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.

The International Fur Federation (IFF) has appointed a range of fur industry “Ambassadors” as well as retained the services of outside industry consultants to market, promote and provide information on the Furmark® certification. The Ambassadors represent their respective regions and will be responsible to outreach to a range of firms and contacts to share the merits of – and encourage inclusion in – the Furmark certification program.

Sandy Reports reached out to several of the Ambassadors provided by the IFF and asked them to share feedback they have received to date from their respective regional outreach.

In their own words …

SEE ALSO: North American fur trade – ahead of the curve on traceability. Truth About Fur.

Molly Wang, IFF China – Furmark Ambassador, Asia

Regarding Furmark, I had conversations with fur people on my previous two trips in China this month. In general, bigger manufacturers for domestic market and exporters for Russia are viewing Furmark as a very positive tool either for increasing their revenue or simply for their own publicities use. For those manufacturers who do OEM fur garments for fashion brands and for Russian market, they believe that if their clients accept Furmark, then they should join as quickly as possible, so they will be receiving more orders than those who don’t. That’s why they want to know how Russians are truly viewing Furmark.

The smaller ones are definitely showing interests on Furmark as well but given that they don’t buy as many skins from auction houses as the bigger companies, so at the moment, instead of applying immediately, they’d rather take wait-and-see attitude to see how things are going with bigger ones. (For exporters, they also comment that they want to know how Russians react to Furmark, which I think is reasonable.)

Retailers, we have a well-known brand in China who take initiatives to have included Furmark as part of their own marketing strategies in the coming retail season, really move fast and even push IFF to provide more marketing toolkit for them.

As for Chinese domestic market, if Furmark will be known and accepted by Chinese consumers, it for sure will help a brand to sell more garments over others who don’t use … what Furmark stands for, such as sustainability, traceability system, green materials etc.

These ideas are very popular in the fashion world in China in recent years, you can hear these talks, discussions on almost every fashion-related Seminar or Forum in China. LV and Fendi’s joining in has become an endorsement for Furmark in the fashion world.

Jan Erik Carlson – Furmark Ambassador, Europe

I have been working as a freelance consultant for IFF for more than a year now, with a focus on developing and implementing the Furmark system in the fur trade and fashion industry. Acting as an ambassador in the outreach to the fashion brands in Europe is a natural extension of my assignment.

Behind the handful of much publicised brands that have said no to natural fur, I still find a genuine interest in fur. I would even say that in the post-covid markets there will be an increased interest in materials that are authentic and sustainable. Natural fur actually ticks all the boxes in this respect, and the Furmark system can provide the assurance and confidence that consumers need to buy natural fur.

Both my personal contacts in the fashion industry and the extensive research that has been conducted globally in B2B [business-to-business] and B2C [business to consumer] segments by IFF, points to the fact that Furmark is the right concept at the right time. Most companies in the fashion industry do understand that they need a new strong tool to be able to promote and sell natural fur. Although fake fur is an alternative, there is no way around the fact that it is a plastic product that does not add any value to their products/brands compared to natural fur.

Having worked intensely with Furmark for more than a year, I am left with a feeling that there is a future for the fur trade. Although we have had some setbacks in recent time, I still experience that natural fur has a unique cachet and the material is aspirational for many designers and consumers. The high level of interest in signing up to the Furmark system across the markets is a good indication for the future!

Charlie Ross – Furmark Ambassador, North America

The designers that I am concentrating my Furmark efforts are fur-friendly and sell to boutiques and direct to consumers. They are, of course, disappointed that department stores will not buy, but many of the mid-level designers do not sell to department stores. I did not ask any questions about their reaction to fur. I have been mostly targeting designers in New York. They are all suffering in their business with decreased sales, so they did not bring up a change of attitude to fur. To be honest, I have been speaking to fur-friendly designers. They have been busy with their spring collections, and we are doing a Blackglama project, so they seem happy. I think that Furmark will provide additional confidence, but without the department stores the fur business will be smaller in the future.

The designers that I have reached are very supportive of the Furmark concept but they are waiting for the program to launch in Q4. The designers think that an organized and common language of selling certified furs is important in light of department stores that have stopped selling fur. The actual language is still being discussed but the concept has been very well received. I think after the September shows this will be a more relevant conversation as the designers will think about fall and fur. I will have a Furmark presentation during Fur Vision this year to really bring the message to the trade. The IFF wants to do the designer outreach before the trade.

