The following letter was first published by Powell River Peak in response to the January 30 article "David Suzuki and scientists call on government to end fur farming in Canada,"

David Suzuki styles himself as an environmentalist, so it is surprising he recently sent a letter (co-signed by three other “scientists”) to the BC Minister of Agriculture criticizing mink farming.

Mink farming plays a key role in the agricultural cycle. Mink are carnivores and are fed leftovers from our own food production, the parts of chickens, cows, fish and other food animals we don’t eat (often as much as 50 per cent of biomass) – “wastes” that would otherwise end up in landfills. In turn, mink manure and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers to replenish the soil. Nothing is wasted.

At a time when we are encouraged to buy better quality clothing and keep it longer, to reduce waste, using fur makes more sense than ever. Mink fur is a remarkably warm and long-lasting natural clothing material. We often see mink coats that are 30 or 40 years old, or older. Fur is one of the few examples of clothing that is passed from one generation to the next. A fur coat can also be taken apart and “restyled” into a new coat, or recycled to make vests, handbags or other accessories. After decades of use, old furs can be thrown into your garden compost where it will biodegrade completely.

SEE ALSO: The closer we look at the "green transition", the greener fur looks. Truth About Fur.

By comparison, synthetics from which 80 per cent of our “fast-fashion” clothing are now made are generally derived from petroleum, a non-renewable, polluting and nonbiodegradable material. Such synthetics may cost less than natural materials like fur, leather or wool, but they don’t last long – millions of tons of these nonbiodegradable synthetics are thrown into the trash each year. These synthetics also leach millions of microparticles of plastic into our waterways each time they are washed – plastics that are now being found in marine life. Not good for nature!

Claims that mink farming is “cruel” are also misinformed. Like other animal agriculture in Canada, mink farmers follow codes of practice developed by veterinarians, animal scientists and animal welfare authorities, under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council. Mink farms in BC are inspected and licensed by the Department of Agriculture to ensure codes are followed. And farmers have every reason to ensure their animals have excellent nutrition and care: this is the only way to produce the high quality fur for which Canada is known internationally.

The mink on BC farms are not “wild animals,” as activists claim; mink have been raised on farms in Canada for more than 100 years. They are well adapted to farm life and physiologically different than their wild cousins.

Similarly, activist claims (parroted by Suzuki) that mink farming should be banned because mink can be susceptible to COVID-19 are not supported by science. Although COVID-19 has been detected on farms in four US states, top infectious disease expert Doctor Anthony Fauci and the US Centers for Disease Control have not recommended culling infected farms, let alone an end to mink farming. They have implemented quarantines and strict biosecurity controls – the same precautions that have been applied in BC. The fact that the virus has emerged on only two Canadian farms, nine months after the first cases were detected in Europe, shows that these biosecurity measures are effective.

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

Suzuki’s call for a ban on mink farming is misguided. When Swine Flu (H1N1) and Avian Flu were found on farms, we didn’t all stop eating pork and chicken or close down pig and poultry farms (although that is what animal activists called for then, too); instead, farmers worked with authorities to responsibly contain and eliminate the viruses. That is exactly what mink farmers are doing now.

As Canadian farm families work to protect their animals and their livelihoods, they need our support, not unfair attacks from urban activists and their celebrity cheerleaders. For the producers’ side of the fur story, please visit TruthAboutFur.com.

***

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

The following statement from the four signatories below was released to the media on Jan. 24, 2021.

"Harvesting and trading fur and other gifts of nature is our inherent right since ancient times, not a privilege to be bartered or revoked!" says Chief Brian Wadhams, trapper, of the 'Namgis First Nations.

As Indigenous trappers and traditional trapline holders, we can no longer remain silent about self-appointed “animal rights” activists who think they have a right to spread lies about the fur trade and call on politicians to ban the production or sale of fur products.

