do the same. Both look worn out much faster (and not in a cool way – like worn out leather), and they also don't maintain their warmth or waterproof qualities. You don’t find many fake leather bags being handed down from one generation to the next, do you?
4. There are no alternatives that are as environment-friendly. The points above do a good job of making this argument, but we can add to this by talking about the processing. Yes, leather and fur require chemicals for processing (leather requiring more than fur as you need to remove the hairs from leather, whereas with fur you are aiming to protect them). But two important things to consider here are that (1) the chemicals used to “dress” furs are really quite benign, e.g., alum salts (which are sold in the pharmacy to add to your bath water for sore muscles), and (2), the longevity of leather and fur items means that the chemicals per wear are much less than a synthetic alternative. Your leather bag or fur coat may have used chemicals in its production, but the fact that it lasts you 30 years makes it a more environment-friendly option than the synthetic version, made from a non-renewable resource that requires chemicals in its processing, which then looks tatty after two seasons. Another important thing to consider is that no synthetic material looks good in its natural state, while fur is frequently used in its natural state (meaning its natural colours), reducing the need for bleaches and dyes.
5. There are no alternatives that are as safe. We’ve yet to fully understand the bodily harm coming from wearing synthetics, but there’s a great deal of research that shows that synthetic materials may contribute to health issues such as infertility, respiratory diseases, and cancer. Why take the risk when there are natural alternatives?
If you truly care about the planet and its inhabitants, you’ll make consumption decisions based on what’s best for us all. You might refuse to eat animals or watch them being used as entertainment, but it is impossible to deny that synthetic clothing is causing irreparable harm to our planet. Choose materials that are sustainable, long-lasting, and biodegradable. Choose fur and leather because there are no viable alternatives.
***
To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.
It’s time for our September Fur In The News roundup and we want to talk about fur fashion! Namely the… Read More
It's time for our September Fur In The News roundup and we want to talk about fur fashion! Namely the "hat of the season", which just happens to be a trapper hat made of fur (above). Those are fashion trends we can get on board with! And for the guys, it's all about fur slides. Have you bought your pair yet? And be sure to check out this fantastic feature in Vogue's September issue.
Speaking of trapper hats, we were pleased to read this article about how more women are hunting. It would be nice to hear of the same thing happening with trapping. And speaking of women in trapping, here's a lady who truly inspires us. We love this video of Jane Dragon telling us about how nothing is wasted when using animals - a great example of how to use animals responsibly.
We can't write a news roundup without including some activist shenanigans, so here they are. An interesting trend we are seeing is the activists turning on themselves. This isn't the first time we've read about vegans who don't approve of PETA's marketing tactics, but this might be the first time we actually agree with the them! Speaking of vegans, Italy is talking about outlawing veganism for kids.
But not all activists are busy writing articles (we wish), there are many who are up to no good. This Canadian activist is being investigated by police for threatening to kill the mayor of Miami. (Please let him go to jail! Please let him go to jail!) PETA is keeping itself busy by trying to control the content of a video game which is as ridiculous as it sounds. And the dumbest activist of the month award goes to this one who got stuck in a bear trap while he was trying to remove the bait. We feel really sorry for him. Not.
We've penned our own little attack on PETA ... Ok, let's call it a little investigation instead. We've looked into one of PETA's angora rabbit videos (above) to try and determine whether it was staged. A good read, indeed!
Let's end our roundup with a few articles of note, starting with this blog post, entitled Why Fur Is the Ethical Clothing Choice, which explores public opinion about animal use and the ethics of the fur trade and fur fashion. We loved the story of the fisherman who found this ancient axe while fishing for bass. And lastly, the horror story of the month is one about Russians, namely two married couples stuck in a small cabin in the Arctic and waiting for a rescue that is a month away. Can you imagine the arguments?!? Oh yeah, and they are also surrounded by hungry polar bears.
A recent on-line, anti-trapping rant by Born Free USA boss Adam Roberts (“What kind of person still traps wild animals?”, Huffington Post,… Read More
Randy Mersereau demonstrates a quick-killing box set for fisher or raccoon in New Brunswick. The trap is placed high on an inclined pole to keep it out of the reach of dogs that may be attracted by the bait. Photo: Truth About Fur.
A recent on-line, anti-trapping rant by Born Free USA boss Adam Roberts ("What kind of person still traps wild animals?", Huffington Post, Sept. 7, 2016) underscores how trappers are on the front line in the war against humans using animals – a war in which the weapons of choice are misleading images, inflammatory rhetoric, and exploiting the information gap between rural and urban cultures.
Roberts' attack drives home how important it is to explain, again and again, the vital role trappers play in responsible wildlife management and conservation.
Like other "animal-rights" groups, the folks at Born Free rage against a wide range of animal-use activities. This time, as part of their "Victims of Vanity 2" campaign, they are promoting an “undercover” trap-line video showing “atrocities” that they claim “occur regularly across America”.