The fur farmers seem to understand that the manufacturers and retailers need a concept to provide confidence to their customers. The trade in New York has not really commented on the Furmark program since it launches the end of the year. The IFF would need to do some outreach to the trade to try to get the information about Furmark to the trade. This has not started and is a program for the fall.

The big brands in Europe are also supportive about Furmark because they feel it is a way to give confidence to the consumer and the program covers a lot of fur types which they sell.

I think the lack of action about the loss of department stores is shocking. We won the political battle in some states, but we lost Saks and Neiman.

Maksim Chipurnoy, Russian Fur Union – Furmark Ambassador, Eurasia Region

The reaction to Furmark in Russia and Eurasia is positive, Turkish brands are already joining the project and there is interest from major players from Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus. As in fact the Eurasian Economic Union has a mandatory traceability and labelling system in place by law since 2016, many players are interested in how technically the Furmark project can integrate into the existing system. We continue to negotiate with key industry players about joining the Furmark project.

The response to the Furmark project concept has also been received positively by almost all sectors of the fur industry. Proof of this: most sable fur farms in Russia have already joined the project and have been certified by independent inspectors from the Research Institute for Animal and Rabbit Breeding, two major auctions Sojuzpushnina and Ruspushnina, which sell Russian sable skins, have also been assessed for compliance with the Furmark project by independent experts from the Federal Centre for Hunting Development and, starting in 2021, all furs sold in Russia are certified. Plans for the near future include the inclusion of Uzbekistan and Uzbek Karakul in the Furmark project.

The main drivers of the fur trade are still China and Russia. In Russia, the turnover of fur goods is about US$3 billion, and compared to 2020, there is a noticeable revival of the market, sales growth, and a systematic return of business indicators to the pre-pandemic level.

***

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

The recent news that Canada Goose would stop trimming the hoods of its performance parkas with coyote fur by the end of 2022 disappointed and angered many trappers and others in the fur trade. But anyone who cares about nature and democracy should be worried too. Here’s why.

First, despite the rhetoric of animal activists and the chatter of some media pundits, it’s clear that the company’s decision to retreat from fur was not driven by consumer trends or evolving societal values. Canada Goose has offered parkas with and without fur trim for years, but thousands of young people continue to choose the iconic coyote ruff – as you can see on the streets of Montreal, Toronto, New York, London, Paris, and other cities as soon as the thermometer dips each fall.

No clothing brand has ever been subjected to such aggressive campaign tactics.

The real reason for Canada Goose’s retreat from fur is clearly because the security, PR, and other costs of responding to relentless protests from animal activists simply became too much to bear. No clothing brand has ever been subjected to such aggressive campaign tactics. Store invasions, social media barrages, even noisy protests in front of CEO Dani Reiss’s home – Canada Goose held strong through it all for more than a decade. But the company’s extraordinary success in making fur cool for hip young consumers singled them out as a primary target for increasingly aggressive activist attacks.

While Dani Reiss always expressed pride about the northern roots of the company his grandfather founded, it no doubt became increasingly difficult to resist activist pressure once a majority share was sold to Bain Capital Private Equity, a US private investment firm, in 2013, and especially when Canada Goose was listed on the New York and Toronto stock exchanges, in 2017.  The bean counters were now in control, and the financial and other costs of defending fur presumably became harder to justify as the company targeted new (warmer) markets, and expanded its product line with lightweight, all-season apparel and accessories.

Simply put, Canada Goose did not decide to stop trimming its parkas with coyote fur because consumers didn’t want to buy them. Canada Goose is dropping fur because it was subjected to the equivalent of a mafia protection racket. The activist message was: “Do as we say or we will destroy your business!” And, after years of intense (and costly) pressure, it worked. This should worry anyone who believes in freedom of choice, no matter what you think about fur.

MUST READ: Canada Goose: We’re Committed to Using Fur. Vice-President Gavin Thompson talks to Truth About Fur, 2020.

Undermining Conservation

Another reason why activist bullying tactics should worry the public is that they undermine responsible and successful wildlife conservation policies. As Ontario Fur Managers Federation general manager Robin Horwath explained in media interviews, “Coyote populations are at record levels; they will have to be managed to maintain a balance, whether we use the fur or not … but if activists succeed in destroying the market, it’s tax-payers who will foot the bill.”

LISTEN: Robin Horwath explains to 64 Toronto radio why coyotes will still need to be culled.

Coyotes are overpopulated across North America; they kill calves and lambs, and are now in our cities – from Los Angeles to Toronto – eating pet dogs and cats, and even attacking people, something rarely seen in the past.

