Sensationalized videos claiming to show “animal abuse” are sadly a fact of life these days for animal agriculture, and they’re often… Read More
The Angora rabbit has been bred for its wool for more than 2,000 years without fuss. But PETA can't leave well enough alone. Photo: Oldhaus.
Sensationalized videos claiming to show “animal abuse” are sadly a fact of life these days for animal agriculture, and they’re often promoted (if not actually filmed) by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. One such video, dealing with wool production from Angora rabbits, premiered in 2013 and has gone unchallenged - until now. An Angora farmer in the US contacted us to raise some real concerns about this video, which we think are worth sharing.
Before dissecting the video, let's start with a backgrounder on Angora wool production.
There are two distinct types of Angora rabbit: those that moult, and those that don’t.
Those that moult have their wool plucked every three or four months, just before moulting begins. Plucking produces the best wool because most of the guard hairs are left behind, but it is time-consuming. Plucking leaves in place the incoming coat, although one breed, the French Angora, can be fed a depilatory which results in the exposure of bare skin. Here's a video showing how to pluck an Angora properly.
Angoras that don’t moult are sheared. Because the guard hairs are included, the wool is not such high quality, but collecting it is quicker and the yield is higher because wool can be sheared even from sensitive areas of the rabbit's body. Shearing is therefore more common in commercial operations. The most important commercial breed is the high-yielding and virtually mat-free German Angora. Ninety per cent of Angora wool production today is in China, and almost all Chinese farms raise German Angoras. Here's a video showing how to shear an Angora properly.
Show Time
OK, it's time to watch the main attraction. If you find videos of animal cruelty hard to stomach, just give it a miss and take my word.
0:10 – 1:03: This rabbit is almost certainly a non-moulting German Angora, even though it looks very similar to a moulting French Angora. We can tell it's a non-moulting breed because its legs are tethered to what is called a stretching board. These are sometimes used, but not always, when rabbits are sheared.
PETA describes the stretching process as follows: "During the cutting process, their front and back legs are tightly tethered – a terrifying experience for any prey animal – and the sharp cutting tools inevitably wound them as they struggle desperately to escape." In reality, while rabbits being stretched for the first time might be nervous, they soon learn to relax. Stretching keeps the rabbit still and pulls the skin taut, thereby preventing nicks and cuts from the shears - the total opposite of what PETA claims. Here's an excellent video demonstrating how stretching is done.
Oh, but what's happening now? Having set the rabbit up for shearing, the man is plucking it right down to its skin! He is also applying far greater force than is ever needed to pluck a moulting breed. This is all wrong for two reasons. First, the rabbit is obviously in pain. Second, as US Angora farmer and advisor on this blog post Dawn Panda says, this could be called "worst business practice". "We see the wool being yanked off, guard hairs included, in a manner that will ruin the coat for several cycles," says Dawn. "It will damage the hair follicles and greatly reduce the quality and value of future harvests as new coats will grow in coarser and hairier. No one trying to make money would do that."
This raises a disturbing question. Are we seeing a non-moulting German Angora being forcibly, and very roughly, plucked just for the camera?
1:04 - 1:17: Here a rabbit is being sheared, so we don't see any pink skin. It appears calm. At this point in the video, it is not clear whether this footage and the footage of a rabbit being violently plucked were shot on the same farm. We'll come back to this because, if all the footage is from one farm, the question is raised why one rabbit would be plucked and one sheared.
1:18-1:22: Here a rabbit that has just been sheared is shown suspended in the air by its front legs. This makes no sense, Dawn assures us. There is no part of Angora husbandry in which a rabbit would ever find itself in this situation. It can't even be claimed the rabbit fell off its stretching board because it's far too high. Once again, we can’t help but wonder if this bizarre scene was staged for the camera.
1:36-2:02: Here we see a parade of seven rabbits in their cages. Of these, the first three still have hair on their torsos and have been sheared. The next three have been plucked right down to their skin. The last rabbit cannot be seen clearly.
This scene suggests that the violent plucking at the beginning of the video and the shearing that followed took place on the same farm. And since commercial farmers generally don't have mixed herds of moulting and non-moulting rabbits, we can also suppose that all the rabbits shown are non-moulting German Angoras. The burning question is now unavoidable: Was the violent plucking of a non-moulting rabbit in the opening sequence staged for the camera? It would not be normal practice on a commercial Angora farm, insists Dawn.
"If animal lovers would use their heads, they wouldn’t be taken in by sensationalist publicity stunts," she says. "However, the addition of poignant music seems to ensure that one’s heart is going to overrule one’s head and voila! Misinformation is spread exponentially, the lie repeated until it’s accepted as fact. There are a number of excellent teaching videos on plucking and/or shearing Angora rabbits on YouTube; the lack of screaming, struggling or any pain is the norm, not the exception. This PETA video certainly does not reflect the reality of Angora farming as I know it!"
Postscript
If PETA's Angora rabbit video was indeed staged to misrepresent normal practice, we should not be surprised. This ignominious tactic by animal activists traces its roots all the way back to 1964, when the urban myth about seals being "skinned alive" began with a film that was later proven to have been staged.
While people have a right to believe that humans should not kill or use animals in any way, they lose all credibility when they manipulate images to attack the reputations of those they disagree with.
Is fur an ethical clothing choice? The media often seem confused about this question, acknowledging the resurgence of fur in designer collections while uncritically reporting sensationalist animal activist complaints about this trend. The implied (and often explicit) message is that consumers are less bothered about whether fur is an ethical clothing choice, and more concerned about looking good. In short, "fashion trumps ethics". But is this true?
To answer this question, we must take a step back and ask what makes it ethical to use any animal product.
Some of the best work on this subject was done by the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada (1984-86). Public-opinion research conducted in six Western countries (the UK, France, West Germany, Norway, Canada and the US) showed that “there is no agreement on whether it is ethical or moral to kill seals. The choice is a matter of personal conviction.” [Report of the Royal Commission, Vol. 1, p. 23, 1986.]