The latest example of this vicious and misleading campaigning is a recent call by animal activists for the Canadian Government to ban mink farming, after mink on two BC farms tested positive for COVID-19. While mink farming is not a tradition in our culture, we oppose this attack on small family-run farms and on rural communities where the majority of Indigenous harvesters live. And we are not naïve: we understand that this attack on mink farming is just the latest weapon in an orchestrated plan to turn the public against any use of fur – a campaign that directly attacks our culture and inherent rights as Indigenous peoples of Canada. We call this for what it is: Cultural Genocide.

The fur trade played a central role in Canada’s history, and it's an important part of our Cultural Identity; our people were harvesting and trading furs long before Europeans ever set foot on our eastern shores. The harvesting and sale of fur still provides income for many First Nations communities throughout Canada. Beavers, muskrats, and other furbearing animals also provide nutritious food for many hunters and their families. The respectful harvesting of fur and food from abundant wildlife populations is central to our relationship with the land – a relationship that the federal and provincial governments are legally mandated to protect.

Let us be crystal clear: the goal of animal activists – including those now calling for a ban on mink farming – is to destroy all markets for fur, to further their own ideological agenda. In doing so, they are directly attacking our right to responsibly harvest and trade nature’s gifts, which is our inherent right, a right recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP).

It is doubly unfortunate that animal activists seek to mislead the public and the government about fur at a time when Canadians seek to live in better harmony with nature. Furs are a sustainably produced, long-lasting, and biodegradable natural clothing material. It is the Honest Fabric. By contrast, the fake furs and other synthetics promoted by animal activists are generally made from petroleum, a non-renewable, non-biodegradable, and polluting resource.

Indigenous people have respected and protected the survival of the animal populations upon which we depend since time immemorial. Our message today to self-appointed “animal rights” extremists and their celebrity cheerleaders is this: Your misguided attacks on the fur trade are not “progressive”; they are attacks on Indigenous people. Your uninformed and misguided lies must stop NOW! 

We take this opportunity to remind the Government of Canada, and their provincial and municipal counterparts, that fur trapping, trading, displaying and selling fur is our Inherent Right, not a privilege to be bartered or trifled with. You are responsible for protecting these rights!

Furthermore, governments cannot make any changes in policy or legislation concerning the responsible harvesting, production, displaying, selling or bartering of fur products without full consultation and consent from Indigenous people, as the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

We will no longer remain silent while self-appointed urban activists attack our cultural traditions and livelihoods.  It is time you showed some honesty, decency, and respect for Indigenous fur harvesters and our fur trade partners.

It's time to take a stand. We call on all Canadians to say “No!” to the lies and cultural intolerance promoted by anti-fur groups. We ask you to support Indigenous harvesters, to support the responsible and sustainable use of nature's gifts -- and to buy and proudly wear Canadian Fur. 

Thank you.

Signed by Indigenous Fur Trappers & Supporters.

• Chief Roy Jones, Haida Gwaii First Nations.

• Chief Brian Wadhams, trapper, 'Namgis First Nations.

• Karen Dunstan, Lytton First Nation member, trapper, and director of the BC Trappers Association.

• Thomas Sewid, Kwakwaka'wakw / Cree, Pacific Balance Marine Management.

***

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

A fresh opportunity is coming soon for future designers to receive a holistic education on working with fur, against a backdrop of its cultural and historical importance to British Columbia's Indigenous First Nations.

The Learning Hub of Education and Design School will be held in Alert Bay on the 'Namgis Indigenous First Nations Traditional Territory of Vancouver Island. It’s a product of a partnership among BC's First Nations, Pacific Balance Marine Management Inc., and Nanaimo-based FurCanada. The ultimate aim of this partnership is to re-establish sealing and the fur trade as an important player in the economy of BC, where commercial sealing ended in the early 1970s. The Learning Hub executive would like to thank the 'Namgis First Nations for sponsoring this program.