Without a market incentive for trappers, the situation will only worsen. Instead of being valued as a natural resource, to be used responsibly and sustainably, coyotes will again be reduced to the status of “pests”. Governments will again be obliged to offer bounties, as several states and provinces did until not so many years ago. Coyotes will still be killed, but the fur will be wasted. So much for the ethical treatment of animals!

SEE ALSO: Will urban coyotes change the animal rights debate? Truth About Fur.

First Nations leaders are also expressing their concern for how Canada Goose’s decision will impact the markets for furs their communities rely on.

Unfortunate Statement

Caught in the middle between activist pressure and the trappers they have worked with for decades, it should be noted that the media statement issued by Canada Goose about its new policy carefully avoided any negative comment about fur. Fair enough. It is unfortunate, however, that it did include a statement from the CEO of Humane Canada, a coalition of SPCAs and other animal welfare groups, claiming that this was “a significant step forward toward building a more humane and sustainable world.”

The use of coyote and other furs in North America is, in fact, an excellent example of the responsible and sustainable use of nature. And there is nothing humane about leaving nature (i.e., starvation and disease) to manage coyote populations. The leadership at Canada Goose knows this. So why was this misleading and provocative Humane Canada statement included in its announcement? We can only guess that Canada Goose is working with Humane Canada to provide cover for its continued use of goose down, which is the core of its business.

In fact, responding to the decision by Canada Goose to drop fur, PETA announced “a moratorium” on protests against its stores, while pledging to work “behind the scenes” to end the company’s use of down. (Can you spell “Protection Racket”?)

SEE ALSO: 5 Reasons Why PETA Won’t Make Me Ditch My Canada Goose. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur, 2016.

Vicious Circle

Meanwhile, hardly a week goes by when we don’t hear that another major brand or retailer is “going fur free”. It becomes a self-reinforcing cycle, because when Saks, Neimans, Holt Renfrew, and other retailers say they will stop selling fur, there is even less incentive for brands like Canada Goose to continue producing it. If allowed to continue, this vicious circle will also make it more difficult for politicians to resist calls to ban the retail sale of fur products entirely.

SEE ALSO: Progressive politicians should promote fur, not ban it. Truth About Fur.

So what should the fur trade be doing about this? Some people are writing to Canada Goose CEO Dani Reiss to express their concern. We should also be writing to and supporting the brands that continue to use fur, including Rudsak, Kanuk, Mackage, and others.

Most importantly, however, the fur trade must make a huge communications effort to regain control of our own story. We must explain to the public how fur is responsibly and sustainably produced in North America, and why fur is now, more than ever, an ethical choice. We must also sound the alarm about how activist bully tactics are eroding consumer choice, and threatening public health and safety by sabotaging responsible wildlife management. Must a child die from a rabid raccoon bite or being mauled by an urban coyote for the public to appreciate the role trappers play in controlling wildlife populations?

And we must make it personal: it’s time to put the real people of the fur trade – trappers, farmers, craftspeople – at the forefront of this campaign. These are the people whose livelihoods, cultures, and ethics are attacked by increasingly arrogant animal activists. Activist campaigns play on emotions — and in public debate, emotions trump logic — but we have feelings and values too. It’s time we were heard!

***

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

Animal rightists have been badgering the UK government to ban the fur retail trade for years, and with their country now out of the EU and no longer bound by its laws, the government is seriously considering giving them what they want. Such a precedent would give a major boost to animal rights activists lobbying for similar restrictions in other European countries, and even the US and Canada. So while the UK may not be a major consumer market, it is imperative that anyone who supports the responsible use of animals should now take action to ensure that a UK fur-sales ban doesn't happen.

Of course, it's easy to feel jaded when it comes to the UK, and even write it off as a lost cause. After all, despite a long and noble history of championing responsible animal welfare, this tiny island is now a breeding ground for virulent animal rightists, right up there with California. Plus, few British people wear fur anyway, so does it really matter?

The answer is yes, it matters. Courtesy of its language, its history, the Beatles, and a host of other factors, the UK's influence on global trends is unquestionably profound. If the British decide to ban fur retail sales, animal rights campaigners will surely hold it up as a model for other countries – and their legions of Anglophiles – to follow.

The danger is especially evident when we consider who now has the ear of Prime Minister Boris Johnson. On May 29, he married Carrie Symonds. Who is Ms. Symonds? Well, for one thing she believes that "Anyone that wants to buy fur really is sick." She was also PETA UK's 2020 Person of the Year. And she's sleeping with the PM...

