The proposed fur ban in Rhode Island has been defeated. The bill, HB7361/SB246, which, if passed, would have banned the retail sale of fur, was defeated last week when the Rhode Island legislature convened.

Even in light of the industry being outspent by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society and other groups, as well as a digital campaign and the overwhelming support the bill received in the house, it was not enough to get the bill passed.

SEE ALSO: US legislators should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to ban it. Truth About Fur.

Dino Quaglietta of Northeast Furs, a local retailer in Warwick, has been engaged in fighting the ban since it was first proposed. Upon learning of the ban’s defeat, Quaglietta said, “It’s great that we won, for sure! It was a hard-fought battle. Good news for Rhode Island, but outside of the industry, who knows about this?

“The industry needs to band together and get on the offensive. We need a spokesperson to get the word out to the public, not just talk to ourselves. We must convey all the positives of fur and show the public that animal welfare includes all animals and point to the hypocrisy of this movement; that putting on a fur coat is no different than putting on a pair of shoes.

“The industry has had so much negative press, we must do damage control to get to the minds of our customers. This is a quintessential freedom of choice issue. This bill will come up again next year when we’ll have to fight it again. At least we got through this year.”

The International Fur Federation-Americas, who spearheaded the fight, will continue to be engaged in Rhode Island with the unwavering support of Quaglietta and Northeast Furs.

Similar bills have been defeated in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York – in both the House and the Senate.

SEE ALSO: “Fur Fights Back!” It’s time for a strong industry communications campaign. Truth About Fur.

***

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

Last April 4, Doug Chiasson assumed the post of executive director of the Fur Institute of Canada, an independent entity founded by the government in 1983 to lead research on humane traps. Since then, it has also become a recognised authority on the conservation of wild furbearers, and a promoter of sustainable sealing.

SEE ALSO: Fur Institute of Canada champions humane and sustainable fur production. Truth About Fur.

Born and raised on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Doug spent 13 years studying and working in Ottawa, and is now back in his home province, residing outside of Halifax. In this time of unprecedented challenges in the fur trade, let’s find out what Doug brings to the table.

Truth About Fur: Canadians always have interesting roots. Tell us about your own mixed-up lineage.

Doug Chiasson: My ancestors came to Canada in three waves. The first wave arrived in the 1600s, from French-speaking Switzerland, and settled in the former French colony of Acadia, a term still used today for parts of the Maritimes. So I’m part Acadian. Then I’m part Clan Munro from the Scottish Highlands, with my ancestors coming here in the 1700s as part of the Highland clearances. And then there’s some Irish Catholic mixed in too.

TAF: You don’t have a background in fur, so how did your experiences prepare you for your new position with the FIC?

DC: I have over 10 years of experience in marine resource management and environmental sustainability at provincial, territorial, national and international levels. After graduating from the University of Ottawa, I spent two years as a senior policy advisor to the federal Fisheries Minister, and one of my responsibilities was advising on the seal hunt, in which the FIC is an important stakeholder. So I worked with the FIC on a range of issues, notably on the government’s response to the WTO appeal of the European ban on Canadian seal products. I then spent some time advising the Premier of the Province of Manitoba on sustainable development.

From there I moved to WWF-Canada to head its Arctic fisheries program. WWF-Canada has always been an outspoken supporter of sustainable use, including on such controversial issues as sealing and polar bear hunting. In a few other countries, WWF is sometimes perceived as being anti-use, but that is not true for the WWF family as a whole. In fact, WWF International has cautioned against letting animal welfare groups hijack important conversations about conservation.

And in my capacity with WWF, I also served as co-chair of the Green Budget Coalition. The GBC is a coalition of national-level environmental organisations that provides annual recommendations to the Canadian government about what to fund in pursuit of greater sustainability.

Role of Executive Director

TAF: How do you see your role as executive director of the FIC?

DC: The FIC is a membership organisation, so my job is to work with the Board and members to set goals and find ways to reach them. We need to be ambitious, and if we don’t always reach our goals, we should at least come close.

I have no shortage of ideas of my own, but I must also draw on the institutional knowledge of the Board, many of whom have been in the industry far longer than I will ever be. They are not just the present moment in time; there’s a lot of experience and memory that I need to tap into. As a new executive director, I may have what I think are great ideas, but maybe they’ve been tried before and didn’t work out. The Board can tell me how and why.

TAF: The FIC is well known for its work on testing trap designs, but less well-known as a promoter of sealing. How does sealing fit into the FIC’s mandate?

SEE ALSO: Humane trapping research program leads the world. Truth About Fur interviews Pierre Canac-Marquis.

DC: Originally our mandate was for trap research, which then expanded to include furbearer conservation, which led to sealing and the launch of the Seals and Sealing Network program. From this have sprung two marketing projects for seal products: Canadian Seal Products, and Proudly Indigenous Crafts & Designs.

Some people see a divide between fur and seals, but from the FIC’s perspective it is largely artificial. Obviously fur is one of the main products of sealing, and sealers face the same opposition from anti-fur campaigners as anyone else in the industry. But why, they ask, is the FIC also promoting seal oil and meat? The reason is because this falls under our mandate of furbearer conservation. A cornerstone of modern conservation, for all except endangered species, is sustainable use, and part of sustainable use is ensuring maximum utilisation of any animals harvested. So in the case of seals, this means not just the fur, but also the meat and oil.

Industry Representation

TAF: How well are the various sectors of the industry currently represented in the FIC’s membership, and what improvements are you hoping for?

DC: Our membership is already broad in the sense that we represent all sectors to an extent, but we certainly don’t have everyone in every sector. So the task ahead for me is not necessarily to broaden our membership, but to deepen it. Wild fur is our strong suit, with members including trapping associations, brokers, Fur Harvesters Auction, and so on. Sealers and fur farming associations are also represented. Areas where I’d particularly like us to expand our membership include design, retail, and primary and secondary processing industries.

Also I hope to expand our engagement with Indigenous people across Canada, whether it’s businesses, regional organisations, or local governments with communities that are reliant on fur. Indigenous people are thought to account for 25-30% of Canada’s fur production, so that gives us a target to aim for; Indigenous representation should at least be in line with their participation in the industry.

TAF: Let’s talk more about Indigenous representation in the context of Reconciliation. The FIC inevitably has a role to play because fur is so important in Indigenous cultures, and by extension in their cultural industries.

DC: There are a lot of things to unpack in the national discourse about Reconciliation. There are sensitivities that must be respected, particularly involving cultural industries. There are cases of Indigenous people being excluded in the past from an industry by non-Indigenous people, who then tried to do it themselves. We have to work to be respectful and inclusive of everyone who has a connection to fur, so that we can all work together.

Reconciliation is a journey that all Canadians are taking, and it won’t just end one day when we’ll say, “Ok, Reconciliation is done!” But I’m optimistic. I have been lucky enough to work closely with Indigenous harvesters and communities in the past. The majority of people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, are not interested in building walls. They want to share their cultures, and have them appreciated.

Unified Strategy?

TAF: The fur industry today is facing an existential threat from animal rights groups. This has prompted some Canadian participants to call for a unified strategy coordinated by a single national organisation. Should the FIC assume this role?

DC: I agree that a unified strategy is needed, and also believe the FIC is the obvious choice to coordinate it. Building another organisation from scratch to represent the industry, when we already have the FIC, makes no sense. By serving as a central clearing house for the entire industry, we will be able to walk into any meeting with the government and say, “We represent the Canadian fur sector.”

TAF: If the FIC assumes this role of a central clearing house, how should it handle disagreements among parties?

DC: I see the FIC as a forum for candid discussions involving all parts of the fur industry, as we find ways forward that keep everyone happy. I don’t think there need to be any either/or situations in the fur trade. We all need to be pulling in the same direction in a way that benefits everyone.

Of course, there are some conversations that have no end, and I’m not saying there will never be hurt feelings. But at least let’s talk about these issues among ourselves, on friendly terms, not in the newspapers.

That said, I don’t want to turn the FIC into a debate club! I want us to be action-oriented, and results-targetted, to do things that help everyone.

Focal Messages

TAF: So what messages should the fur trade be focusing on? Some people favour old-school messages: responding to the lies and misrepresentations of animal rights groups, while reminding consumers of the beauty and luxury of fur. Others now see engaging with animal rights groups as a waste of time, and instead want to focus on positive messages about fur that reflect current interest in environmental issues, notably its sustainability compared with synthetics.

DC: I’d prefer us to be in a position where telling the good stories is all we have to do, but at least it should be the first thing we do. So let’s start by telling people that fur is warm, looks great, is good for the planet, helps the economies of remote communities, and is central to the cultures of many people. Let’s not start with, “We’re only saying this so you stop listening to animal rights groups.” Our first message should be, “We’re going to sell you this world-class product.”

***

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

Like most writers, those of us in public relations are prone to vanity. If we can choose between having an op-ed piece in a prestigious newspaper or a column in the local supermarket rag, we choose the former, even if it means far fewer people see our work. So is our professional pride causing us to ignore the power of low-brow publications to change hearts and minds? In particular, should the fur trade be taking the UK tabloids more seriously?

The UK Is a special case for a few reasons, notably:

• Everyone speaks English. There’s no denying the impact of the English language in shaping any debate of international concern, including the fur debate. By all means publish in Russian or Portuguese, but don’t expect a global audience.

• The entire UK is a little smaller than the state of Michigan, so many print tabloids (and of course their affiliated websites) have national circulations. Indeed, two in particular, the Mirror and the Sun, are said to carry more weight in national elections than esteemed broadsheets like the Telegraph and the Guardian.

• The UK is the spiritual home of the animal rights movement. When it comes to activists making life hard for animal industries, only Californians come close.