Pacific Balance Marine Management Inc. is a First Nations group pushing for a license to sell pinniped products, including furs, human and pet food, and seal oil. FurCanada, which will organise the Learning Hub, is a fur manufacturing company in Nanaimo specialising in luxurious home décor, including blankets, pillows, floor coverings, garments, furniture and accessories. It is also known for its museum-quality taxidermy mounts.

FurCanada CEO and president Calvin Kania had hoped to welcome the inaugural batch of students this March, but Covid-19 has pushed the launch back to at least November. Once the green light is given to proceed, 25 students will engage in 10 days of intensive study, with all materials, tools, machinery, accommodation, meals, transportation, field trips and instructors covered by a nominal fee of $500 per head. Prior experience will not be a factor in the selection process, but prospective participants must demonstrate a genuine interest in learning about fur, including its history. For full details and updates about applying, see FurCanada's website.

Expert Instruction

Instruction will be provided by two experts with extensive international résumés.

Heading the program will be Prof. Vasilis Kardasis, who is currently FurCanada's Innovation and Design Director responsible for the company's Seal Fur Workshops. He is a visiting professor at the Royal College of Art in London, England, and has done stints at Dior, Givenchy, Balenciaga, Saga Furs, and Studio NAFA.

Assisting him will be Panagiotis "Panos" Panagiotidis, currently Master Furrier and Production Manager at FurCanada. Like Prof. Kardasis, Panagiotidis has years of experience working with European fur companies, and the two previously cooperated in organising the Summer Fur School in Kastoria, Greece.

Under their tutelage, students will work with a range of furs, including seal, beaver, mink, sable, fox and coyote. They will practice stretching and nailing (“blocking”) skins, and proper handling of a fur knife when cutting pelts to fit a pattern. They will also be taught how to sew furs and leathers – including smoked-tanned moose, elk or deer – by machine and by hand. And they'll work with textiles ranging from traditional hemp to modern, high-tech fabrics. Plus they'll spend half a day covering the basics of one of FurCanada's specialties, taxidermy.

To broaden their understanding of the fur trade still further, students will take field trips to a mink farm (Covid permitting), a trapline, and a fur retailer, and they'll take part in a First Nations seal harvest where they will learn proper retrieval and how to remove hides, blubber and meat.

Special Advisors, Guest Speakers

In devising the Learning Hub program, FurCanada wanted to reflect the strong roots Canada's modern fur trade has in the 4,000-year-old culture and heritage of the First Nations. For this, it was imperative to bring the right advisors on board.

This role has been filled by three British Columbians, who will also serve as guest speakers: Chief Roy S. Jones Jr. of the Haida Gwaii First Nations; Tom Sewid, artist and commercial fisherman, of the Kwakwaka’wakw First Nations; and Chief Brian Wadhams of the 'Namgis First Nations.

Other guest speakers will represent fur retailing, trapping, fur farming, fur manufacturing, taxidermy, auction houses, tanning, and industry associations. There will also be government officials on hand to explain the importance of environmental protection and animal welfare in this most regulated of industries.

Last but not least, two special slots have been reserved for media representatives to join the program, so they too will learn about the fur trade and be able to tell our story. "We want the world to know First Nations fur trappers and the Canadian fur trade are here to stay, to revive, to flourish and to succeed," says Kania.

Why Teaching Matters

While the Learning Hub program is new, it's not FurCanada's first foray into the world of teaching: last March it launched a series of Seal Fur Workshops. So what drives Kania and his team to educate others?

"Perseverance and passion for the trade, passion for fur trappers, passion for Canada’s cultural heritage and our country’s history. There wouldn’t be a Canada today if it were not for the fur trade," says Kania. "And above all, passion for the animals that were sustainably harvested with the world's top state-of-the-art traps – which happen to be the most humane trapping devices available anywhere.

"I come from a fur trapping family, so it was very important to me that this element of the trade takes a leading role in this program. Fur schools have come and gone over the years, but none that I can recall enveloped the entire trade in one program. No other country has all the elements as Canada does – wild fur, farm-raised fur, trappers, fur auction houses, furriers, manufacturers, designers, tanners, and fur traders.