The Royal Commission also found, however, that there is “substantial weight of opinion that if the killing of any wild animals is to be accepted as ethical, it should satisfy the following conditions”:
The existence of the species should not be threatened;
No unnecessary pain or cruelty should be inflicted;
The killing should serve an important use;
The killing should involve a minimum of waste.
Let’s see how the modern North American fur trade stacks up when measured against these widely accepted ethical criteria.
The Existence of the Species Should Not Be Threatened
This is a “conservation” or “sustainable use” argument. Simply put, there is no future in using up resources we depend on for our survival.
Canada's raccoons, coyotes and foxes are believed to be more abundant now than ever before. Photo: garyjwood.
About one-half of the furs produced in North America today comes from farms, so there's no threat of extinction there. Furs taken from the wild, however, also come from abundant populations. Government-regulated trapping seasons ensure that we use only part of the surpluses produced each year in nature. Most species produce more young than their habitat can support to maturity. Animals that don’t survive feed those that do. Humans are part of this cycle and we too can use the surpluses that nature produces, year after year, generation after generation – so long as we protect and maintain the natural ecosystems that produce this bounty.
This is called “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”. It is a central pillar of modern conservation policy that was first promoted by the landmark World Commission on Environment and Development [Our Common Future, 1987], and now directs the work of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Thanks to excellent national and international regulations, North American furbearers that were once depleted in parts of their ranges have been restored, and more! Biologists believe that beavers are now as abundant as when Europeans first arrived, while coyotes, foxes and raccoons are more numerous in Canada than they have ever been. This is a real environmental success story.
So without question, the modern, well-regulated fur trade meets our first ethical criterion: the existence of species is not threatened.
No Unnecessary Pain or Cruelty Should Be Inflicted
This is the “animal welfare” argument, i.e., the belief that we have a right to use animals for food and other purposes, but only if we cause them as little suffering as possible.
North America is the world leader in research to make trapping as humane as possible. Here a researcher measures the velocity of a rotating jaw trap at a state-of-the-art facility in Vegreville, Alberta.
The modern fur trade has taken very seriously its responsibilities to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering. North America is the world leader in scientific research to make trapping as humane as possible. This research provided the scientific protocols for ISO standards, Best Management Practices, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (1997).
Based on this research, state and provincial wildlife authorities determine which traps may be used for each species. Most species can now be taken in quick-killing traps or “sets”. For the others (e.g., larger predators including coyotes, foxes, lynx, and bobcats), live-holding traps have been significantly improved to prevent injuries. The new live-holding foot-hold (or “leg-hold”) traps, for example, are often used by biologists to capture and release (unharmed) wolves, lynx, river otters and other animals for radio collaring or re-introduction into regions where they were once (often intentionally) extirpated.
On fur farms, mink and foxes are provided with excellent nutrition and care; this is the only way to produce the high-quality fur required to compete in international markets. Farms in the US are certified by Fur Commission USA, while in Canada farmers follow codes of practice developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council.
So the North American fur trade also satisfies our second ethical criterion: the responsibility to prevent unnecessary pain or cruelty is taken very seriously in the modern fur trade.
If Animals Are Killed, They Should Serve an Important Use
Activists often claim that it is unethical to kill animals for fur because "no one needs a fur coat". Fur coats are portrayed as "unnecessary luxuries"; raising and killing animals for fur is therefore characterized as “frivolous use”. But is fur really a frivolous or unnecessary product?
Humans need clothing to survive, and in many regions warm clothing is essential. Of course there are other materials to keep us warm, but the best of them (wool, down, leather) also come from animals. Meanwhile, most synthetic fibres (including fake or “faux” fur) are derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, the extraction and transformation of which entails serious environmental risks.
The clothing, food, income and cultural identity provided by sealing are anything but "frivolous" for Inuit and other coastal people. Here Jim Winter, founding president of the Canadian Sealers Association, argues their case in the Hague in 2007, flanked by Aagu and Aaju Peter.
Trapping, hunting and fur farming, it should be remembered, also provide food and important income for people living in rural or remote regions where alternative employment may be hard to find; fur is certainly not “frivolous” for them.
Then there is the need, in many regions, for furbearers to be culled annually to maintain healthy and stable populations, to preserve their habitat, to protect endangered species (e.g., by culling predators that attack ground-nesting birds or endangered sea turtle eggs), and to safe-guard human health, livestock and property. If furbearer populations must be culled, surely it is more ethical to use these animals for clothing than to discard them.
Last but not least, fur clothing is remarkably long-lasting, can be worn “vintage” or taken apart and remodeled as styles change, and will eventually biodegrade – all important environmental virtues.
So, in multiple ways, the modern fur trade satisfies our third ethical criterion: the animals serve important purposes.
If Animals Are Killed, There Should Be a Minimum of Waste
Most North Americans eat meat and therefore generally consider it ethical to use leather, a “by-product” that would otherwise be wasted. Fur, however, may seem more problematic if the rest of the animal is not used, as is often assumed. In fact, many wild fur-bearing animals (beaver, muskrat and other species) also provide food for First Nations and other people, especially in northern regions where cattle and other livestock cannot easily be raised. Wild furbearers not consumed by humans are returned to the bush where they are eaten by mice, birds and other animals. Nothing is wasted.
Biofuels made from mink remains are used to run buses in Aarhus, Denmark. Photo: Peter Berggren Brandsen.
Meanwhile, farmed mink and foxes are fed left-overs from our own food supply – the parts of chickens, pigs, fish and other animals that we don’t eat and that might otherwise go into landfills. In addition to fur, farmed mink provide oil for cosmetics and the preservation of leather. Their manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers, to enrich the soil and produce more food, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. Biofuels made from mink remains now power buses in Aarhus, Denmark, the world’s largest producer of farmed mink. Similar projects are being tested in North America.
So the modern fur trade satisfies our fourth ethical criterion: there is minimal waste.
As this brief summary shows, the modern North American fur trade satisfies all four of the criteria required to determine that fur is an ethical clothing choice.
Of course, this does not mean that anyone is obliged to wear fur. As the Canadian Royal Commission determined some 30 years ago, that decision is ultimately “a matter of personal conviction”. This has been confirmed by public opinion research conducted in recent years showing that about 80% of North Americans agree that wearing fur should be a question of personal choice.