SEE ALSO: Brexit, fur-trimmed parkas, and trendy vegans in London Town. Truth About Fur.

Check Out the Boots!

Enter the Daily Mail, the country’s most notorious tabloid since the News of the World was forced to close a decade ago. On May 23, the Mail ran a piece on two huge fans of fur, Judi Caldwell and partner Lukasz Dlubek from Northern Ireland, while commissioning Mercury Press to take lots of lovely photos. (We all like photos, but for the tabloids, they are essential, and the more provocative the better. Conveniently, Lukasz looks like a cross between Conor McGregor and a member of Ukraine’s Azov regiment. One look at his boots would send most Russian soldiers running!)

This article was not standard Mail fare, but not unprecedented either. Typically, Mail pieces on fur are negative, and for the last several years have involved recycling old photos from a Scandinavian fox farm, with regurgitated sound bites from animal rights leaders implying they have just concluded an “investigation”.

Sometimes, though, the thoroughly unprincipled Mail will change tack on an issue completely, just to keep readers on their toes. This time it chose to tell us that some people – well, these two anyway – think fur is great.

The headline (if this can be called a “headline”) literally says it all: “Couple who love the ‘classy’ feel of wearing real fur claim they have ‘higher morals’ than the vegans who send them death threats online because it’s more sustainable than fake fabrics.”

Then for good measure, the body reiterates the main points: “The pair believe that not only does wearing real fur make them look incredible, but they also say that it is more sustainable and environmentally friendly than faux alternatives and a lot of vegan products.”

Says Lukasz (of the scary boots): “Real fur lasts for so much longer when it’s cared for correctly whereas fake fur is fast fashion – what do they think happens to all the plastic that is used to make it!”

Judi drives the message home: “Nowadays, there is a lot of ‘green washing’ and a big emphasis on veganism and vegetarianism. We are trying to promote sustainable fashion by wearing fur, but people are quick to jump online and judge us.”

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource. Truth About Fur.

The point about sustainability is well made, of course, and especially pertinent in the UK where the absurd notion is widely accepted that “vegan fashion” (including clothes and shoes made from plastic) is, almost by definition, more “sustainable” than anything which involves the direct killing of animals.

But as anyone familiar with the Mail knows, it is not in the business of educating people. It just wants outraged readers to go, “Whoa! That’s crazy!” – then share the piece widely and hopefully click on some ads. (If you find this interpretation too cynical, another headline used for the same article by an Indian website tells us exactly what we’re supposed to think: “Bizarre: Couple who wear real fur say they are ‘more sustainable’ than vegans; leaves netizens confused.”)

Then the Mail throws more fuel on the fire by having Judi suggest vegans are psychopaths. “The hate we receive from a lot of vegans online is appalling,” she says, “and I’ve even had messages from someone who was threatening to slit mine and my dog’s throat because we wear fur.”

Incredible Reach

Since money is the only reason the Mail publishes such stories, and almost no one reads the comments that follow, it makes no sense for the fur trade to bother responding. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to get in the game. The reach of these stories is potentially enormous, and frequently far greater than anything published by a reputable media company.

For starters, big UK tabloids like the Mail belong to larger media groups with a slew of other outlets, both in print and on the web, including every popular social media platform. The Mail comes under the umbrella of DMG Media, whose stable includes Metro.co.uk, a tabloid website that also ran a pared-down version of the Judi and Lukasz story. And though we have not confirmed this, it seems highly likely that the story also ran in the print version of Metro. This is the UK’s largest-circulation tabloid (though the fact it’s free must help).

Then there’s life beyond DMG Media. Within days of the Mail publishing its story, it popped up on News India Studio, WST Post, Unilad, Granthshala News, News Dubai, and an ominous-sounding site called Internet Cloning. And these were just the links near the top of our Google search.

Only through serious research could we know which of these recyclers are legitimate and which are simply plagiarists. But that’s the problem of DMG Media’s licensing department.

The fact is, though, that the stuff of UK tabloids is perfect fodder for today’s legions of ad-driven websites employing underpaid rewriters to push trending news stories. In short, a shoddily written story, with no redeeming qualities other than a catchy headline and provocative photos, can reach far more hearts and minds than an op-ed piece in a prestigious broadsheet ever can.

The fur trade has always tried to take the high road when it comes to public relations materials. But maybe we should be taking the low road too. Everyone else is.

***

If you have a story that you think would be good fodder for the UK tabloids, send it our way and we’ll see if we can get an editor to take the bait! It needs to promote the message that fur is sustainable, and don’t forget the pics. But other than that, anything goes!

***

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

In his 2012 book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, social and cultural psychologist Jonathan Haidt explains why people hold such wildly differing beliefs and why others’ views seem so illogical. Understanding his arguments may be key to reversing the decline in support for various animal uses seen in urbanised societies, and ensuring industries such as the fur trade still have a future.

Ethics (morality) is about the way in which people want to act. Ethics invite us to do the right thing. That there is not always agreement about what is right in a particular case, as for example using animals for food or fur, is due to the fact that morality is partly innate, and partly learned and influenced by the environment (urban or rural) in which someone grows up.

SEE ALSO: Is it ethical to wear fur? Truth About Fur.

According to recent analyses, our ethical behaviour is based on a matrix of six moral modules that have arisen in our brains during our evolution. The trapper in the North, the cattle farmer in the countryside, and the animal activist in the city centre of a Western country, all have a moral vision based on a moral matrix formed by these six universal modules in their brains.

Every society builds its own moral matrix because its moral values, claims, and institutions rest differently on each of the six moral foundations. The moral matrix built in the brain of young people in a hunting culture will be different from those in an agricultural culture, or in a modern industrialized culture where most people live in cities completely distanced from nature. That is why our judgment of whether something is good or bad is partly connected with the human and world vision presented in our environment. The differences in sensitivity to the various six moral matrices explain the different moral visions that individuals take on certain social issues within the same society.

This moral matrix in our brain produces quick, automatic gut reactions of sympathy or disgust when certain things are observed. These then lead to a judgment as to whether something is good or bad. First comes the feeling, then comes the reasoning.

Haidt describes this by using the metaphor of an elephant and its rider. The elephant represents our automatic intuitions. This is about 99% of our mental world, the part that has been around for a very long time where the automatic processing of information, including emotions and intuition, happens. Evolutionarily speaking, the rider has only recently joined.

When Homo sapiens developed the capacity for language and reason during the last 600,000 years, the automatic processing circuits in our brains didn’t suddenly stop and allow themselves to be taken over by reason. This ensures the controlled processing of information and our “Reason why something is good or bad”. The rider reasons afterwards about what the elephant felt.

The rider (the language-based reasoning) acts as the elephant’s spokesperson, and is very good in making post hoc justifications for everything the elephant has felt. Within a fraction of a second of us seeing or hearing something, our elephant already starts to lean in a certain direction, and this tilt to a particular side influences what we think and say next. By leaning to one side, the rider has little or no interest in the other side of the story. After all, his function is not to find the truth, but to seek arguments to explain why the elephant leans to one side.

The metaphor of the elephant (automatic intuition) and its rider (reasoning), stating that the rider is at the service of the elephant, does not mean that we never question our intuitive judgments. The main reason we can change our minds about moral issues is through interaction with other people. After all, while we are very bad at finding evidence that undermines our own beliefs, others are happy to do this for us, just as we are quite good at finding fault with the reasoning and beliefs of others.

If we want other people to be open to our side of the story, we must first tilt their elephant to the other side. This is not possible by using rational arguments alone. We must look for something emotional, something that acts on their gut feeling, that makes their elephants lean to our side and opens their minds to our arguments. Animal activists, like all populists, are very strong on responding to the gut feeling of the people and make sure that the elephant leans to the side they want. Lies and deceit are not shunned by these people. Just think of the notorious staged video, in 2005, of a raccoon dog being skinned alive for its fur.

The animal-use sector has a much harder time appealing to people’s gut feelings. In an urbanized society, more and more people are developing a moral matrix that is intuitively negative for this sector, in large part because of propaganda from animal activists. The fur trade, for example, has endured this negative propaganda for fully 40 years. The impact of this propaganda on the general public can be explained in the same way as advertising: tell someone a thousand times that food X is healthy, and after a while he or she will be intuitively convinced of that fact. Therefore, it will be vital for the fur trade to find that emotional gateway to open the elephant to our arguments.

Fur checks all the boxes: production is sustainable, animal welfare standards are high, businesses are small and artisanal, and the end product is natural, long-lasting and biodegradable! But as long as we cannot hit the gut feeling of the general public growing up in the city, our rational arguments will fail.

What Are the Six Moral Modules, and Which One Guides the Animal Rights Movement?

Jonathan Haidt summarises his six moral modules as follows:

“1. The care/harm foundation: evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children. It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need.

“2. The fairness/cheating foundation: evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited. It makes us want to see cheaters punished and good citizens rewarded in proportion to their needs.

“3. The loyalty/betrayal foundation: evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions. It makes us trust people that are team players and hurt those who betray us or our group.

“4. The authority/subversion foundation: evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that benefit us within social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank and status and to signs of other people behaving or not behaving properly, given their position.

“5. The sanctity/degradation foundation: evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values which are important for binding groups together.

“6. The liberty/oppression foundation which makes people notice and resent signs of attempted domination. It triggers an urge to band together to resist or overthrow bullies and tyrants.”

Since the sensitivity to each of these six moral modules is not the same for everyone, everyone possesses their personal intuitive moral matrix. For example, there are people who are extra sensitive to the caring/harm, fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression foundation, but usually little sensitive to the loyalty/betrayals, the authority/subversion and the sanctity/degradation foundation. There are also those who have a more spread sensitivity on all six moral foundations, and whose sensitivity for the first three foundations is less pronounced as compared to the first group.