SEE ALSO: Trapline Tales: Greasy Bill Creek, my father's final resting place. By Calvin Kania for Truth About Fur.

"And of course there's my passion for Indigenous First Nations people and their struggle within Canada. Among many issues facing the fur industry, the trade itself will have to come to terms at some point in acknowledging Indigenous reconciliation. Now, more than ever, is the right time to change the channel on how our trade functions. It’s time we think outside the box and make some radical changes if we wish to see it survive another 400 years. It starts with educating young people, one person at a time."

So is this how the Learning Hub fits into Kania's vision?

"Yes. In general terms, we want to ensure the preservation and continuation of the fur trade in Canada and also worldwide," he says. "And for the Canadian industry to survive and succeed in the 21st century, we must reach out to our most important benefactor, ally and the original producers of fur – the First Nations. The fur trade existed and flourished among First Nations long before white settlers arrived on our shores."

More specifically, the Learning Hub curriculum is designed to give students a combination of practical skills and the knowledge they will need to go out into the world and represent the fur trade accurately.

"For the fur designers and furriers of tomorrow to prosper, they should acquire as much knowledge as possible, not just about working with fur, but also where it comes from and its history," says Kania. "Learning Hub students will be the future of the trade, and we must give them the necessary tools to carry us forward."

***

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

It’s the Holiday Season, a time of good cheer, so let’s pretend for a moment that Covid-19 hasn’t made the last year thoroughly miserable for everyone, including the fur trade. After all, every cloud has a silver lining, right? What follows may seem like a stretch, but not everything about 2020 was bad.

Silver Lining 1: Closed Season on Retail Bans

Let’s start with something that didn’t happen in 2020: if there were any new campaigns launched to ban fur retail in the US, Truth About Fur didn’t hear about them. This bore out a prediction we made last March that, with the pandemic building, no one would have time to argue about animal rights.

Before the pandemic, animal rights groups were on a roll in California. They started small, in trendy West Hollywood, where a retail ban went into effect in 2013. Then Berkeley fell in 2017, San Francisco’s ban began last January, and a Los Angeles ban starts in 2021. In 2023, California’s statewide ban is scheduled to begin. (The sad irony, of course, is that the politicians who supported these bans pride themselves as being "progressives" -- in which case, as Truth About Fur's Alan Herscovici explained, they should be promoting fur, not trying to ban it!)

Activists tried the same tactics in New York City (and state) in 2019, but stalled in the face of stiff opposition. And, just before the pandemic reached the US, they were targeting Minneapolis.

The fur trade mounted challenges to all these campaigns -- and legal challenges forced San Francisco to acknowledge that furs can still be purchased by mail order in that city -- but putting out fires left and right is expensive and time-consuming. Then Covid-19 came and stole the show, ably supported by such explosive events as the Black Lives Matter riots and the US election. Any interest in talking up fur sales bans evaporated, and they remain irrelevant to this day.

It won’t last, of course. Once Covid is under control and there’s a slow news day (remember those?), animal rights extremists and attention-hungry politicians will be teaming up again. But until then, the fur trade can take a breather and regroup. It’s not much of a silver lining, but a breather was definitely needed!

Silver Lining 2: Denmark’s Loss May Be Your Gain

It’s never nice to benefit from another’s misfortune, but it happens in business all the time. Now the world’s largest exporter of mink has been struck down, and other producers -- especially in North America -- stand to gain.

In November, the Danish government ordered the culling of the country’s entire mink herd – believed to be about 14 million animals according to insiders, not 17 million as widely reported – after a mutation of the coronavirus was found that, some feared, might reduce the efficacy of a human vaccine. The government has admitted it had no legal authority to order the cull, and the threat posed by the mutation has been questioned (not least because it hasn’t been seen since September). But the cull went ahead anyway, and the Danish government has forbidden further breeding in that country until 2022.