If you are in denial that summer is over, never fear, we still have a few good tips on how to combine fur into your beachwear wardrobe. Elle has several suggestions on how to wear fur on the beach (above) and Cindy Crawford shows us how to wear fur boots on a boat trip. Too bad she wasn't in a kayak made of seal skin. Lucky for us, the summer's most popular parka was made of fur and we think it will transition nicely into your fall fashion wardrobe. What else should you be wearing for fall? The fashionistas are suggesting fur sandals and these amazing fur backpacks from Fendi. Back to school is very chic this year!
If you love fur fashion, then you might be interested in reading about the longest fashion collaboration to date - the one between Karl Lagerfeld and Fendi which has resulted in some incredible fur fashion. And if you want to learn the tricks of the trade, then check out this school in Finland which teaches the skills to design and make fur garments.
Sue Boot of Basically Bush models her spectacular possum creations.
Let's end this month's roundup with some helpful educational materials, some related to fur and some not so much! We'll start with a chart (above) on how to tell real fur from fake. Or if you want to identify that bird of prey eyeing your trapline just by looking at its claws, here's a very useful claw chart. (Please let us know if there are better uses for this chart!)
COOL FACT #1: Fur may have saved the human race New research suggests humans (Homo sapiens) survived the last Ice… Read More
Neanderthal man froze to death while Homo sapiens Josh Spice laughs in the face of the cold!
COOL FACT #1: Fur may have saved the human race
New research suggests humans (Homo sapiens) survived the last Ice Age and Neanderthals didn’t because humans were serious about fur clothing. Animal remains around Neanderthal sites lack evidence of furbearers, while human sites have fox, rabbit, mink and notably wolverine - the same fur still preferred today by Canadian First Nations for hood liners.
COOL FACT #2: Everyone's heard of the California Gold Rush, but how about the California Fur Rush?
In the early 19th century, trappers came from far and wide to the US west coast to harvest huge populations of furbearers. It was these trappers, not the gold prospectors who followed, who opened up the west and put San Francisco Bay on the trade map. But no one remembers because no one named a football team after them. Go 49ers!
COOL FACT # 3: Beaver butts are used in food flavouring
Next time you see the words "natural flavouring" on a food package, it might be referring to Castoreum, secreted from the castor sacs of beavers located between the tail and the anus. Usually it's used to simulate vanilla, but it can also pass as raspberry or strawberry.
Fort Victoria (shown here in 1847) started life as a fur-trading post. Today it is the capital of British Columbia.
COOL FACT #4: The fur trade determined much of the Canada-US border
The search for fur drove Europe's exploration and settlement of North America, and many of today's towns and cities began as fur-trading posts. In fact, much of the border between Canada and the US traces the territories once controlled by Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company and the Montreal-based North West Company.
Fish heads and spoiled cheese are gourmet eating for mink. Photos: Joseph Robertia; Truth About Fur.
COOL FACT #5: Mink farming plays a key role in our food chain
Have you ever wondered where all the animal leftovers from human food production go? Fish heads, chicken feet, expired eggs, spoiled cheeses? If you live in fur-farming country, chances are they go to make nutritious mink food. And the mink manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertiliser to enrich the soil, completing the nutrient cycle to produce more food.
COOL FACT #6: Mink wastes provide biofuel
In Nova Scotia, Canada, pilot projects are transforming mink wastes into methane for bio-energy production. In Aarhus, Denmark – the country that produces the largest number of farmed mink – the public transit buses already run on mink oil.
Crabs will eat just about any seafood you offer them, but so will seals and sea lions, and they'll trash your crab pots to get at it. Enter mink bait! Crabs find their food by smell, and apparently the smellier the better because they love mink musk. But seals and sea lions can't stand it and will give your pots a wide berth!
COOL FACT #8: Canada's beaver population has never been bigger
The national animal of Canada has been prized for its luxuriant fur for hundreds of years, yet wildlife biologists believe there are as many today as there were before Europeans arrived. They also believe coyotes, foxes and raccoons are more populous now than ever. Truly modern trapping, regulated to allow only the removal of nature's surplus, is a perfect example of the sustainable use of renewable natural resources!
COOL FACT #9: Farmed mink enjoy company so farmers house them in pairs
After being weaned from their mothers, farmed mink are often raised in pairs, preferably a brother and sister, and sometimes even threes. Farmers have learned that keeping siblings together results in calmer and healthier mink.
Assembly times: Intarsia sheared beaver by Zuki: 100 hours; Jeep Wrangler by Jeep: 18 hours.
COOL FACT #10: Fur garments are very labour-intensive
Fur garments are created individually, with all the cutting and sewing done by hand. Not counting all the work involved in producing the pelts, an “average” mink coat might take 35-40 hours of hand work, while an intarsia sheared beaver by Zuki could take 100 hours. That's longer than it now takes to assemble a car!
BONUS FACT: Animal activists have no sense of proportion
Each year, North Americans use about 7 million animals for fur. That's one sixteenth of one percent of the 12 billion animals they use for food. Yet animal activists focus more attention on the fur trade than on all other livestock industries combined. Go figure!
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
Three months ago, we launched the Great Fur Burial. This is 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. After 3 months, 6 months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth a piece of the mink and a piece of the fake fur to check for degradation. This experiment is hardly scientific, but it only has to show one thing: do they rot, or not?
Three Months Later ...
Last week we unearthed the first of the eight sets of fake and real fur. We set out to the burial ground, marked by two sticks.
It only took a few seconds of digging to find the first piece of fake fur, which appeared to be fairly intact.
Finding the real fur was more of a challenge. We decided to dig by hand to avoid disturbing the site too much, and came across a sad-looking shred.
After refilling the grave, we put our exhumed samples onto a tray. It was time to have a closer look for signs of degradation.
Before cleaning. Fake fur on the left, real on the right.
A lot of dirt was still attached to the samples, so a bit of gentle cleaning was in order. And here's what we ended up with:
After cleaning. Fake fur on the left, real on the right.