There are also people whose moral matrix is ​​triggered on almost only one module. These then become moral extremists who have a principled ethic. The convinced animal activist is such a person. Everything is reduced to one principle and everything else is irrelevant in their eyes.

The ideologically driven animal activist has a very pronounced sensitivity to the liberty/oppression foundation and not, as we might expect at first sight, to the care/harm foundation. The latter is the case with people who are committed more to animal welfare and who believe that people should be allowed to use animals for human purposes.

SEE ALSO: Animal welfare vs. animal rights: An important distinction. Truth About Fur.

In the first sentence of the introduction to his 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes: “This book is about the tyranny of humans over animals.” Further in his introduction, he states that he “does not feel any love for animals”, but that he wants to end oppression and exploitation, wherever they may occur.

The animal rights activist plays with the general public on their care/harm foundation but their own motivation is the liberty/oppression foundation and their goal is therefore an end to the use of animals for human purposes, not animal welfare. Animal welfare is just the lubricant used by this movement to help it in its attempt to force its moral vision and way of life upon us.

The strength of this animal rights movement is the moral conviction that they are fighting a right fight.

However history shows that moral convictions can have enormous practical consequences. A recent example is Marxism. Marxists saw their beliefs not merely as personal views, but as absolutely certain scientific knowledge. Their socialism thus became “inevitable” and they had the future on their side, as it were. “History is on our side,” they liked to say. Their enormous self-confidence made them very intolerant of dissenters. Seventy years after Karl Marx’s death, about a third of humanity lived under regimes that called themselves “Marxist”. Instead of the expected ideal and just society, Marxist rule produced poverty and tyranny. When it became clear that the facts did not agree with Marx’s theories, so-called “revisionism” arose. Several Marxist thinkers tried to match Marx’s theories with the facts — and the facts with Marx’s theories.

Marxism was a stunning phenomenon because its ideas triumphed while on a practical level it failed permanently and the societies it spawned collapsed or eventually turned away from their Marxist policies.

In this area I see parallels with the animal rights movement and its leaders. They are also firmly convinced that they are right, and regard animal rights as a logical historical extension of rights for ethnic minorities and women, although this comparison does not hold. They also claim that acceptance of animal rights is “inevitable”; it is only a matter of time before anyone who disagrees sees the error of their ways. They also claim that their ideology is scientifically substantiated. And they, too, often adopt an intolerant attitude towards philosophies of life that do not fit their needs. Their views on animal rights are not open to discussion. The appearance of being open to collaborating with others is only part of a deliberate strategy to create a society free of all animal use.

The animal rights movement calls its own principled statement – that animals have the right to be left alone and live freely and undisturbed – the only morally correct position. To live up to this statement, it must curb the freedom of the human animal. Freedom of choice, inherent in being human, must be limited by law to the choice of those who claim to defend the freedom of all animals!

Wanting to apply the principle of moral equality also to beings who have no morality leads to absurd situations and takes us far from reality. It is very easy to point to an animal from a privileged situation and say, “We are not going to use that anymore”, but all things considered, such a method is worthless.

***

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

Looking back on a lifetime of trapping, I am reminded of some sticky and downright hilarious situations I have gotten myself into. I have discovered over the years that there are two ways to go through life. When things go wrong, you can curse and swear and blame everyone but yourself, or you can sit back and laugh at the mess you have gotten yourself into.

Thankfully the Good Lord blessed me with a sense of humour. Good thing He did because I have sure gotten myself into some pile of messes while trapping. I will tell you about a couple of them.

Temptation Island

A few years back otter prices were high and I was targeting them pretty hard. I had an extensive line out in some pretty remote country. One particular location was about 14 miles (22.5 kilometres) in off a government gravel road. The old logging road came to a dead end at a large river and, if I did not value the paint job on the truck, I could get it close enough that I would not have to carry the canoe far.

I usually use a 16-foot fiberglass canoe for trapping. They are stable for working out of and are easy to repair. This particular day I decided to take the 15-foot cedar strip canvas-covered canoe. I do not remember why, but I probably got tired of lifting that heavy fiberglass one up on the truck rack all day long.

To get to my sets, I had to paddle up the still water a ways to where a small brook dumped into the river. I would beach the canoe and walk up the brook about 300 yards (274 metres) to the outlet of a spring-fed lake. There in a boggy spot in the brook I had two #280s wedged in. It is the kind of place otter trappers dream of. The lake was boggy and the heat from that bog kept the set locations open all trapping season and, because it was spring fed, the water rarely raised more than a couple of inches.

SEE ALSO: Trapline Tales: Greasy Bill Creek, my father’s final resting place. By Calvin Kania.

That particular day in late November, I arrived at the river early in the morning. Anticipation of $200-$300 worth of otter waiting in those traps got me started early. Not a breath of wind and the sun just getting above the trees greeted me as I put the canoe in and started paddling. I remember to this day the stillness and beauty of that morning and the real reason most of us trap.

As I paddled up the river, it got wider and wider and I had to go past a small island. I was enjoying the paddle and noticed an old beaver house on the island. Well, no self-respecting otter trapper could pass up looking that old beaver house over. I pulled in, hopped out, pulled the canoe up on shore a bit. After all, I was only going to be a couple of minutes.

I looked for otter sign (cannot remember if I found any), turned to go back to the canoe and, to my amazement, there it was floating out in the still water about 75 yards (68.6 metres) away! The gravity of the situation started to sink in. Here I was in the middle of nowhere, standing on an island as my canoe, with all my gear in it, was drifting away. Anyone who knows me, knows I do not carry a cell phone. I trap to get away from all that crap and it would not matter if I did because there was no cell service in that area anyway. What to do? Quick calculations and I figured out that if I got a running start and made a good dive, I could swim that far.

Off came the waders, coat and the rest of my clothes in record time. As I stood on that island in the middle of nowhere, buck naked preparing for a late November skinny dip, the faintest of breezes came up and blew that canoe right back into the same place I had landed it. I could not believe my luck. I quickly secured it, took a few minutes to get dressed and got on my way. Every canoe I get out of now is tied to something.

Did I catch any otter in those sets? I cannot remember, but I can tell you what the highlight of that day was!

A Patch of Ice

A few years earlier in the same general area, I was running a mixed line of coyote, cat, beaver and mink sets. It was early December; everything had frozen up hard but the ground was bare of snow. I was in my old Ford 4×4 creeping along an old logging road. This particular area had been cut over around 20 years earlier. The “second growth” that was coming back held lots of rabbits (hares), making it a fantastic place to snare coyotes and cats. It was hilly country and the road meandered for miles up and down between countless lakes.

SEE ALSO: Trapline Tales: Trail-building in the high country. By Calvin Kania.

As I started down a long grade, I noticed that it had snowed just enough to cover the road. Any place the sun touched the road the snow was gone, but in shaded places it still remained. This old road was not kept up and the ditches were filling in, allowing water to run down the road in places.

About a third of the way down, the road takes a turn and was in the shade. When that old Ford truck hit that snow-covered ice it took off. Anybody who has ever experienced this will know what I mean when I say I could not feel any resistance on the steering wheel. It was like I was driving on ball bearings.

Now, I grew up in a rural area and driving on slippery dirt roads was not new to me, but I was picking up speed in one hell of a hurry and I still had a ways to go to the bottom. And then I remembered the culvert!

Not far from the bottom, the frost had heaved a steel culvert until it was half-raised across the road. Normally I just slowed down to a crawl and babied the truck over it, but that was out of the question this time. Down the hill I went, sometimes sideways, sometimes straight! Looking back, I like to think I did some of my best backwards redneck driving, but the truth be told, a few yards from the culvert, providence provided me with a small patch of gravel. If memory serves me correctly, I hit that patch with the truck pointed at the ditch and the wheels pointed down the road.

SEE ALSO: Trapline Tales: Ski Doos and marten scent. By Calvin Kania.

The truck straightened out, hit the ice again and I braced for impact. A few seconds later me and that old Ford hit the culvert (thank the Lord we were pointed in the right direction). Airborne we went for a few seconds, landed with a mighty crash and skidded to a stop on the road.

There I sat, gathering my wits and waiting for my hands and legs to stop shaking, covered in my lunch. I got out of the truck expecting to see the front wheels pointing in the wrong direction, fluids leaking and maybe the frame broke. To my amazement, I could not find anything wrong. After spending half an hour or so reorganizing gear, cleaning up the mess in the cab and settling my nerves some, I fired up the truck and tended gear the rest of the day.

Every time I stopped, I looked under that Ford. I just could not believe it wasn’t leaking anything. Later I did find some bent parts but nothing serious.

Oh, and believe me, that wet spot that was all over the front of my pants was from the coffee I was drinking!

***

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

Fur is under attack like never before. Hardly a week goes by without news of some brand dropping fur, or a jurisdiction proposing to ban its production or sale. This tsunami of negativity fuels a self-reinforcing cycle: As major retailers (Saks, Neimans, Holt Renfrew) stop selling fur, successful brands (Canada Goose, Moose Knuckles, Mackage) have less incentive to stand up to relentless activist pressure – and, with less business at stake, it becomes harder for politicians to resist activist pressure for production or sales bans. Worse, the barrage of negative news can create the false but potentially self-fulfilling impression that “society” has decided it is no longer ethically acceptable to wear fur.

This cycle of negativity cannot be broken with the fur trade always on the defensive. Our rational and reasonable responses to fur ban proposals or fur-free brands – if we get a chance to respond at all – are buried deep in media reports where few people see them.