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

It’s still unclear whether Denmark’s mink industry is really finished, but Kopenhagen Fur, the world’s largest auction house whose main supplier is the Danish Fur Breeders’ Association, seems to think so. “It is a de facto permanent closure and liquidation of the fur industry,” said chairman Tage Pedersen, who predicted 6,000 lost jobs -- including more than 1,100 farm families. The auction house has said it will clear reserve stocks while implementing "a controlled shutdown over a period of 2-3 years."

So what’s the silver lining here? Well, if the Danish industry is truly over, as Pedersen suggests, the next few years should see a significant drop in supply and, consequently, rising prices. In particular, North America's mink farmers should benefit since their fur pelts are widely considered to be the world’s finest, though its chief rival, Denmark, produced far more. Other fur types, like fox, may see a rebound too as garment makers look for alternatives.

In fact, Saga Furs, in Finland, may have shown a glimpse of the future on Dec. 15 when it concluded its first international auction – online, of course -- since the Danish cull. Summarizing the results for Truth About Fur, a representative said that almost all (90%) of the one million mink on offer were sold “at overall prices up by 50% since last auction, with North American mink sold at a premium. China, with support from Italy and Turkey, were the main buyers, with multiple bids per lot. Blue foxes were also up, by 17%, and shadow foxes up 10%.”

The mink-farming sector now has an unexpected opportunity to reset its output. Until 2013, when prices were peaking, many observers feared rapidly escalating over-production. Both prices and production have fallen since then, but with Denmark out of the picture, we could see a leaner, meaner, and more profitable industry with world production more closely aligned with actual demand. Of course, farmers in other countries might just ramp up production to fill the shortfall. But with prices still barely covering production costs (if that), and the current uncertainty in retail markets, it is unlikely that mink production will return to recently-seen levels any time soon.

Personally, I find it hard to believe Denmark’s mink industry will roll over and die so easily. But its production will, at the very least, take a major hit in the short- to mid-term. And therein, sad as it may be, lies a silver lining for most everyone else.

Silver Lining 3: The Rush to Replace NAFA Is On

Last but not least in our doggedly joyous roundup of 2020, there’s the North American auction scene. After the biggest player bowed out, a period of great uncertainty ensued as others jockeyed to take up the slack. They haven’t quite sorted themselves out yet, but the good news is that a number of strong options have already emerged.

Until late last year, North American Fur Auctions was, by far, the continent’s largest fur auction house. Based in Toronto with facilities in Wisconsin and elsewhere, NAFA was North America's leading marketer of both farmed and wild fur. This dominance was assured in 2018 with the collapse of its Seattle-based competitor, American Legend Cooperative.

And then it all came unglued. On Oct. 31, 2019, NAFA was granted creditor protection, leaving many fur farmers wondering how to sell their furs – or, for that matter, what would happen to furs already consigned to -- or sold by -- the auction house.

The auction scene is still in flux, with news that New York-based American Mink Exchange will be selling in collaboration with Fur Harvesters Auction in North Bay, while Saga Furs is also poised to play a stronger role in North America. Meanwhile, Fur Harvesters Auction -- a cooperative venture of First Nations and other trappers -- is gearing up to greatly expand its wild fur offerings, while Illinois-based Groenewold Fur & Wool Co. has stepped up its presence in Canada. Other projects are also rumoured to be in the works.

In the meantime, the silver lining of NAFA’s demise is that there seems to be no shortage of parties ready to take its place. Imagine if no one had wanted the job! But if there are two words that describe the people of the fur trade, they are "tenacity" and "adaptability". Let's see how they play out in 2021!

***

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

Quick to turn the misfortune of others to their own benefit, animal activists have jumped on reports about Covid-19 on mink farms in Europe (and some US states) to call for a complete ban on fur farming in North America. In media interviews and opinion pieces they are sounding the alarm that the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutated in Danish mink and, in some cases, was passed back to humans; this new mink-related strain could threaten the efficacy of future vaccines, they argue. Their fear-mongering received a boost when the Danish Government ordered the culling of millions of mink, citing the same concerns.