Ocular inspection immediately told us that the two samples, which were originally the same size, were not the same size anymore. The real fur sample was much smaller.
Closer inspection revealed that the synthetic fur was pretty much intact, front and back.
Close-up of the synthetic fur after three months in the ground.
The backing of the synthetic fur looks almost like new.
The real fur, on the other hand, was falling to pieces, and was held together by the threads from the letting-out sewing process. The leather had all but disappeared and most of the hairs showed clear signs of biodegradation.
The real fur sample looked more like an owl pellet than a mink stole.
We're only three months into a multi-year experiment, and already the findings are quite dramatic.
Equal-sized pieces of fake and real fur were buried side by side. After three months, the fake fur showed no obvious signs of degradation, biological or otherwise. In other words, it was perfectly intact. The real fur, however, was in an advanced state of degradation, in particular the leather.
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?
Are you interested in studying fur design and learning the technical skills involved in producing fur garments and home accessories?… Read More
Are you interested in studying fur design and learning the technical skills involved in producing fur garments and home accessories? There are only a handful of courses around the world that teach these skills, and one of them is in the north of Finland.
The first thing that caught my eye when I walked into the fur design studio at Centria University of Applied Sciences were the fox pelts. Everywhere. Scraps of fox in boxes, coloured fox pieces being sewn into garments, rails of fox clothes, and the pièce de résistance, a multi-coloured fox beanbag chair (to die for would be an understatement here).
But then again, what would you expect when taking a fur design course in the country famed for its fox pelts?
Left, the beautiful Allegro campus in Pietersaari, and right, a fox fur beanbag.
While it may seem remote, Pietarsaari, a town with a population of just 20,000, is a great place to study fur design. This is the epicenter of Finland’s fox farming industry, and it helps to have great resources nearby.
The Center for Fur Design is situated in the Allegro campus of the Centria University of Applied Sciences, in the town centre of Pietarsaari. It offers a Bachelor of Business Administration with a specialisation in fur design and marketing.
The fur design studio, well equipped with materials and specialised fur machinery.
The curriculum features courses in handling fur, the properties of the raw material, as well as design and construction of products made from fur and leather. With close relationships and proximity to many fox farms, students are able to learn about the farming and access a great deal of very beautiful raw materials. On the business side, they will learn business, economics, management, and communication skills.
Fox projects in process.
In addition to the degree course, Centria University of Applied Science also runs the FutureFOXstudio, an initiative that serves the fur trade, including companies, designers, teachers, and students. They offer creative workshops, product development services, international marketing, and tailored modules on fur design and related topics.
Are you interested in mastering the skills of fur design and business administration? The bachelors lasts three and a half years. And while you might find yourself a bit isolated that far north in Finland, rest assured you’ll be in good company. There are plenty of fox farms in the neighbourhood.
July may be the slowest month on the fur calendar, but some issues never go away, especially if they enter the… Read More
The legal tussle over hunting of Great Lakes wolves seems set to last for many more years. Photo: National Park Service.
July may be the slowest month on the fur calendar, but some issues never go away, especially if they enter the legal system. Take the Great Lakes wolves. The hunt was off, then it was on, and now it's off again. It's supposed to be about the numbers, but the precautionary principle must trump all, says Nancy Warren of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition. “Wolves have reached the numeric goals for delisting” in Minnesota, she concedes, but when they're faced with threats like climate change, current numbers apparently don't matter.
Wisconsin's inhabitants might not agree. With hunting and trapping banned, the state's wolf population is now more than double its official goal of 350.
Taking the lead against the Great Lakes wolves lawsuit filed by HSUS is the Ohio-based Sportsmen’s Alliance. Truth About Fur interviewed spokesman Brian Lynn on today’s trapping challenges in general. Though most of the Alliance’s members are hunters and fishermen, it is strongly committed to the interests of trappers too. “Trappers are the ones on the front lines," he says. "They are constantly under attack [from] animal rights organisations, legislation, the ballot box … Whether it is changing the seasons, eliminating the seasons, or regulating traps, they are getting hammered left and right.”
The next major battle will be fought in Montana, where a ballot initiative is coming up this November that could stop all trapping on public lands. Pundits are saying it could go either way.
In other hunting and trapping news, British Columbia has banned the use of drones. It might seem like just another government intrusion, but most hunters and trappers seem supportive. But this man from North Carolina is seriously not a fan of big government. All he did was try to get a family of foxes out of his yard, only to find himself mired in regulations and conflicting advice. Did you know that North Carolina has no fewer than 27 different seasons for hunting foxes and 22 for trapping them, all depending on where you live?
Sex and Drugs and ... a Little Bit of Modelling
Are they really happy, or out of their heads on coke? The future Mrs. Mick Jagger is in there somewhere. Photo: Elle.
On the fashion front, a very unusual story appeared last month as a prelude to “a major motion picture”. Elle magazine spilled the beans on a “drug-fueled, multimillion-dollar supermodel snowpocalypse” that took place in 1977. Besides lots of fur pics, readers are given a candid insight into the behaviour of models and photographers back then. Is it different now?
And fashion designer-cum-hypocrite Stella McCartney is still taking shots at her fur-using peers. Her latest theory is that designers who use fur are just bloody-minded. “There are a lot of designers who are very ‘f*ck you’ when it comes to using fur,” she says. “If it’s wrong to do fur, then they’re going to do it.” Or maybe all they really want to say is “f*ck you”, as in, “f*ck you, Stella”. While she makes a huge deal of not using animal products, she has no problem using silk, made by boiling moth pupae alive.
We had two stories last month about fibres which, to North Americans at least, are exotic. Yak wool from Mongolia may be set to break onto the fashion scene, and New Zealand is making headway promoting its beautiful, durable and warm possum-merino yarn.
Sue Boot's company Simply Bush harvests around a million possum pelts annually. Yet possum fur and possum-merino yarn remain largely unknown in the northern hemisphere. Photo: Peter Meecham / Fairfax Media.