Two proactive fur trade initiatives are the International Fur Federation’s sustainability and FurMark campaigns. Both programs include important communications and consumer-reassurance tools. But, alone, they are not enough to push back the tsunami now engulfing our industry.

What is desperately needed is a bold strategy to move the North American fur industry off the back foot and into attack mode. We must aggressively reclaim control of our own story, to support designers, retailers, and politicians – and to give consumers the “social license” to buy and wear fur.

A Strategic Approach

For much of the 20th century, movie stars and other celebrities provided an extraordinary media profile for the romance and glamour of fur. But while Jennifer Lopez, Madonna, Rihanna and other celebs continue this tradition, many others now choose to avoid the controversy that activists have created around fur. We can’t expect celebs, or brands, or anyone but ourselves to fight our battles.

A major challenge for the fur industry, of course, is that we lack the human and financial resources required to mount the large-scale advertising and PR campaigns that bigger industries use to manage such problems. Instead, we should take a leaf from the activist handbook: We must start using the news media to carry our messages, by providing “stories” that journalists cannot resist.

PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once said: “We’re media sluts. We didn’t invent the game, we just learned to play it.” PETA understands that the media are content-devourers. Journalists need stories, lots of stories, the more sensational the better, and activists learned to provide them.

It’s time for the fur trade to generate more newsworthy stories of our own. And because the fate of the fur industry does not interest most people, the trick is to show how anti-fur campaigns actually threaten the interests and welfare of Joe (and Josie) Public.

The good news is that a strong “Fur Fights Back” campaign can become a media story in itself. This approach was road-tested when we launched Furisgreen.com, a decade ago. We “seeded” the campaign with some billboards in major cities and a few paid ads in national papers, and the phone began ringing. Our claim that “fur is green” was so unexpected, that it was “news”. (Note: “Fur is Green” is now a registered trademark in Canada and the US, belonging to the Fur Council of Canada.)

The thing to understand is that it’s not the media’s job to broadcast our messages, no matter how intelligent or worthwhile they may be. Their job is reporting “news”. If we package our messages into a “campaign” that provides a new perspective on a controversial and timely issue, the media will report on it – especially if we include an emotional element. And remember: despite how discouraging media coverage of our issues can be, most journalists are not animal activists. Activists have just done a better job playing the media game.

The “Stories”

So what kind of fur stories might be exciting enough to be considered “newsworthy” by journalists? Here are a few ideas to start the ball rolling:

1. Anti-fur campaigns undermine wildlife management programs that protect property, livestock, and human health. Wildlife biologists and trappers should warn the public that over-populated raccoons (and other species) can spread rabies and other dangerous diseases. Increasingly abundant coyotes prey on livestock, pets – and now sometimes even attack humans. Over-populated beavers can flood homes, roads, and natural habitat. Raccoons, foxes, and other predators kill ground-nesting birds, sea turtle eggs and young, and other endangered species. The truth is that wildlife populations will still have to be managed, even if we don’t use their fur. (Does a child have to die from a rabid raccoon bite before the important role of trappers is recognized?) If activists succeed in destroying consumer markets, then tax-payers will end up footing the bill for managing wildlife. Without the market incentive provided by companies like Canada Goose, for example, governments will have to reinstate bounties to manage coyote populations – as they did not so many years ago. So coyotes will still be killed, but they will be left to rot in the woods and the fur will be wasted. Is this really a more ethical treatment of wildlife?

2. Campaigns against mink farming are an attack on rural communities, the people who feed and clothe us. Mink farmers should encourage mainstream agriculture – including vets and scientists – to denounce the current attack on mink farming as the thin edge of an orchestrated activist campaign to undermine family farms and animal agriculture. The same activist groups that have long targeted the fur trade are now openly campaigning against eating meat and wearing leather and wool. While calling for full veganism, they also push for “reforms” that raise costs for farmers, to make animal agriculture less viable – but it is consumers who will pay the higher prices for meat, eggs, dairy, and other animal products. Mink farming is a small sector but plays a key role in the agricultural cycle: recycling wastes from other sectors (the parts of pigs, chickens, and fish that we don’t eat), while composted mink farm wastes provide valuable organic fertilizers to restore the fertility of the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

3. Anti-fur activists use Mafia “protection racket” tactics of harassment and intimidation to force brands and retailers to drop fur: “Do as we say or we will destroy your business!” This should be a concern to anyone who believes in democracy. Canada Goose and other brands are not dropping fur because consumers don’t want to buy and wear these products; our cities are full of young people wearing fur-trimmed parkas each winter. These companies stop using fur because store security and brand reputation costs become too high. Is this the kind of society we want, where aggressive minorities impose their beliefs with intimidation? Surely we all have a right to make our own decisions about the appropriate use of animals. This is not a “fur issue”; it is an issue that should concern all citizens, journalists, and politicians, whatever their feelings about fur!

4. Anti-fur campaigns threaten our health and undermine efforts to develop “greener” economies. The apparel industry is the second-biggest contributor to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As the fashion industry confronts the tremendous waste caused by throwaway “fast fashion”, environmentalists say we should be buying less but better-quality clothing, and keeping it longer. Seen in this perspective, using fur makes more sense today than ever! Fur is, in fact, an excellent example of the responsible and sustainable use of renewable, natural resources, as promoted by the World Conservation Strategy. Where are activist campaigns leading us? Sixty percent of our clothing is already made from non-renewable, non-biodegradable petrochemicals; we now know these clothes shed vast quantities of micro-particles of plastic into our air and waterways – plastics that are now being found in marine life, and even in foetuses and breast milk. Cruelty-free indeed!

5. Anti-fur campaigns are insulting and unfair to people who live closest to nature: thousands of farm families, First Nations and other trappers, skilled fur artisans maintaining unique heritage craft skills, and many others. Activist campaigns are not a victimless crime! They attack the livelihoods, cultures, and reputations of real people – people who work hard and do not have the time (or inclination) to perform media stunts for publicity! These are decent people with families – not the monsters they would have to be if the things activists say about the fur trade were true. The sensationalist lies that activists shamelessly spread about the people of the fur trade would not be tolerated if any other race, religion, or lifestyle were so viciously targeted. Simply put: animal extremists have degenerated into politically-correct hate groups, with the people of the fur trade as their number one scapegoat. But intolerance and bullying are never cool; it’s time that anti-fur activists were called to account for their hate-mongering.

Reclaiming Our Story

Each of these “stories”, and others, should be delivered by the most credible and well-trained spokespeople we can find in the industry: First Nations and other trappers, farm families, skilled craftspeople. Women should be well represented, and young people who know how to get our stories out on Instagram and TikTok!

We should also remember that emotion trumps logic in the media. Activists have exploited this well, but fur people have emotions too. Activist campaigns are unfair and insulting to real people. They put people’s livelihoods and cultures at risk. And when they prevent trappers from responsibly managing wildlife, they put public health and safety at risk as well!

Not least important, anti-fur campaigning works against current efforts to improve sustainability in the apparel industry. And activist bullying tactics threaten democracy and our right to make our own ethical choices. These are not just fur issues, these are issues that should concern everyone who believes in a free and open society.

As this brief summary shows, the current attack on the fur industry is an attack on a range of important societal values and interests. But no one else will tell these stories if we don’t. It’s time for a coordinated fur industry communications strategy.

***

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

British Columbia’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has yet to show any science to justify its drastic decision, last November, to introduce a mink farming ban in that province. The failure to provide any serious evidence that mink farming might compromise efforts to combat Covid-19, as the government – echoing animal activists – claimed, raises questions about its real motivation. Even more alarming, the government has refused any compensation for the farm families whose life work and livelihoods have been wiped out.

Rewind to July 2021. After three of BC’s nine mink farms had tested positive for Covid-19, the Ministry of Health drafted an order imposing a moratorium on any further breeding. Since the order would expire in January 2022, before the start of the next breeding season, it did not constitute an immediate threat to farms. But the possibility that the order might simply be extended made planning impossible. So the farmers objected, and the final order instead just prohibited them from increasing the current size of their herds.

Then in August, the government upped the ante dramatically, advising mink farmers that a ban was being considered. In response, the farmers collected a broad range of science demonstrating that, with proper biosecurity measures in place, mink farming could continue without endangering public health. Included were materials from the World Organisation for Animal Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in the US; and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.

In direct contradiction of this international scientific consensus, on November 5 the BC government dropped the bombshell.

First the Ministry of Agriculture called the farmers to say that the Ministry of Health had reassessed the threat posed by mink farming, and the entire sector was to be “phased out”. Breeding was permanently banned, effective immediately, the last live mink had to be gone by April 2023, and the last pelts must be sold by April 2025. After that, mink farming in BC was history.

With the farmers still reeling in shock, Agriculture Minister Lana Popham, backed up by Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, then called a press conference the same day to publicly announce their decision.

…

So Many Questions

Immediately the questions began to fly, and not just from fur farmers. Even veterinarians and virologists with expert knowledge of mink farming were perplexed. Only one farm in BC still showed signs of Covid, so why didn’t the government just continue to keep that farm in quarantine, or even cull all its mink? Why close down the entire sector?

And there were more troubling questions the BC government has still failed to answer adequately, or at all. For example:

Question: Is the ban really about protecting the public from Covid, or is it at least in part about appeasing aggressive BC animal rights groups? Popham insists her decision was based solely on public health concerns, but has yet to provide any scientific data to justify such a radical move. Meanwhile, animal activists themselves seem to contradict her claim.