SEE ALSO: Covid-19 scaremongers wrong to pick on mink farms. Truth About Fur.

In fact, most public health authorities do not agree. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control issued a statement on November 12 in which it concluded that the overall level of risk to human health posed by SARS-CoV-2 mink-related variants is low for the general public, no different than other (non-mink) strains. (1)

World Health Organisation chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan said that “mutations [in viruses] are normal ... I don’t think we should come to any conclusions about whether this particular mutation is going to impact vaccine efficacy.” WHO spokesperson Dr. Margaret Harris added that some members of the international community and the media have misunderstood the threat level. (2)

Similarly, respected US virus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “It does not appear, at this point, that that mutation that’s been identified in the minks is going to have an impact on vaccines and affect a vaccine-induced response.”  (3)

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) stated that “although several animal species have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, these infections are not a driver of the COVID-19 pandemic; the pandemic is driven by human to human transmission.” (4)

Preventative Measures

The OIE does not propose mass culling of mink herds, let alone an end to mink farming. Rather, it advises a range of preventative measures including human testing; infection prevention and control for workers; animal testing and prevention of spread from animals; and the development of preparedness and response strategies. These are precisely the precautions that US and Canadian mink farmers have implemented to protect their animals, their own families, and the public.

North American mink farms, like most animal agriculture, maintain biosecurity protocols to prevent the spread of infection from wildlife or other farms. These measures were immediately tightened when it was learned that mink in Europe had contracted Covid-19 from humans. Only essential personnel are permitted onto farms, and workers who feel ill must be tested for Covid-19 before coming into contact with the animals. Masks, visors, and gloves are used when handling mink. If Covid-19 is found on a mink farm, this must be reported to the state or provincial chief veterinary officer and public health authorities, who decide whether further measures are required.

“The European situation gave us lead time to put stricter biosecurity into place,” said Matt Moses, a Nova Scotia mink farmer and president of the Canada Mink Breeders Association. No cases of Covid-19 have been found on Canadian mink farms, and while some cases were recently found on US farms, they appear to have been rapidly and effectively contained.

Mink farming is also very different in North America than in Europe. While some 3 million mink are being produced annually on about 200 farms spread out across Canada and the US, in Denmark, more than 1,200 farms were producing over 17 million mink in an area smaller than Vancouver Island -- or less than one-fifth the size of Wisconsin. The risk of inter-farm contagion is clearly far lower in North America.

Meanwhile, the “Cluster-5” Covid-19 mutation found on Danish mink farms has not been detected since mid-September, and has “most likely become extinct,” the Danish Health Ministry admitted last week. (5)

Neither "Cruel" Nor "Unnecessary"

None of this has dampened the enthusiasm of animal activists who sense an opportunity to deliver a body blow to the fur industry. There is no justification for taking even the smallest risk, because fur farming is “cruel” and “unnecessary”, they argue.

Cruel? In fact, animal welfare is a priority on North American mink farms. Producers work hard to provide their animals with excellent nutrition and care, as this is the only way to produce top-quality fur.

Unnecessary? Fur today is a sustainably-produced, hand-crafted, long-lasting, recyclable, and ultimately biodegradable, natural clothing material.

By contrast, the fake furs and other synthetics proposed by animal activists are generally made with petroleum, a non-renewable and non-biodegradable resource. These synthetics represent about 80 percent of our clothing, and leach millions of micro-particles of plastic into our waterways each time they are washed; plastics now being found in marine life. Cruelty-free indeed!

Mink are raised on small, family-run farms, supporting employment in rural communities. Mink help to reduce waste: they are fed left-overs from our own food production, the parts of cattle, poultry, and fish we don’t eat -- by-products that might otherwise end up in landfills. Mink manure, straw bedding, and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers, replenishing the soil and completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

As for the new risks posed by Covid-19, mink farmers take their biosecurity responsibilities very seriously, to protect their livelihoods, their animals, and their families. Of course, no one is obliged to wear fur -- or leather, or wool; or to eat meat or dairy -- but that does not give activist groups the right to unfairly attack the livelihoods and reputations of North American farming families.