DEFRA Questionnaire

Now for the "good" news. Rather than just diving in head first with a ban, the government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is testing the water thoroughly first. This it is doing by inviting everyone – including foreigners – to partake in a "call for evidence", with a deadline of June 28. The process is easy too: just click on DEFRA's online questionnaire and let your voice be heard. And as an added bonus, it will send you a link to download a PDF of your responses once you're done.

(Note: Don't be confused by the questionnaire's reference to Great Britain, rather than the UK. GB refers to England, Scotland and Wales, as the other UK member, Northern Ireland, remains in the EU Customs Union and will be unaffected by a ban.)

The questionnaire is also refreshingly different from previous polls on the fur trade. Rather than asking how we feel about fur, with multiple choices ranging from "Strongly approve" to "Strongly disapprove", almost all the 39 questions are looking for solid information. And there's something for everyone, so ignore the ones that don't apply, and let rip on the others.

Something for Everyone

Question 11, for example, is for ranting, if you so choose. "What is your attitude towards the import and/or sale and/or export of fur or fur products in GB?" it asks. TAF, however, opted for restraint, given our status as a voice for the trade. "It's a legal, regulated activity that should be allowed to continue," we wrote. "The government should always be vigilant about sources of fur to ensure only fur that is harvested humanely exists in the marketplace. However, it would be overreach on the part of government to ban all trade in fur, as this would be forcing the views of one sector of society on everyone. The UK is supposed to be a democracy in which everyone's views are respected. Banning fur would be a move in the wrong direction."

SEE ALSO: The Fur Truth: How a UK fur ban would damage and set back animal welfare. British Fur Trade Association.

Then there are a few "fun" questions to test your knowledge, like Question 12. "Other than for clothing and apparel, what uses of fur should we be aware of?" TAF came up with the obvious furnishings like pillows, rugs, etc., and the always-overlooked use of fur in fishing flies. Are there others DEFRA should know about? Are the markets for mink eyelashes and calligraphy brushes too small to mention?

Of course you might also find a couple of questions rather stupid, like Question 27: "What do you consider to be the total value (in £ sterling) of imports to and exports from GB in relation to (i) raw furskins; (ii) tanned or dressed furskins; (iii) articles of apparel and clothing; (iv) artificial fur?" We suggest a politely worded response like, "Look them up yourself. The UK government – which you represent – publishes these stats. It is irrelevant what anyone 'considers' them to be."

Perfect for North Americans

And then there are some great questions, including Question 38, which is just perfect for North Americans. Asks DEFRA, "We are interested in finding out more about other countries’ existing or planned restrictions on fur. Please provide any information and/or evidence that you are aware of."

Of course, TAF went to town describing the divisive, arbitrary, and counter-productive nature of fur retail bans in the US, especially in California. If you don't already know our myriad objections, here is just a sampling:

US legislators should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to ban it. April 22, 2021.

There's no justification for banning the sale of fur. February 17, 2020.

Fur industry sues San Francisco. January 15, 2020.

Fur ban proposals are based on a dangerous fiction. September 25, 2019.

6 reasons why banning fur sales is a very bad idea. April 11, 2019.

So whether you think it will make a difference or not, please do take the time to fill out this questionnaire. Because, as sure as the sun rises each day, animal rights groups will be giving it their full attention.

And as your parting shot, here's an idea for your answer to the final question, number 39. DEFRA asks: "Please provide any other relevant evidence you would like to include to inform decisions on the GB fur trade." TAF took the high road, and referred the UK government to our website. But we were sorely tempted to write, "We are concerned that Prime Minister Boris Johnson may be swayed by the fact his wife is rabidly anti-fur. Can DEFRA assure us that Mrs. Johnson will not unduly influence government policy going forward?"

***

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

I’ve loved fur clothing since I was a little girl, as well as animals. I was very lucky because my parents indulged me in this. Growing up, I lived in towns or cities, but was allowed to nurse baby birds in my bedroom and bring home tadpoles to mature into frogs.

They also bought me a real fur hat, collar and muff for Christmas when I was six! These fur pieces were white with little black “tail” trim, but I’m quite sure they were rabbit, dressed up to look like ermine. They wouldn’t have been able to afford ermine, even if it had been available.

By the time I was a teenager, I’d graduated to raccoon. I had a red wool coat with a raccoon collar! When I grew out of that coat, I took off the collar, and with my mother’s help, turned it into a bonnet-type hat that I wore for a few more years. My mother had a mink boa and my grandmother a neckpiece made from three martens, complete with heads and tails, both of which I still cherish. (I’ve been known to wear the mink boa, but not the marten piece.)