For years, the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BCSPCA), The Fur-Bearers, and Humane Society International (HSI) have been campaigning to end mink farming in the province on “animal welfare” and “ethical” grounds. But, when Covid started appearing on mink farms, these groups immediately began scaremongering about a “public health risk”.

These groups are also known to have had many meetings with Popham over the past year, and the minute Popham announced her ban, they began congratulating themselves for a job well done. Crowed HSI chief Kitty Block on her blog, “The move follows an intensive campaign by HSI/Canada, as well as our allies … HSI/Canada and our partners have consistently called on the British Columbia government to ban fur farming in the wake of disturbing reports of horrendous animal suffering in these facilities” [italics added].

Question: Why is BC so out of step with other governments tackling the same pandemic? Back in 2020, when the Danish government ordered the killing of 15 million mink, scientists knew much less than they do now about the risk of mink passing new Covid variants to humans. It’s since been established that the public health risks posed by mink farming are low and manageable, especially in a country like Canada where farms are few and remote from large human settlements. And even Denmark never banned mink farming — and is now compensating farmers to the tune of millions of dollars for their lost animals.

Further reducing the risk to public health are the unprecedented biosecurity measures being deployed on mink farms, plus a Covid vaccine developed specifically for mink, which began rolling out last year. Fur Commission USA reports that about 95% of that country’s mink herd have now been vaccinated, and Finland’s vaccination program is also advancing well. Vaccine access in Canada was limited in 2021, but Zoetis, the US manufacturer, has committed to having enough vaccine available this spring for all Canadian mink. Most of the doses available to Canada in 2021 were used on Nova Scotia mink farms, who purchased them through a cost-sharing agreement with the federal and provincial governments.

The BC government surely knew that vaccines were on the way, and that they promised to resolve the very public health issue it claimed to be addressing. That fact alone strongly suggests it had already decided to ban mink farming, and the imminent availability of vaccines may have forced it to advance its schedule to implement the ban.

Question: Was the timing of the ban a cynical ploy to avoid ordering a cull, and thereby having to pay farmers compensation?

It seems too convenient, from the government’s viewpoint, that the ban was announced in November, just when farmers were about to harvest their mink. The ban on future breeding  put farmers under immense financial pressure to harvest their breeders as well. Within weeks, the farms were almost empty of animals, without any need for the government to order a cull – which would have automatically triggered the requirement to provide compensation.

Question: If, as the BC government claims, farmed mink really posed an unacceptable health risk in November 2021, why did it allow farmers to keep live mink until April 2023? And why were farmers allowed to sell and transport live mink to other jurisdictions?!

Question: If farmed mink pose an unacceptable health risk because they can catch Covid, what about all the other animals we now know can catch it? Pet ferrets, hamsters and cats live in homes, potentially exposing children and the elderly to the virus. Large cats and other animals in zoos have been found with Covid, as have a high percentage of North American white-tailed deer and mice. In fact, there is evidence suggesting that most mammals can transmit the virus even if they don’t show symptoms.

Question: And why just Covid? In 2004, British Columbia had an outbreak of another zoonotic disease, avian flu, worrying the government enough for it to order the culling of 19 million poultry. Then in 2009, Canada was swept by a strain of swine flu that killed at least 428 people (as of February 2017). But in neither case was the possibility ever considered of shutting these industries down. Authorities worked with farmers to mitigate the risks, as they should. BC’s mink farmers, however, got different treatment altogether. Why?

No Compensation?

The fact that the government could close down an entire farming sector, without showing any science to justify it, is cause for concern for anyone in agriculture. But BC’s mink farmers now face a more pressing problem: If the government is true to its word, farm families will not be receiving one cent in compensation, and that will spell financial ruin for many.

When Popham addressed the news conference last November, she made it sound like her ministry would do the right thing and work with farmers to help them “transition” to other activities. The issue of money was deftly skirted around, but she pledged “to help them pursue other farming, business or job opportunities that support their families.” Nice words, but to date no real assistance has been forthcoming. (Although at one meeting the government-appointed consultant did offer farmers the number for a suicide prevention hotline!)

But compensation for the farmers is not only needed, it is surely deserved. For generations in some cases, farm families strived to refine the genetics of their herds. Thanks to their efforts BC produced some of the finest farmed mink in the world, consistently ranking in the top 5% of prices at international auctions. With the stroke of a minister’s pen, all that work has been destroyed.

On November 29, Joe Williams, president of the BC Mink Producers Association (BCMPA), wrote to the ministry asking to see the science and data used to justify the ban, and requesting an urgent meeting “as decisions need to be made”. On December 10, Deputy Minister for Agriculture Tom Ethier replied. The ministry would only be dealing with “individual producers”, not “provincial, national, and international industry groups” – a strategy known as divide and rule. He also stated unequivocally, “The Ministry will not be offering compensation to mink farmers because of this ban.”

Instead of support, BC mink farmers got bureaucratic waffling. “We continue to want to work with producers to find the appropriate supports within existing government programs and support any that wish to transition to other agricultural industries,” wrote Ethier. “We will make staff available to work with mink producers to explore what is possible regarding financial support within these existing programs.”

So how have these vague promises panned out so far? “There is no deal. Nothing,” said Williams. “They are saying it’s due to Covid and they don’t have to pay. There is no compensation, they are not even paying the employees. They in fact are leaving us with massive debt.”

Massive Debt

In fact, the government’s arbitrary action will place many farmers in a deep financial hole.

BC mink farmer Terry Engebretson told the Vancouver Sun that aside from losing his job, he’ll also be stuck with millions of dollars of debt. “This isn’t a transition, it’s an eviction,” he said. “The banks are looking at us and realizing we don’t have any income.”

In 2010, Engebretson drew up a 20-year plan that included a mortgage to pay for barns, pens and a feed-preparation room. If he switched to another type of farming now, he’d have to tear down the barns while still paying the mortgage on them. And with the way many agricultural sectors in BC are supply-managed, if he switched to chickens, for example, he’d need to buy an expensive quota, assuming that it was even available.

“No bank is going to touch me,” he told the Sun. “I’d be piling debt on top of debt. I’ll be lucky if I can keep my home.”

It’s hard to see a happy ending to this story. Time will tell whether the government’s decision was really justified by the science, or whether more insidious influences were at play. What is sure is that the life work and livelihoods of farm families have been destroyed.

The Ministry of Agriculture has abruptly declared a successful and well-regulated farm sector to be illegal, without providing any scientific justification for its action. At the very least, surely it now should provide fair compensation to those affected. The BC government needs to acknowledge the suffering it is causing to citizens who have done nothing wrong, and take full responsibility for its decision. That includes loosening its purse strings immediately.

***

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

Jane Avery is a couture designer from Dunedin, New Zealand, known for her bespoke garments combining exotic fabrics with wild rabbit fur. Her label is Lapin (French for rabbit), and her ethos is “eco-couture”, reflecting the fact that rabbits are a major pest in her part of the world. Now she has launched a new label, Lapin ReVintage, which is all about repairing, restyling and repurposing vintage fur. Since so little has been written about this niche market, Truth About Fur set out to learn more.

SEE ALSO: New Zealand designer embraces wild rabbit “eco-fur”. Truth About Fur.

Truth About Fur: Are Lapin and ReVintage two separate lines, or do they dovetail together?

Jane Avery: They are both meaningful to me in their own ways, but they sit comfortably together. For example, when I receive a ReVintage commission, I may be repairing the garment in its original form, or I may be taking parts of the fur and incorporating them into a new Lapin ReVintage design. There’s enough fur in a vintage cape or stole to make a collar and cuffs for a coat of merino wool, Indian silk or another beautiful textile.

Prolonging the life of any garment is good for the environment, just as using the fur of pests is. So it’s all “eco-couture”.

TAF: Bloggers say that recycling old furs took off in the first Covid-19 lockdown, when we all decided to clean out our wardrobes. But now all our wardrobes are clean, so is it a passing trend?

JA: No, it’s more than a trend. It’s part of a groundswell of people wanting lifestyles that are kinder to our planet. That started before Covid and will outlast it too.

People have various reasons to extend the lives of vintage furs, not always related to lifestyle. Of course they appreciate the beauty, resilience and warmth of fur, and a vintage piece can be a great reminder of its original owner, perhaps a beloved grandmother. But there are other motivations that reflect our changing attitudes towards the planet.

Seeking sustainability is one. We are increasingly rejecting wasteful consumerism, and that includes “fast fashion”. We want to buy fewer clothes, better quality, and make them last. The “Three R’s” – repair, restyle, and repurpose – are part of this, and are in vogue!

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

Another motivation concerns the morality of taking animal life for food and clothing. Some people, for example, consider it abhorrent to farm new fur, but hate to waste the fur of an animal that’s already died. I see something similar working with wild rabbit fur; some people won’t wear farmed mink, but are happy to wear the fur of pests that are being eradicated anyway.

And some people, like me, have a cultural motivation. Every vintage fur that lands on my work bench has a story, and is its own tutorial on garment construction. As I dismantle it, it reveals secrets of the furrier’s craft, honed over hundreds of years. So we are driven to preserve the craftsmanship that goes into working with fur.

TAF: So is there such a thing as a typical ReVintage customer?

JA: Perhaps the most common motivation of customers is wanting to display an heirloom fur they received from their mother or grandmother. They may want to wear it or repurpose it as a couch throw or cushions, but the important thing is to feel connected to a loved one. For these people, it’s all about remembrance and emotion.