New Zealand's challenge, though, is more complex than selling a product which should sell itself. It faces a huge possum pest problem, and wants to demonstrate to sensitive consumers that killing methods are humane by international standards. Scientist Bruce Warburton, consultant for the Fur Council of New Zealand, sums up the perception problem well: "People use anti-coagulants to get rid of rats, but everyone gets worked up about trapping possums. There are a lot of inconsistencies about the way we deal with furry creatures."
How Much???
Let's round off with a couple of reminders why most of us must spend more time producing and promoting high-end furs than we will ever spend wearing them!
Former supermodel (all models are "supermodels" now, right?) Christina Estrada filed divorce proceedings against her oil baron hubby (who, as it happened, died this July). As part of the settlement she is asking for £40,000 annually just to buy a new fur coat! If you think that's rich, she also wants £6.52 million a year in child support, and that's for one kid.
Considerably cheaper, but still in the OMG category, are a pair of fur sandals recently sported by Kim Kardashian. The headline was how could she wear fur in 100-degree weather? But it should have been the price of these two little bits of nothing. $895! No wonder trappers feel they're not sharing in the industry's wealth!
At $895, making fur sandals may be more lucrative than trapping. Photo: FameFlynet.
There’s a common misconception that if you wear fur in public, you’ll get red paint or pig’s blood thrown on you. This is… Read More
Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) was sloshed with red syrup for an episode of the NBC comedy series 30 Rock. An alarming number of netizens believe this was a real PeTA attack!
There's a common misconception that if you wear fur in public, you’ll get red paint or pig's blood thrown on you. This is an urban myth that's been around for decades, and we are here to reassure you that it will not happen! In fact we, and others, can’t find any evidence of this ever having happened to a regular person, and believe incidents involving celebrities can be counted on the fingers of, well, two fingers!
So prevalent was this myth in the 1980s and '90s that some North American furriers offered to clean their customers' furs for free if they were attacked with paint. But they never had to follow through on their pledge because it never happened. In fact, some animal activists even complained that the myth of attacks with red paint was invented by the fur trade to discredit them!
So, to answer the question, no, you will not get paint thrown on you if you wear fur. Here’s why.
Animal rights activists don’t carry around buckets of paint or blood in the hope they will find someone to throw them on. It is massively inconvenient to have a bucket of paint in your bag, plus it might spill onto your vegan energy bar.
Most people cannot distinguish fake fur from real. Not only does fake fur look very realistic these days, some of it even feels real. Would an animal rights activist risk attacking a fake fur wearer by throwing a bucket of paint on them? Not likely.
It is illegal. Not only is it obviously illegal to throw paint on a stranger for any reason, if you throw it because you think that person is wearing real fur, in the US you could be classed as an animal rights terrorist. Only a fool would risk 10 years in a federal prison for throwing paint on someone who might not even be wearing real fur.
It is counter-productive. Fur lovers are not easily cowed by animal rights activists, and if one of them has their fur ruined with paint, they will probably just replace it. And since fur coats are frequently insured, they won't even have to foot the bill. What is the point of destroying one fur coat, when it is only going to be replaced with another?
Animal rights activists rarely commit crimes in public. They protest, shout, take their clothes off and are really annoying in public, but rarely commit crimes in public. Instead, they vandalise farms under the cover of night or sneakily film animals being “mistreated” for months before showing anyone the evidence. Or they threaten violence in the comments section of an article without revealing their real identity. Does this sound like the type of person who is brave enough to throw paint on a passerby in the middle of the street? No.
If you're concerned about other crimes that may be committed against you and your mink coat, consider this. Spitting on someone is a crime and leaves DNA. Plus CCTV cameras are everywhere. At worst, you might be at risk of having a post-it note stuck on your back, but even this childish prank happens very rarely.
So confident are we that wearing fur is safe, we set out to prove it! A few years back, one of our team wore visible fur pieces in public for 100 days over the winter. Mostly she was in Vancouver, Canada, a hotbed of anti-fur sentiment, but she also spent time in London, England, also reputed to be intolerant of fur. The result? Lots of compliments, not a single negative comment, and of course, no paint attacks. The experiment, called 100 Days of Fur, confirmed that fur is a very safe fashion choice.
Of course, animal rights activists do like their publicity, so celebs should be a more attractive target, right? But even then, our count currently stands at two: the late comedian Joan Rivers once got red paint thrown on her sable, and Vogue editor Anna Wintour once got hit with "fake blood". If you're a celebrity who's been sloshed with red paint, please tell us about it, and we're flattered you're reading our blog!
The Sportsmen’s Alliance is a US organisation that protects the outdoor heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting in all… Read More
The Sportsmen’s Alliance is a US organisation that protects the outdoor heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting in all 50 states. Between fighting in the courts, political lobbying, and countering campaigns by animal activists, they are kept busy. We talked to Vice President Marketing and Communications Brian Lynn about trappers, hipsters and sound bytes.
Brian Lynn: "Trappers are the most active, passionate, and engaged audience there is." Photo: Sportsmen's Alliance / Brian Lynn.
Alexandra: What percentage of your members are trappers versus hunters and fishermen?
Brian: I’d say somewhere between 10 and 20%. It’s not a huge number, but the trappers are the most active, passionate, and engaged audience there is.
Alexandra: Interesting you say that, because we think that too.
Brian: Trappers are the ones on the front lines. They are constantly under attack.
Alexandra: Are you referring to the amount of legislation that people are trying to put into place to try and ban trapping?
Brian: Yes. Animal rights organisations, legislation, the ballot box – trappers are constantly under attack. Whether it is changing the seasons, eliminating the seasons, or regulating traps, they are getting hammered left and right.
Alexandra: Do you think that trappers are getting attacked more because they are fewer in number? Or perhaps because in the US hunting is more associated with a weekend pastime?
Brian: It is both. There aren’t as many trappers, so it is more of a fringe endeavour. Also it lacks the idea of a sport – of you versus the animal. To the uninitiated, it just seems like you are going out there, putting some bait out, and whether a wolf, bobcat, bear, or your dog comes along, they get snapped up and killed cruelly. It looks barbaric, and it is a hard sell for us to protect. It is an easier sell to misrepresent. People already are ignorant about it; urban people are like, “You do what?” It is a harder thing to protect because of the ignorance, and it lacks the perception of sport and the “you versus the animal.”