I wish more kids today had these same opportunities! There are still some rabbit-lined kids’ hats around but mostly there is fake fur, or no fur. However, Canadian kids often do have rabbit-trimmed moccasin slippers at least, and many young women wear rabbit-trimmed mukluks. But how easy is it for them to “graduate” to raccoon or beaver or coyote? Thanks to the wide availability of parkas, a hood with a natural coyote ruff can be purchased in most Canadian cities today. But sadly most ruffs are fake fur, which doesn’t hold up well, and isn’t providing the warmth of a natural fur ruff.

SEE ALSO: Why fur trim keeps us warm. Truth About Fur.

The availability of other clothing trimmed with natural fur has been minimal for several years, outside of some large Canadian cities that still have wonderful fur salons. But in the last five to ten years the fashion industry has begun to show fur accessories more. A few designers have models wearing trapper-type hats, made entirely of coyote fur. Natural fur has also shown up on purses and even shoes (not just boots). More local artisans have begun to make fur trapper hats and large mitts or gauntlets that are popular with the snowmobile crowd.

SEE ALSO: Where to buy fur. Fur Council of Canada.

Other Canadian artisans have been making fur ruffs, collars, hats, etc. using wild fur for some time. For the past six years, I’ve been one of those artisans, but making fur-trimmed accessories, rather than full fur apparel.  I wanted the items I create to have a modern look and to be interesting, but also to be affordable.

Wearing fur accessories is possible for many more people than wearing a fur coat, warm and beautiful as they are. Availability and affordability to more Canadians may mean that wearing fur becomes more popular again. I think this is especially true for young kids and teens. Even having a toy with natural fur can make a child want more natural fur items later, I think. So I make a few toys too!

Learning As Much As Possible

When I embarked on what was meant to become my retirement hobby, I decided it was important that I learn as much about fur as possible, from trapping through to garment making. The Saskatchewan Trappers Association holds many courses for new trappers and I was fortunate to take one given by association president Wrangler Hamm in November 2014. He covered the basics about humane trapping, and there were demos on skinning and boarding a coyote and muskrat as well as the preparation of a beaver. But he also included a bit about sending pelts for tanning and having hats or mittens made from them as an additional way to add value to trapping. I hope that’s a part of all the trapper courses.

My love of animals led me to a professional career studying them. It also helped me bond with my husband who is a wildlife biologist. Although my own career has primarily dealt with the genetics of domestic animals, such as cattle and dogs, in the later years my research has included some dog ancestors – wolves and coyotes. That allowed me the chance to get “behind the scenes” at a fur auction. Trapper and trader friends and acquaintances had been supplying my samples of coyotes and wolves for several years, but I reached a point in my research where I needed many wolf samples in a variety of coat colors. Dave Bewick, long-time manager of the Winnipeg office of North American Fur Auctions, invited me to a sale in Toronto in February 2014 to make that possible. I could not believe how many beautiful pelts were there, when I arrived on the first day of the sale. I think I decided that day that I had to be able to “work with” such pelts more, but just how that could happen took several more months of planning.

I ordered some tanned fur online and purchased a few pelts from booths at local trade shows, initially. Although now I try to make an annual trip to Winnipeg, to source my year’s garment-tanned wild fur supply. During my first visit, Matthew Stepien of the family-run International Fur Dressers and Dyers, gave me a lesson in wild fur buying that was fantastic, and has continued to help me find the quality furs I’m looking for.

I also ordered a used fur sewing machine from Montreal. The salesperson kept asking me who was going to teach me how to operate it. All the furriers in Saskatchewan had passed away. Having sewn most of my own clothes, including coats, since I was a teenager, I didn’t see this as a problem. Boy was I wrong! A fur sewing machine operates entirely differently than a normal sewing machine used to sew cloth, or even a heavier leather sewing machine. A fur sewing machine needle is horizontal and comes toward you as you sew. The fur is fed from beneath the working surface. But I persisted and read what I could and watched YouTube videos, and gradually I was able to sew most of the fur I had purchased, except the beaver. I still sew beaver by hand, as do many other artisans.

Lighting Up Faces

Sewing with natural fur has become something I truly enjoy. And I’ve been very lucky because there seems to be a group of people that enjoy wearing what I make! I’ve had booths at several juried craft shows around Saskatoon in the past five years, before Covid hit.