But that’s not always the case. For example, a man brought in a pristine, full-length ranch mink coat he’d picked up at an estate sale for $150, and wanted it turned into a couch throw. It was a beautiful flared coat with very skilful stranding work extending from neck to mid-calf, and a lady’s name sewn into the silk lining. The hems were full of sawdust, a sign it had been drum-cleaned, and judging by the perfect condition, temperature-stored. A part of me felt mortified to be carving into this work of art, but unless it went to a museum or couture collector, it had outlived its usefulness as a coat. Sadly this is the fate of some vintage furs these days. But the throw I made from it was gorgeous, so I hope it’s being enjoyed!

TAF: What problems do you face most when working with vintage furs?

JA: New or old, fur is a forgiving material. New fur can be deftly manipulated if there is damage or there’s a mistake during the making process. And if you find a disaster zone in an old fur, it usually just requires a bit more negotiation.

Plus, fur garments are built to last, so most vintage furs are perfectly useable, even after spending decades in the back of a wardrobe.

But of course they do get damaged, and a common problem is tearing, either along stitched seams or in the general skin area. Some tears are nice, straight lines, while others are messy affairs going in several directions. How to deal with them depends on the condition of the skin. It may be hard and brittle, or soft and disintegrating.

Separated seams are the other common damage. When possible, I’ll stitch them back up by machine, but sometimes the needle perforations just create a new line that tears readily. Then it’s out with the needle and thread, pulling the edges gently together with big stitches, and then sports tape, which is made to stick to skin, after all.

When I return a coat to its owner, it may appear like I’ve worked a little magic. But perhaps – and this is a last resort! – I just pinched a bit of fur from an unseen part of the coat and literally pasted it with fabric glue onto a disintegrated section that’s been reinforced from behind. It’s a methodical and intuitive process that involves judgement, an experienced eye, and a certain amount of chutzpah.

TAF: So can all furs be saved?

JA: If a coat is shedding badly, there’s not much that can be done. So now and then I have to tell a customer they’re dreaming, and all we can do is turn the best bits into cushions. But my motto is “work with what’s in front of you”, so I rarely turn a job down. If a person is emotionally attached to a fur, then it’s worth restoring or repurposing as best I can.

That said, I sometimes restore a coat and return it with strict instructions on how to wear it. Sit and stand in it nicely, I say, and do not wear it while driving or lounging on the sofa!

TAF: How about the different fur types you commonly see? Are some easier to work with than others?

JA: I see a lot of vintage rabbit since it was so popular here in the past, often cut and dyed to mimic other fur types. Old rabbit skin is surely not the most robust and is frequently delicate, but it can still be beautifully supple and suitable for machine-stitching. I’ll probably tape the repaired seams and some of the original ones for safety, and instruct the owner to “handle gently”.

Muskrat fur was also popular before, but it doesn’t survive the years well. It’s very likely to be brittle and ripping, and only salvageable with hand-stitching and tape.

Vintage mink skin is often in very good condition and easy to handle, but fox can be very thin and rips easily.

I’ve also worked with vintage chinchilla rabbit, fitch, weasel, marten and possum, but perhaps my favourite were three gorgeous coats, over 70 years old, that I think were Siberian flying squirrel. They were delicate in places, but the skin was supple and the lustrous fur all intact.

TAF: How about the future? You describe interest in recycling vintage fur as part of a “groundswell”. So can we expect growth?

JA: For clothing in general, the “Three R’s” – repair, restyle, and repurpose – are already growing fast as part of a shift to more sustainable living. But in New Zealand at least, using fur for clothing is just a small part of this. It’s not cold enough, plus the anti-fur lobby has been quite effective. There’s only a small market here now. The last traditional furrier in the entire country, and my teachers, Mooneys Furs of Dunedin (est. 1912), closed in 2020. As a result, craftspeople skilled in working with vintage fur coats are now a rare breed. As one of those rare artisans, I encourage anyone to ReVintage their furs. The results are very satisfying.

In colder countries, where fur is a way of life and there’s a steady supply of vintage materials to work with, the outcome could be very different. If you have the skills, setting up as a recycler of vintage furs could be a really good business opportunity!

***

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

On November 5, Lana Popham, British Columbia’s Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, announced that the province “is beginning a process to phase out B.C.’s mink-farming industry due to ongoing public-health risks associated with COVID-19.” But one of North America’s most respected veterinary experts has denounced this arbitrary ban as an “overreaction” that is “not supported by science”.

“The British Columbia government’s declaration to end the livelihood of these farm families does not seem to be supported by the current scientific knowledge and appears to be an overreaction to a situation with very limited health risk to the general human population,” says Dr. John Easley, director of research for Fur Commission USA. (See his full statement, below.)

The government’s decision seems especially unjustified now that a new vaccine has been developed to protect mink from the Sars-CoV-2 virus, he says.

While the Sars-CoV-2 virus has been detected on mink farms in many countries over the past 18 months, “the vast majority of these infections have been self-limiting, and posed very limited risk to the caretakers of the livestock,” he continues. No Variants of Concern have developed on mink farms, according to the World Health Organisation.

Most viral mutations are species-specific in their pathology, so the virus circulating in the human population – especially the unvaccinated population – presents by far the greatest risk to produce a Variant of Concern. “So, if the governmental agencies’ goal is to reduce the risk of a new Variant of Concern being developed, why haven’t they already mandated that all the citizens be vaccinated?” asks Dr. Easley.

“And how are they going to address the risk due to the domestic cat population’s susceptibility to the virus – or all the other animal species [including hamsters, ferrets, and white-tailed deer] that we now know can be infected and reproduce the virus?”

Strict Biosecurity Protocols Followed

“Since we learned that mink can contract Covid-19 from humans, Canadian mink farmers have worked with government agencies to implement strict biosecurity protocols,” says Rob Bollert, a mink farmer and president of the Canada Mink Breeders Association (CMBA). “As proof of how conscientiously these measures have been applied, the Sars-CoV-2 virus has been detected on only three of our farms – just 5% of the 60 Canadian mink farms situated across the country.”

“This arbitrary and radical decision by the BC government is simply devastating for farm families,” says Bollert. “It takes generations of work, including excellent nutrition and care as set out in Canada’s comprehensive codes of practice, to develop the quality of mink that Canada is famous for – and these bureaucrats are destroying all that effort, without any real scientific justification. With only one Sars-CoV-2 positive farm in BC at the present time, this will mean that farmers will be forced to kill perfectly healthy herds of animals. This is unprecedented.”

SEE ALSO: With proper precautions, mink farms don’t pose Covid-19 risk. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

“We know that animal activist groups in BC have been campaigning against mink farming for years, as the thin edge of the wedge in their efforts to eliminate all animal agriculture. They have been fanning Covid fears to further that agenda. But it is shocking that the BC government would surrender to activist pressure tactics, rather than basing policy on science and proven good practice,” says Bollert.

In the US, Sars-CoV-2 has been detected on 16 farms in four states, but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the US Department of Agriculture have not recommended culling healthy animals or banning mink farms. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Maryland and Chief Medical Advisor to the US President, has stated that, with proper biosecurity measures in place, the CDC considers the Covid risk that mink farms represent for the general public to be low.

“Pandering to Animal Activists”

“When cases of Swine Flu or Avian Flu emerged in this country, the government didn’t shut down pork or chicken production – although that’s exactly what animal activists were calling for,” says mink farmer Matthew Moses, president of the Nova Scotia Mink Breeders Association and past president of the CMBA. “Instead, government agencies worked with producers to responsibly manage the situations.”

SEE ALSO: David Suzuki got it wrong; mink farming makes sense. By Matt Moses, former president, CMBA.

“BC mink farmers have implemented all the security measures requested by the BC health and agriculture officials, but it looks like the BC government in this case is more interested in pandering to animal activists. Is it because we are a very small sector, with only nine farms in BC? Is that why they are ready to destroy the work and livelihoods of these farm families?” asks Moses.

“The proof that the BC government does not really believe mink farming to be a public health risk is the fact that they are permitting producers to keep live mink on their farms for another 18 months, and to sell or transport them to other provinces,” states Moses.

“The BC government’s knee-jerk decision is especially disappointing because mink fur is a sustainably produced, long lasting, and biodegradable, natural clothing material – exactly what environmentalists are saying we should be choosing instead of petrochemical-based, throwaway, ‘fast fashion’,” says Bollert.

“We are looking at all our options to fight this arbitrary decision. Animal activists are saying openly that this is just the first step in their campaign to eliminate all production of animal products, including meat and dairy. This is a wake-up call for all agriculture, and for everyone who believes that government policy should be based on science, not activist propaganda.”

* * *

Response to BC government’s arbitrary ban on mink farming, by Dr. John Easley, Director of Research, Fur Commission USA (November 5, 2021)

This is an unfortunate decision that doesn’t seem to be supported by the experience and knowledge we have gained during the last 18 months since the North American farmed mink industry started to address the mink’s susceptibility to the Sars –CoV-2 virus.

Over that period many counties have experienced infections in their farmed mink operations and the vast majority of these infections have been self-limiting and posed very limited risk to the care takers of the livestock. No Variants of Concern have ever been developed due to the viral replication in mink according to the WHO. Many viral mutations are species specific in their pathology; so, the virus circulating in the human population, especially the unvaccinated population, is by far the greatest risk to produce a Variant of Concern that would put the general population at risk. So, if the governmental agencies’ goal is to reduce the risk of a new Variant of Concern being developed, why haven’t they already mandated that all the citizens be vaccinated? How are they going to address the risk due to the domestic cat population’s susceptibility to the virus and/or all the other animal species that can be infected and reproduce the virus, thusly, potentially producing a new Variant of Concern?