"[Trapping] is a hard sell for us to protect, it is an easier sell to misrepresent," says Brian, seen here hunting duck in Alaska. Photo: Sportsmen's Alliance / Brian Lynn.
Active or Passive Management
Alexandra: It's interesting how urban folk don’t mind trapping when there’s a coyote eating their cats, or beavers flooding their home.
Brian: That’s the whole thing. People say, “This doesn’t seem fair, that doesn’t sound right,” until it impacts them. Once the deer come in and start eating their petunias, now they're mad. Or they're hitting deer with their car. Now they want something done. Don't kill the bears until the bears start eating your kids. It boils down to active management versus passive management.
We did a piece on defensive trapping a couple of months ago in our newsletter, and without trapping, state agencies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on trapping nuisance animals and flooding. Nobody understands that until it happens. The animal rights activists try to couch it as, “We don't need to manage populations." They try to pass off the Disney idea that “nature will balance itself”, which never really happens. But even they are saying passive management is ok. When the mountain lion becomes overpopulated and one starts eating their cats, then it's ok for the state to come in and kill that one lion. Well, it costs a ton of money, and it's not fixing the problem. With active management, you are mitigating the booms and busts and managing them actively with hunting and trapping. The animal rights groups just want to let everything go wild, and passively manage it when it becomes an issue with humans, which is just not going to work because we see disease, starvation, plus human-wildlife conflicts.
Alexandra: What are some of the biggest issues that you are dealing with right now, and have the kinds of issues evolved much over the past 20 years?
Brian: They go in waves and trends. In the 1980s, animal rights groups went after bow hunting, in the ’90s they went for mountain lions and some bear-hunting tactics. Last year we saw a lot of dog-related activity: kenneling, breeding, selling legislation. A lot of it is aimed at puppy mills, but if enforced to the letter of the law, it will stop hound hunting, kenneling, or selling those dogs.
We also saw a lot of apex predator issues – black bears and wolves. And now we are seeing them setting the table to come back for more of what they attacked in the ’90s - black bears and mountain lions in the west, and the Great Lakes wolves.
They hit something hard, in multiple states, for a couple of years, then let it rest. They let the social consciousness of the non-hunters absorb it a bit, they’ve made it an issue. Then they let their fundraising base rest, then come back and hammer it again several years later. It makes for a better news story again. Then it seems like a big issue that keeps coming out so they can get more funding, and it psychologically resounds with the public. “Oh, this is an issue, we need to do something about this!”
Great Lakes Wolves, Maine Bears
Alexandra: What are some of the activities that you do to fight the activists, and which campaigns have been successful?
Brian: Right now we are the lead on the Great Lakes wolves lawsuit. It is the Humane Society of the United States vs. the Sportsmen’s Alliance, the Department of the Interior, and the State of Wisconsin. So that is one we have been fighting for several years, and that should be moving through the court system, and we are appealing the last decision that was made in December 2014.
One of our more successful campaigns was the Maine Bear Ballot issue in 2014. The HSUS decided to go after bear hunting in Maine and hired a California firm to collect signatures and force it onto the ballot. The HSUS just self-funded the whole thing. If that had been successful, it would have basically put an end to bear hunting in Maine. It would have removed the use of traps, bait, and hounds to hunt bears, and that is 93% of the harvest. We went in, organised the grass roots groups, bought air time, created the messaging, and we ended up beating them by 8 points. And there was a couple of lawsuits out of that, that we fought and were successful in. We were successful all the way around and have a good base set up to protect it again, should they come back, and they have stated they are coming back again to stop it.
The thought is that they will just go after hounds and traps, because few people use these, so most people don’t care. This is when we get into apathy within our own ranks. If HSUS removes 85% of its opposition and 85% of its opposition’s funding, those who remain make easier targets.
"Sticking Up for One Another"
Alexandra: Some graphics in your social media send a message about uniting hunters, fishermen and trappers. What is the thinking here?
Brian: We need to be sticking up for one another, despite method of take. Even if you don’t participate in trapping and you don’t use bait, we can’t stand around and say, “That’s doesn’t affect me.” Once hound hunting falls, once bait hunting falls, once trapping falls, they are coming after what you do want to do. We need to be united regardless of how we are participating in these activities.
Alexandra: What percentage of Americans do you believe support hunting, trapping and fishing, and how many are opposed?
Brian: Hunters and anti-hunters are about the same size, 5-10% of the population. And all of the polls show that 75-80% of the general public support hunting as a management tool. That’s great. But the problem is that all that support goes right out the window as soon as emotion gets into it. People's minds are changed really quickly if they are shown an animal flopping around in a trap or a dead trophy shot. We move from the logical “That makes sense, I support hunting,” to the emotional “Oh, but I don't support it in this instance. It seems cruel.”
The other side can just throw words around like “slaughter” and sway those non-hunting voters.
Our biggest challenge is telling our story, why we have to do it, why it makes things better, the funding of conservation, managing populations, habitat, carrying capacity of the land. That’s a long story which can be boring if you aren’t into it, and if there is legislation or a ballot initiative, and a news anchor puts a microphone in your face and you try and explain carrying capacity of the land and funding of conservation, it is long, boring, and not sound-byte stuff. Then they ask the other side why we need to stop it and they say, “It's cruel, they are slaughtering animals with babies.” There’s your sound byte.
"Hipster Deal Big Move Forward"
Alexandra: Have the demographics of your supporters and members changed? There is a hipster trend now, with people doing things themselves, growing their own food and maybe hunting. They were traditionally more on the left of the political spectrum, whereas hunters tend to be on the conservative side. Do you see this new demographic supporting outdoor activities?
Brian: We are seeing a bit of a bump, which is great from a branding and messaging perspective. This is important for the hunting and trapping industry in general, but here at the Sportsmen’s Alliance we are very engaged, political, more hardcore. The new people coming in are a more holistic type of person, who may not be political.