“What kind of person purposely destroys a beaver dam and sets a ‘wall of death’ of Conibear traps," asks Roberts, "knowing that the unsuspecting beavers will return to repair their handiwork – only to be possibly smashed across their abdomens and drowned?”
The insinuation is that such traps cause terrible suffering. Born Free's own video, however, shows beavers that have clearly been struck by the trap bar across the back of the neck, breaking cervical vertebrae and causing rapid death, just as this quick-killing trap is intended to do. These traps were developed through several decades of (on-going) scientific research to provide the most humane possible methods for controlling wildlife populations.
Thanks to this pioneering work, the time-to-death produced by quick-killing traps like those shown in Born Free's video is now measured in seconds. Roberts knows, however, that most of his readers live in cities and have little real contact with nature. People who find their meat neatly wrapped in cellophane on grocery store counters are easily shocked by pictures of dead animals, no matter how humanely they were euthanized – especially when cued with sufficiently emotional rhetoric.
Ryan Minette sets live-holding foot trap for lynx in British Columbia. He works as a nurse when he's not out on the land. Photo: Truth About Fur.
Similarly, the live-holding devices used for capturing larger predators – like the coyote shown in Born Free's video – are not diabolical instruments of “torture”. Modern, live-holding foot traps are used by wildlife biologists to capture and release – unharmed – wolves, lynx, river otters and other animals for radio-collaring or reintroduction into regions where they were previously extirpated. To claim, as Roberts does, that such traps “have remained relatively unchanged for 400 years” is nonsense.
Should We Kill At All?
But what about the bigger question Roberts implicitly raises: should we really be killing wild animals at all?
In fact, there are many reasons why wildlife populations often must be managed. Overpopulated beavers can completely “eat out” vegetation in their region; the population will then crash and there may be no beavers at all for many years. Regulated trapping can smooth out these boom-and-bust cycles, maintaining healthier and more stable beaver populations. This is one reason why biologists believe there are now as many beavers in North America as there have ever been. There can, however, be too much of a good thing: beaver dams in the wrong places can flood roads, fields, and forest habitat. When your basement (driveway, back yard) is flooded, who’re ya gonna call: Mr. Roberts ... or your local trappers’ association?
Meanwhile, coyotes are the number-one predator problem for sheep and cattle ranchers, and many states and provinces have been obliged to offer bounties to keep their populations in check. Coyote, fox and raccoon populations are also culled to protect endangered ground-nesting birds or sea-turtle eggs. Overpopulated foxes, skunks and raccoons are prime vectors for rabies and other diseases that can be transmitted to humans and pets. For these and many other reasons, there will always be a need for trapping, whether or not anyone buys fur. Without a market for fur, however, these management efforts would be paid for by the government – i.e., by tax-payers – as they now are in many parts of Europe.
Trappers protect nature in other ways that are not often publicly recognized. While we all “care” about nature, most of us now live in cities. Trappers are our eyes and ears on the land, sounding the alarm when nature is threatened by inappropriate resource extraction or industrial activity. Trappers' associations across North America are on the front lines to ensure that forestry practices respect the needs of wildlife, for example by leaving a swath of uncut trees along watercourses. And, like the canary in the mine, trappers are the first to spot changes such as reduced reproduction rates among mink that may signal industrial pollution upstream. Harvesting data, including the sex and age distribution trends, provide vital information about the health of our wildlife populations.
Biologist Serge Larivière teaches youngster Vivianne Lachance how to trap muskrats along an agricultural drainage ditch in Agapit, Quebec, 2006. Photo: Truth About Fur.
Most important of all, nature is not a museum. Most wildlife species produce more young each year than their habitat can support to maturity. The ones that don’t survive feed those that do. We are part of nature and we too can make use of the surpluses that nature produces – year after year, generation after generation – so long as we protect the habitats and ecosystems that provide those surpluses. This is called “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, a central conservation principle promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other conservation authorities. (By contrast, the synthetic materials that animal activists would have us wear are usually derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource.)
Animal Abuse
Does all this give us the right to abuse animals? Absolutely not.
The Born Free video also shows a trapped coyote being kicked, prompting Roberts to ask, "What kind of person watches a tethered and helpless coyote writhe in pain and distress, unable to move because of the intensely unforgiving steel jaws clamped to her paw, kicks her in the side, and then finally shoots her in the chest so that her lungs fill with blood, and she dies a miserable, suffocating death?"
Most trappers would be disgusted by this scene. There is no excuse for kicking an animal, ever. Furthermore – Roberts' "intensely unforgiving" rhetoric aside – every trappers' association and trapper-training manual teaches that live-trapped animals should be killed quickly and humanely with a direct shot to the head. But this completely unacceptable behavior of one individual does not give Roberts or Born Free the right to smear the reputations of more than 200,000 North American trappers.
On the contrary, as society becomes more interested in protecting our natural environment, it is time that we learn more about these remarkable and knowledgeable men and women – the small minority among us who continue to live close to the land.
What kind of person still traps today? Far from the grotesque caricatures that animal activists like to portray, in many real and practical ways, today’s trappers are the true guardians of nature.