The North American farmed mink industry has worked collaboratively with many governmental agencies to develop effective biosecurity protocols for the farms and their employees. They have also supported the development and the utilization of a Sars-CoV-2 vaccination for the mink. This vaccine was granted experimental approval by USDA and was tested in 90% of the mink in the United States, over 3.2 million doses were utilized. It was proven to be extremely safe. Since the enactment of the enhanced farm biosecurity measures, the farm animal caretakers being vaccinated and the mink themselves being vaccinated, there have been no new diagnosed farm infections in the USA.

The British Columbia government’s declaration to end the livelihood of these farm families does not seem to be supported by the current scientific knowledge and appears to be an overreaction to a situation with very limited health risk to the general human population.

John Easley DVM
Director of Research
Fur Commission USA

SEE ALSO: Covid and mink: Resources. Fur Commission USA.

***

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

In the Algoma Highlands of Northern Ontario, a group of retired local researchers are trying to trap, tag and collect DNA samples from wolves, and then track them. The project is part of a three-year study by the Algoma Highlands Conservancy supposedly to improve understanding of local wolves and maybe restrict logging if it seems to interfere with their dens. But are they really after a bigger prize? I say they’re looking for an animal that could be used to restrict human activity far more: the so-called Algonquin wolf.

If you’ve never heard of the Algonquin wolf before, you’re not alone, because until five years ago the name didn’t even exist. So what is it, and why might protectionists be so keen to find more?

First we need to know a little about taxonomy – the science of naming, describing and classifying organisms. For the most part the system works well, but scientific names change all the time, and it’s not unusual for a species to get stuck with two names because scientists can’t agree. So a scientific name consists of two or three parts: the genus, the species, and frequently the subspecies. Species and subspecies can interbreed, but usually don’t in the wild because of geographic isolation. Then there are hybrids of two species, which are rare in captivity and even rarer in the wild, and are almost always beset with problems like infertility.

And then there are canids, the genus containing wolves and coyotes. These are so rife with subspecies – or hybrids treated as subspecies – that taxonomists have a hard time agreeing on anything. The problems are twofold. First, all canids are close relatives genetically, and can both interbreed and produce viable offspring. And second, their ranges often overlap, so when there’s a shortage of mates of your own subspecies, another will do. Indeed, so mixed have canid genes become that studies show nearly all North American gray wolves have some degree of coyote in them, increasing the further east one goes. The populous eastern wolf, meanwhile, is recognised as a wolf-coyote hybrid. This then raises the issue of whether protecting hybrids is desirable at all if it’s diluting the genetics of pure wolves and coyotes.

Enter the Algonquin Wolf

The designation of a new subspecies – or the granting of subspecies status to a hybrid – can have profound implications for wildlife managers and a whole range of human activities if it is treated separately from the general population. For practical reasons, therefore, a species made up of multiple subspecies is often managed as one homogeneous population. Whitetail deer, for example, are managed in this way, even though there are 22 subspecies in North America.

And that’s why, until very recently, all of Northern Ontario’s eastern wolves (Canis lupus lycaon or Canis lycaon – take your pick!) were managed as a whole, and it was working. The density was stable at 2.5 to 3 animals per 100 km2, which is at the high end of what the ecosystem can support. The Species at Risk in Ontario List, compiled on the advice of the independent Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, listed its conservation status as “special concern”, which is actually the lowest level of concern, behind “threatened”, “endangered” and “extirpated”.

Then wolf protectionists decided to fix something that wasn’t broken. First they needed to identify a new subspecies/hybrid within the larger eastern wolf population, that wasn’t too numerous and had not been studied much.

They came up with the Algonquin wolf, and in 2016, the newly christened subspecies/hybrid made its debut on the Species at Risk in Ontario List. The basis for this was that they are a little smaller than other eastern wolves, though only a DNA test can tell for sure if they’re the real deal. Also, conveniently, mature individuals are estimated to number fewer than 500, so their conservation status has been upgraded to “threatened”, with all the extra protection that entails.

For now, eastern wolves and Algonquin wolves still share the same, disputed, taxonomic name. But from a management viewpoint, Ontario effectively now has a whole new subspecies to worry about, and a “threatened” one at that. So the key questions now become, where are they, and what changes in human activity will be made to accommodate them?

So far, a core concentration has been reported in and around Algonquin Provincial Park, with smaller populations in Killarney Provincial Park, Kawartha Highlands Signature Site, and Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands. Can we expect the Algoma Highlands to be added to this list soon? Only time will tell, but that would make wolf protectionists so happy!

Vilifying Opponents

Meanwhile, wolf protectionists are busy trying to appear better than anyone who sees them as just disruptive or worse.

The forestry industry, they say, threatens wolves by disturbing their dens. If the Algoma Highlands Conservancy can find where the dens are, “We can make sure they’re not being logged, and say ‘don’t log too close to the den’,” said president Kees van Frankenhuyzen to the Sault Ste. Marie community website Sootoday.com last Sept. 1. “We don’t want to unknowingly destroy or negatively influence a habitat that’s important for the wolves’ survival.”

But in Northern Ontario at least, loggers disturbing dens is simply not an issue. Timber has been harvested there for hundreds of years and is sustainable, as is the wolf population.

Then there are trappers. Protectionists want the public to believe trappers still use steel-jawed leghold traps for wolves, while they, being the good guys, use only humane traps. As Sootoday reported, “The traps being used [by the Algoma Highlands Conservancy] have had their harmful metal teeth removed and replaced with rubber.”

In truth, they have not “removed” or “replaced” anything for the simple reason that traps with teeth have been banned nationwide since the early 1970s.

I don’t know what kind of trap the Conservancy researchers are using, but whatever they are, I’m quite sure the researchers played no role in developing them. Indeed, they would have been developed by the very same trappers they now want to vilify.

All wildlife traps used in Canada today have been developed under the auspices of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, signed by Canada, the EU and Russia. And as it happens, leadership in this research program, which aims to ensure that all traps are as humane as possible, comes from the Fur Institute of Canada, of which I am chairman. So whatever traps they are using in the Algoma Highlands, they were probably developed and certainly tested and approved by us. Imagine, then, how galling it is for me to read that they have “removed” the “harmful metal teeth” in a trap that I guarantee never had teeth in the first place!

Cuddly Wolves?

Last but not least, the wolves themselves are getting an image makeover. It’s nothing new for advocates to paint rosy images of dangerous animals like sharks or killer whales. They’re “misunderstood”, we’re told, and will leave us alone unless threatened. Most people know to take such claims with a pinch of salt, but it only takes one idiot.

And so it is with wolves.

“People are scared of wolves, they think they’re dangerous,” says Algoma’s van Frankenhuyzen, stating the obvious. “But our experience so far is that wolves mix very, very well with people. … There seems to be a happy coexistence between people and wolves and that’s a story that‘s not being told because we don’t have the documentation of that. As a Conservancy we’re working on highlighting that and say ‘people and wolves can coexist’ …”

SEE ALSO: Should we be trapping wolves in Canada? By Ross Hinter for Truth About Fur.

But the documentation on wolf-human interactions that van Frankenhuyzen says doesn’t exist most certainly does, and it tells a different story. (See Wikipedia’s online entry “List of wolf attacks in North America”.) Wolf attacks on humans are indeed rare, but that is because wolves like to live far from humans, and when that’s not possible, they have probably developed a healthy fear of guns and avoid us like the plague. That’s hardly a sign of “mixing” or a “happy coexistence”. Occasionally though, a wolf pack may decide to “mix” with a lone human, and it usually doesn’t end well for the human.

***

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

As CEO of FurCanada I am thrilled to announce that our very own master furrier and production manager Panagiotis “Panos” Panagiotidis is running a new series of workshops for aspiring designers at our facilities in Nanaimo, BC. Panos has teaching credentials from the Fur School of Kastoria, Greece, and three decades of experience in the fur trade, in Europe and now here in Canada. He is knowledgeable and resourceful, and his skills are beyond measure.

Before I talk about our new workshops, let me tell you about my journey with Panos. It all started In early 2014 when I contacted Professor Pia Blomström of the Centria University of Applied Sciences in Pietarsaari, Finland. She was teaching a wide-range of world-class degrees and workshops designed to further the knowledge and understanding of fur designers and furriers from around the world.

Later that year my partner and I flew to Helsinki to attend a sale by Fur Harvesters Auction held in conjunction with Saga Furs. After the auction concluded, we took the train to northern Finland to meet Pia. We toured the university and fur workshop, and met some of the students and even the mayor. My reasons for meeting with Pia were twofold: to gain knowledge on running workshops, and to seek out one of her students to join us in Canada as a furrier. Our then long-time furrier from Vancouver, Achilles Michoulous, was wanting to retire soon, so I needed to act quickly and find a replacement.

“Is This a Joke?”

After trying unsuccessfully to attract one of her former students, Pia called her good friend at the Royal College of Art in London, Professor Vasilis Kardasis. “There’s this guy,” she explained, meaning me, “who is seeking a furrier to join his team in Western Canada. But he doesn’t manufacture garments. All fur companies produce garments, but not this guy! His main lines are home decor and taxidermy.”

The good professor told her, “Pia, I have the right person for Calvin. I’ll call you in a few days and let you know the results.” The person he had in mind, of course, was Panos, with whom he had created, produced and taught the Greek Summer Fur School program for seven successful years.

Well those “few days” turned into a month or so, because when Vasilis first called Panos, it didn’t go quite as expected! Vasilis thought this position in Canada would be a good opportunity for Panos and his family. But Panos just started to laugh and continued laughing for the next five days! “Is this a joke?” he asked Vasilis. “A trick question? Are you drunk? What’s wrong with this Calvin guy? Doesn’t he know how to advertise for a furrier in Canada? There’s a furrier on every street corner in Canada. Canada is the fur trade!“

But that was only half the joke.