For the broader industry, though, the whole hipster deal has been good. From the perspective of acceptance within the mainstream, those people are sharing with other people, within city life. It is about taking responsibility for their food, and them relaying their message in a way that their friends can understand. That’s where I see it as being the biggest move forward for the industry. How do you reach someone in LA? We aren't going to reach some hipster in LA, but some guy at an LA party who went out, harvested his own food and killed a deer, that is going to do more good than anything we are doing as an industry to disseminate the proper message.
Great sport and great eating too! Hipsters are "taking responsibility for their food, and ... relaying their message in a way that their friends can understand." Photo: Sportsmen's Alliance / Brian Lynn.
Alexandra: Do you cooperate with a Canadian counterpart?
Brian: There is some run-over, but nothing official. In Maine, we are involved in two lawsuits on trapping Canadian lynx. In Maine, Canadian lynx are on the Endangered Species List, but north of the border they are not.
There are incidental take permits, and a certain number of Canadian lynx can be caught in traps without the trapper or the state being in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The HSUS is trying to stop that; they are trying to get the incidental take permits revoked. If they succeed, that would mean that anywhere there is an endangered species of any kind, trapping can be stopped. If you take it a step further, anywhere there is an endangered fish in a river, you could apply the same logic. You can’t fully control what steps into a trap, therefore you can’t trap anywhere there is an endangered species, just like you can’t always control what is going to bite your hook, therefore no one can fish anywhere there is an endangered fish. So that’s a lawsuit we are involved in in Maine.
"Educate Those Not Within Your Group"
Alexandra: Is there any advice you have for trappers about protecting their rights, proactively?
Brian: They need to educate non-trappers about what they do: about how trapping is regulated, how hard it is, what you do to prevent non-target by-catch. People need to understand that, and it is not the people that are already in your social groups, it needs to be the non-trapper or the hunter that doesn’t understand it, so you can help eliminate that issue of hunters not caring. For example, there are a lot of bird dog hunters that hate trapping because traps will be out during grouse season and they are worried their dogs might get snagged up in them. We need to try and educate those people. It is all about educating those not within your group.
As for state and provincial organisations, they need to start collecting funds and putting these aside. This is something we are saying in Maine, start a war chest, because the attack is coming, it is just a matter of time. The HSUS is so rich they can self-fund any campaign they want to. They are a $130-150 million a year organisation, so they can just decide “this is where we are going to go, and we will spend $3 million.” If HSUS comes and you sit there fundraising for the first six months, that's a six-month head start they have in swaying public opinion. If you can hit the ground running, and you already have a war chest, you are better off. That’s hard for groups to do, though, because unless there is a bogeyman right there, those funds start to look very attractive to dip into and use for other things.
Alexandra: Thank you for taking the time to speak to us!
For further reading, check out this great Sportsmen's Alliance content:
Every month, as I read through the past month’s fur news headlines, I think to myself, “Wow, this animals rights… Read More
Every month, as I read through the past month's fur news headlines, I think to myself, "Wow, this animals rights activism story is even stupider than the ones from last month." This month is no exception. In fact, June might be hard to beat because the activists have been up to some seriously stupid stuff. Let's have a look.
Can you handle a bit more stupid? Here are our top three seriously stupid animal rights shenanigans from June.
Third place goes to the woman who spent $300 to get a lobster from the grocery store back into the sea. I guess she doesn't realise that buying lobsters only contributes to demand, and her particular lobster was probably caught again 20 minutes after its release. (Grocery stores are all, like, "Lobster sales are going up! Even vegans are buying 'em!")
Second place goes to the vile, disgusting PETA people who are using the Orlando shooting as ammunition (pardon the pun!) for their anti-hunting agenda. America's largest mass shooting does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, deserve to be compared to hunting deer. EVER!
Deer Vasectomies?
Speaking of deer, the first place spot goes to the imbecile who thinks the best way to control the deer population on Staten Island is to start a 2 million dollar a year male deer vasectomy program, which the New York Department of Environmental Conservation thinks is a bad idea, and will have “limited effectiveness” and be “unable to quickly reduce deer-human conflicts.”
And let's give the special runner-up award to Kimberly Sherriton, a housewife in Long Island who organised a series of protests outside a farm because she wanted to save the life of a cow that they were going to slaughter to eat. The best part? Her solution was, "Please, tell him to go to Whole Foods and go get some antibiotic-free beef there." Because Whole Foods sells beef from cows that weren't slaughtered, right? I can't even deal with this level of stupid.
Moving on to the furry stuff! We just posted this piece about a renowned Canadian trapper on our blog (pictured below), definitely worth a read and if you want to know more, he's written a book about his life! This is a great video on trapping, entitled Meet Your Local Trapper, and Vice has once again shown its support for hunting and trapping by publishing How to Make It as a Fur Trapper in Northern Alberta. Ever wondered why mink is the world's favourite fur? We sure did, and that's why we wrote this blog post about mink fur.
If you are struggling to find ways to include fur in your summer wardrobe (the struggle is real, people) then Vogue's piece 14 Ways to Wear Fur All Summer Long has some really useful tips. If you are in a shopping mood, then you'll be pleased to hear that Kluger Furs has expanded and Adrienne Landau is now selling online, thanks to Beyoncé and Madonna. And if you are looking for a few soft materials to fill in the gaps of your fur wardrobe (maybe the summer mink ideas weren't working for you?) then keep an eye out for this new blend: perino.
When activists tell you that the majority of Americans think wearing fur is wrong, then they are lying. Americans think wearing fur is more acceptable than medical testing on animals, cloning, and extramarital affairs.
True life stories of a Métis trapper and his love for the land, his family and friends A primary goal… Read More
True life stories of a Métis trapper and his love for the land, his family and friends
Holding a trapping workshop in 1986 with war veteran Roland Giroux. Here Alcide demonstrates a small Conibear trap used for marten.
A primary goal of Truth About Fur is to give a voice to the real people of the fur trade. So what a pleasure it is to tell you about a newly published autobiography by one of Canada’s foremost trappers and trapping advocates, the legendary Alcide Giroux.