One of the bonuses of being at a craft fair is the joy of watching so many people’s faces light up when they try on a fur-trimmed hat, even if they don’t buy it. A fellow artisan told me that mine was the “happy booth”. She said she often looked across the aisle and people were smiling, laughing, taking selfies, etc. as they chose a fur hat to try on.

Another plus for being at a craft fair is the instant feedback you get from people about what they like and what fits and what doesn’t. For a person who is a “new” artisan, this is very valuable. The younger the person, the more unusual the item they seem to choose! I was so glad to see teenagers and university students buying fur-trimmed items.

I’ve chosen Wear Our Heritage as my brand name because I want people to wear fur clothing and be proud of our Canadian fur heritage!

I try to give young kids a small item with fur, when they visit my booth with their Mom or Grandad. Or I invite them to try on and play with the hand puppets.

The local “fair” or Exhibition in Saskatoon doesn’t have booths with baked goods or jams any more, but it does have the Saskatchewan Art Showcase that includes photography, painting, and crafts divisions. I try to submit the allowed three items each year, as another way to get natural fur in the public eye.

***

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

Pierre-Yves Daoust is a professor emeritus and adjunct professor of pathology and microbiology at the University of Prince Edward Island, who lists among his research interests "Animal welfare aspects of trapping and sealing". This article first appeared in the March/April 2021 issue of The Canadian Trapper.

While I was reading the last issue of The Canadian Trapper, I thought about writing a short article. I always like browsing through this magazine, and I just wanted to tell other readers why someone in my position enjoys this.

You see, I am not a trapper or a hunter. I do not even fish. But I am a wildlife veterinarian with a deep love for wild animals, and I have dealt with sealers, trappers, hunters, conservation officers and park wardens much of my professional life.

Having worked for a few decades at the Atlantic Veterinary College at the University of PEI, I feel very comfortable among two seemingly different groups of people: the very dedicated animal lovers (starting with our veterinary students) and the users of wildlife resources (sealers, trappers, and the like). But frankly, these two groups are not mutually exclusive.

For one thing, I am often pleased by the interest of our students to learn about sealing and trapping. Some, but not all of them, may continue to dislike the idea of these kinds of wildlife use, but with a willingness to be more informed comes a better understanding, and with it more respect. For myself, I realized a long time ago that the good sealers, trappers and hunters know far more than me about wildlife and that I stand to learn a whole lot from them.

This is why I like reading through The Canadian Trapper. I have my favourites. I always read Jim Gibb’s column about the fur market. Not that I have any personal interest in the economics of the fur trade, but he always comes up with some interesting tidbits of information and I feel that I should know at least a bit about where the market is going (which I know has been on a steep downhill for a while).

Of course, I also always read from top to bottom the report from the PEI Trappers Association. Lately, I have enjoyed reading the series of articles by Danielle Levesque, based on her oral presentations. I find it very refreshing to get the perspective of a young woman about trapping.

Celebrating the Seal Hunt

In early March 2020, I attended the “Rendez-vous Loup-marin” on the Magdalen Islands, Québec, an annual celebration of all the positive things that the seal hunt has brought to that community. That time, it was women’s turn to contribute to the industry – including cuisine, clothing, arts, marketing and more to be celebrated. It was impressive to see all that women have done for the industry over many years.

It is my work with the sealing industry and with Inuit hunters in Nunavut that has cemented my appreciation and respect for responsible users of wildlife resources.

No Hardware Store Nearby

Some years ago, I had the privilege and pleasure to be on a sealing vessel for a week with skipper Eldred Woodford from Herring Neck, Newfoundland and Labrador.

One day, when we were far offshore, an oil pump of some sort broke down. Don’t ask me for more details; I know nothing about mechanics. This meant that Eldred had to reconnect a bunch of things from the steering wheel in the wheelhouse to another steering wheel on the top deck outside.

This is when I realized, who on earth am I with my few university degrees to brag about anything, when this man not only has to know how to navigate on the open sea and how to steer among ice floes during the seal hunt to avoid getting stuck, but also has to be a mechanic and an electrician all at once. As Eldred said at the time, there is no hardware store nearby to help you out when you are roughly 60 nautical miles offshore or when you are far out in the bush, for that matter.

I hope this gives you an idea of why sealers, trappers and hunters can have allies in some unexpected places and why someone like me, in his ivory tower that is a university, always enjoys the company of people who spend so much time on the land. I respect animals, I respect the environment, and I also respect all people. This has served me well over the years.

***

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