Eventually Panos arrived in Nanaimo to join our team, and for his first two years we hired an apprentice to assist him. The apprentice was shaping up so well, with talent and attention to detail, that Panos wanted to send her to the Summer Fur School in Greece. So he called the powers that be in Europe to discuss the process of sending a young lady as an apprentice furrier to the school. Needless to say, they were shocked by the request and asked Panos if this was a joke! Canada had not produced a furrier in decades, we were told.

It’s not strictly true that Canada has not produced a furrier in decades, but it’s not far wrong. So that’s the whole joke, and it could make a blog post all on its own!

Ultimate Goal

Since Panos arrived in Nanaimo in 2019, we’ve embarked upon producing our 10-day Learning Hub of Education & Design School in conjunction with West Coast Indigenous First Nations, and now we have our new five-day workshop.

We’ve always kept Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo in the loop on our various programs, as they requested, as our ultimate goal is to produce a Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) degree majoring in fur, located in British Columbia.

Young fur students can then take their degrees and become furriers, fur designers, or marketers of fur products, and take their knowledge and love of fur back to their home communities in rural or urban Canada. They can introduce fur to their friends, family and the general public, one person at a time.

We believe this is an important part of ensuring the future health of Canada’s fur trade. For several decades now, many of us – myself and FurCanada included – have been so busy chasing export sales that we’ve forgotten to pay attention to our domestic market. Our workshops are one of many stepping stones for students to learn how to work with fur and then, hopefully, convince the Canadian public to continue buying home-grown fur products.

Our New Workshop

So here’s what we’re offering in our new workshops:

• Program period: October 2021 to April 2022.
• Duration of each workshop: Five days.
• Class sizes: There are a minimum of three students per class, and a maximum of seven.
• Levels: Students are divided into three skill levels from novice to expert, with no mixing of levels. To help us pick the appropriate level, participants first fill out a questionnaire about their current level of knowledge and skills.
• Skills to be taught include: Treating furs before they can be used, grading, pattern making, cutting with a furrier’s knife, opening skins, repairing damaged skins, blocking, sewing by machine and by hand, and caring for and cleaning the final product.
• Skin types: Students will work with seal, beaver, fox, wild mink, Canadian sable (marten), bobcat and lynx.
• Covid-19 protocols: All participants must be fully vaccinated. Social distancing and other safety protocols are observed.
• Cost: A course costs 892 CAD inclusive of tax, with a 200 CAD deposit due at registration time and the balance payable on arrival. Refreshments and all fur supplies are covered, but accommodation and travel are at the participants’ expense.

If you would like to learn more about our new five-day workshops studying under master furrier Panos Panagiotidis, please visit FurCanada’s website.

***

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

Animal welfare and sustainability are both commendable goals for any company’s strategic plan, but they’re also like chalk and cheese. They’re unrelated, which means you don’t advance one by advancing the other. Yet these days, whenever a designer, brand or retailer announces it is dropping fur supposedly for animal welfare reasons, it also claims this will make it more sustainable. This is totally illogical, and they must be called out for it.

Worse still, the deceit appears to be intentional, not just the result of lazy thinking. In a conscious and cynical bid to associate themselves with two of the hottest buzzwords in marketing today, companies are pitching the message, “We believe in animal welfare and sustainability, so we won’t be using furry animals anymore. (Just don’t ask about all the other ones.)”

So why should the fur trade cry “Foul”? Because sustainability is the strongest argument in favour of fur, and we need to defend it against misuse. Now the debate is being twisted and co-opted to make it appear that fur is the very opposite of sustainable.

First let’s look at sustainability and animal welfare separately, and then see how some sneaky companies pretend they are related.

Sustainability Is One Thing …

Just about every business today claims to be striving for greater sustainability, and with good reason. Not only is it good for the planet, it also sells! It’s something customers want to hear. So even if your business is not sustainable today, at least say you are trying, and promise some vague delivery date like 2030.

For a few lucky industries, including the fur trade, sustainability has already been achieved. Historically, it wasn’t always the case, as some wild species were over-harvested. But with the advent of fur farming and a raft of regulations covering harvest sizes and trade, the modern industry has become a model of sustainability.

Here are its main credentials:

• Furbearers, whether trapped or farmed, are a renewable natural resource.
• No endangered species are used.
• Fur farming provides extra protection for wildlife as production can be adjusted to meet changing demand. (This is true for all livestock farming.)
• Farmed furbearers consume leftovers from the production of human food.
• Trappers provide vital information and assistance to wildlife managers.
• Fur is fully biodegradable, even after processing, no matter what animal rights groups claim.
• A fur garment can last for decades, or be restyled as fashions change. It is the complete opposite of wasteful “fast fashion”.

These credentials look even stronger when you compare real fur to fake fur made from non-biodegradable, non-renewable oil.

… Animal Welfare Is Another

Animal welfare is a different issue entirely. While sustainability is concerned with quantifiable inputs such as reproduction rates and environmental impacts, animal welfare deals with the quality of life and death of the animals we use.

It’s difficult to explain in logical terms how companies bundle animal welfare and sustainability together, because the “logic” they employ is false. They first present an erroneous argument, hope we don’t notice, and then use this argument to justify their business strategy. It’s like saying, “2 + 2 obviously equals 5, we can all agree on that. So now let’s focus on that number 5.”

The false logic they want us to fall for is typically along the following lines. “Treating animals well will result in a kinder and gentler world, which we all want to live in. That world must also be sustainable. Therefore, being kinder to animals is integral to ensuring the future sustainability of our planet. And since it’s impossible to achieve an acceptable level of welfare in the fur trade, the most sustainable option is not to use fur at all.”

QED: Fur is unsustainable.

And when you’ve finished wrestling with the twisted logic, take special note that companies are using it only to justify dropping fur. Not leather. Or feathers. Or any other animal products. For these, it’s business as usual. In other words, the level of animal welfare in producing crocodile handbags or goose down is acceptable, and therefore these products are sustainable. What?

Case Studies

Now let’s look at three real-life examples of fashion companies that have dropped fur, and see the knots they tie themselves in to justify it.

Gucci: In 2017, CEO Marco Bizzarri shocked the fashion world by announcing that his company would be dropping fur. He also announced that Gucci had signed on to the Fur Free Retailer program of the Fur Free Alliance, a group that, in its own words, wants to end the fur trade by “raising the serious animal welfare issues related to fur farming and trapping.” The Alliance expresses no interest whatsoever in promoting sustainability. But still, Bizzarri described Gucci’s move as demonstrating “our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business.”

The remarkable thing was that only the fur trade challenged Bizzarri to explain how jumping in bed with an animal rights group and dropping fur would make Gucci more sustainable. The media were all over the dropping fur part, but not one journalist questioned the logic. Why was real fur unsustainable? Was fake fur more sustainable? And why was Gucci not dropping leather, exotic skins and feathers too?

So in one fell swoop, Bizzarri framed Gucci as loving both animals and the planet, and he got away with it.

Nothing has changed since either. If you want to know more about Gucci’s stance on animal welfare, the go-to document is titled – wait for it – Gucci Sustainability Principles! This 21-page document on sustainability refers to animal welfare no fewer than 40 times. And there are three whole pages devoted to the “Kering Animal Welfare Standards” (Kering being Gucci’s parent). Why these in-house, self-serving animal welfare standards belong in a document on “sustainability principles” is not explained, but clearly we are supposed to accept that animal welfare is an integral part of sustainability.

Canada Goose: Known for its iconic performance parkas with coyote trim, Canada Goose is now in a tricky spot PR-wise, largely of its own making. For decades, it was a strong advocate of fur as a sustainable natural resource – an industry leader, in fact. Indeed, a page still on its website but that will presumably disappear soon, states: “We remain committed to the functionality and sustainability of real fur.” Then last June it announced that it was dropping fur.

Observers were in no doubt that this was a response to relentless pressure from animal rights groups, but CEO and president Dani Reiss wasn’t about to admit this. Instead he dug himself a hole, saying, “This decision was driven by our commitment to sustainability …”

So the official line is that Canada Goose is dropping fur voluntarily, as part of its ongoing commitment to sustainability, and you can believe that if you want. But the really tricky part is that it can’t actually say fur is unsustainable, because it’s been saying the polar opposite for years. Which leaves us in the odd position of having to turn off our brains and accept that while fur is sustainable, “fur-free” is more sustainable.

And here’s what it looks like in practice:

This new page on the Canada Goose website sports the headline, “We’re going fur-free”, unquestionably an animal rights slogan with no connection to sustainability. But the subhead reads, “Our desire to evolve into a more sustainable brand continues.” No matter what explanation Canada Goose may have for this, it is impossible for a visitor to this webpage not to connect these two ideas. The message, intentional or not, is clear: Canada Goose is going fur-free BECAUSE it is more sustainable.

Mytheresa: And this quote says it all – no further explanation required. This August 26, the Munich-based luxury retailer announced it would not sell fur beyond 2022. Said CEO Michael Kliger, “At Mytheresa, we believe that sustainability is an important part of our future strategy, and this view is clearly shared by our customers, partners and employees. As we already stopped buying exotic skins in spring 2021, it was clear that going fur-free is the natural next step for Mytheresa. We are proud to be making this change and thank the Humane Society of the United States, Four Paws and the Fur Free Alliance for supporting this policy.”

Each company that drops fur will claim slightly different reasons for equating animal welfare with sustainability, but it always boils down to placing them in the best possible light for consumers. And it looks doubly great if you can check two boxes at the same time!

But it’s all nonsense. Animal welfare and sustainability have as much in common with each other as chalk and cheese. It’s also damaging to businesses that really are sustainable, like the fur trade. And that’s why companies that practice this deception should be called out.

***

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