My First Sixty Years Enjoying Nature as a Trapper promises, and delivers, a passionate and epic tale of a life lived in close harmony with the land: hunting, fishing and trapping. And thanks to Alcide's extraordinary memory, he shares many wonderful adventures with us in vivid detail.
God's Country
The story begins in December 1951, near Sturgeon Falls, Ontario. Alcide was just six years old when his father moved their family onto the old homestead his grandfather had cleared and built in the early 1920s. There was no electricity or indoor plumbing, and young Alcide and his siblings had to cross the Sturgeon River in a small homemade boat before walking to school – a walk that provided opportunities for the young Alcide to snare rabbits to complement the moose and beaver in his mother’s stew pot. It was God’s Country back then, Alcide tells us, with wilderness and wildlife all around. Their trap lines began at the farmhouse door.
A few years later, Alcide’s Dad built a remarkable suspension bridge to facilitate the family’s commuting. “We had so many curious and nosy visitors; they all came to see the 8th Wonder of the World ... well the 8th wonder of River Valley!” Alcide recalls.
I enjoyed reading about this remarkable DIY engineering feat all the more because I walked across this same bridge many years later when I visited Alcide’s trapline, in the 1980s.
Eighth Wonder of the World! The old Giroux farmhouse, seen here in 1979, with the bridge Alcide's father built in 1960.
In the pages of his new book, Alcide pays tribute to many kind and talented woodsmen, but none more than his own father, “a great trapper with a built-in GPS in his brain.” Philippe Giroux was a Métis who instilled in his sons the importance of respecting the animals they depended upon, which meant trapping as humanely as possible. “Because we only had leg-hold traps back then, Dad showed us how to build underwater sets that ensured a quicker death for muskrats, mink and beaver.”
Alcide Giroux clearly learned his Dad’s lessons well; he became one of Canada’s foremost advocates for humane trapping. By the time he was 30, in 1975, he was writing articles in trappers’ magazines and leading workshops across Ontario and beyond, promoting the importance of researching and implementing better trapping techniques.
"I Had Gained Their Trust"
In 1980, as newly-elected president of the Ontario Trappers Association (OTA), his first speech called on trappers to take the lead in humane trapping, rather than have changes imposed on them by others. He remembers that his beloved wife, Pat, sitting at the back of the hall, was worried about how this call for change would be received. But Alcide’s sincerity and straight talk won the day.
“There were no hard feelings, no arrows thrown, but lots of applause and many handshakes," recalls Alcide. "I could breathe again; I had gained the trust and confidence of my fellow trappers.”
Leading a workshop for First Nations trappers in northern Ontario, 1980.
When the Fur Institute of Canada was created in 1982, to implement recommendations of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping (1974-1981), Alcide became a founding member, and later vice-chair. Accompanied by Pat, he travelled the world to lend his expertise to trap-research and conservation meetings in New Zealand, Europe, Louisiana, Australia and elsewhere. When scientists, politicians or journalists wanted to see a trap line first-hand, more often than not it was Alcide and Pat who received them.
Alcide’s story bursts with good humour and a passion for life, whether he’s describing the orphaned bear cub, Ben, that his family adopted, or the time that famed country singer Murray McLauchlan came for a visit and wrote a song about Alcide for his 1984 album about true Canadian heroes. The song, Little Brothers of the Wood, includes the lines:
I only take what I need, don’t take no more The woods ain’t a shelf in a grocery store. I only take what I need because come the spring I want to see beaver cubs in that pond again.
In 1983, Alcide found a new friend in bear cub orphan Ben.
Alcide’s strength of character is also evident as he faces life’s more difficult moments: political battles in the OTA, a fire that destroys the old family farmhouse, and especially Pat’s courageous battle with cancer.
Front-Line Defenders
In recognition of Alcide’s outstanding contributions, in May 2005 he was presented with the Fur Council of Canada’s “Furrier of the Year” award, at the North American Fur & Fashion Exposition in Montreal (NAFFEM). In his speech to more than 600 fur manufacturers, designers, retailers and government officials, Alcide reminded them that trappers did more than provide the beautiful furs on display in the hall. They were also front-line defenders of the industry, using responsible practices and educating the urban population – including furriers – about the importance of using nature's gifts sustainably.
Proud father, proud son! Alcide's 16-year-old son Serge (left) bags his first moose, 1988.
Speaking of nature’s gifts, for the gala fashion show that evening we had arranged for Alcide and Pat to sit with another celebrity: Miss Universe Canada, the beautiful Natalie Glebova. “Since trapping is always on my mind, I looked at Natalie and thought she would be good in the snow with legs like that!” Alcide remembers, with a chuckle.
The setting for most of this book, however, is in the bush, and anyone who enjoys the outdoors will appreciate Alcide’s keen observations about nature and wildlife.
To order your copy of My First Sixty Years Enjoying Nature as a Trapper, by Alcide P. Giroux (AKA “Ti-Lou”), email or call Angela Gurley of the Fur Council of Canada at [email protected] or on 1-800-376-9996. If ordering by email, please include your phone number so Angela can call for your credit card information. A French version is available, please specify whether you would like the book in English or in French. The price is $20CAD plus mailing and handling, about $6.50 in Canada and $12.50 for the US. Contact us for international shipping rates.
Le livre d’Alcide Giroux est aussi disponible en français.
If you’ve worked in the fur industry or been vocal about your love for fur, then you have probably suffered… Read More
If you’ve worked in the fur industry or been vocal about your love for fur, then you have probably suffered some verbal abuse from animal rights activists. Animal activists like to claim they hold the moral high-ground and that they are the compassionate ones. Well, let’s look at some of the things these models of compassion say ...
What they say about ... using foul language in front of farm animals:
"[it's] conceivable that verbal abuse of an extreme nature [against any animal, including sheep] could constitute an act of violence"
Nicolah Donovan, president of Lawyers for Animals (source)
I guess they never heard the old adage, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."
What they say to ... a homestead farming family when they post a photo of a cow they have just raised and then slaughtered for food:
"What if I start raising children for raping? Would that be acceptable? Would that be better than raping another child? It's stupid to think it is OK to kill animals."