NOTES:

1) Detection of new SARS-CoV-2 variants related to mink. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, November 12, 2020.

2) What's the science behind coronavirus? BBC, November 9, 2020.

3) Dr. Fauci says it appears Covid strain from Danish mink farms won’t be a problem for vaccines. CNBC, November 13, 2020.

4) Questions and answers on COVID-19. World Organisation for Animal Health, updated November 27, 2020.

5) Danish government may exhume hundreds of thousands of dead minks and burn them. Washington Post, November 27, 2020.

***

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

In response to an unexpected shortage this year of opportunities for aspiring fur designers, the Canadian fur trade has launched a whole new competition. Ten lucky winners of the inaugural Student Fur Design Competition will enjoy an all-expenses-paid week-long workshop, learning not only techniques for working with fur, but also why fur is a responsible choice in an age when we are all being called upon to wear sustainable and ethical clothing.

The competition was launched on October 28, but the deadline for entries is not until January 15, so there's still plenty of time folks!

What makes this competition special is that it's truly a group effort, with the list of contributors reading like a who's who of the Canadian fur trade. In alphabetical order we have the Canada Mink Breeders Association, the Fur Council of Canada, Fur Harvesters Auction, the Fur Institute of Canada, International Fur Dressers and Dyers, the Ontario Fur Breeders Association, the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, and the Seals and Sealing Network. Coordinating them all is Melanie Calandra, Managing Director of Canadian Relations for the International Fur Federation - Americas Region.

The workshop itself will be held at Ryerson University in downtown Toronto, under the auspices of Canadian Fur Atelier, a new name for an old hand, Farley Chatto, who is both a Ryerson professor and designer in residence at Four Seasons Furs.

Successor to Studio NAFA

The competition is not so much a new idea as a response to fill a gap created by two major developments, explains coordinator Melanie.

"In 2007, North American Fur Auctions launched Studio NAFA, a series of annual workshops for aspiring fur designers, led by none other than Farley Chatto. But when NAFA closed its doors in 2019, that meant the end of the workshops too."

Then came Covid-19, and the fur trade's premier international design competition, REMIX, had to be cancelled.

"The International Fur Federation, which organises REMIX in collaboration with Vogue Italia and Vogue Talents, just couldn't go ahead due to travel restrictions," says Melanie. "And that was when we reached out to Farley and Fur Harvesters Auction with the idea of launching a whole new event.”

Pandemic Concessions

Still, concessions have had to be made to the pandemic. Unlike Studio NAFA and REMIX, which were both open to designers from around the world, for this year at least the Student Fur Design Competition will be strictly a national event, open only to Canadian students and recent graduates.

"When Covid-19 is behind us, who knows what the future may hold," says Melanie. "But for now, we are happy to provide an opportunity for our fellow countrymen at least."

Also reflecting life under lockdown, the competition stage - during which winners will be selected to take part in the workshop - will be held entirely online. Using their imaginations only and no actual furs, entrants will sketch three designs incorporating furs produced in Canada: mink, fox, beaver, raccoon, seal, muskrat, coyote, fisher and sable/marten.

Winners will then use those same furs for real at the Toronto workshop, which is scheduled for August, but no date has been cast in stone.

"Covid permitting, August is the target," says Melanie. "But of course our priority will be everyone's safety, so if we need to reschedule, we'll do so, no question."

Highlighting Sustainability, Ethics

Aside from inspiring students to get creative with fur, the competition's organisers have another very clear goal.

"This is more than just a design competition," says Melanie. "Of course the workshop will cover fashion trends and innovative techniques for working with different furs, and we want participants to explore the versatility of this unique, natural material. But just as important, we want them to understand fur's environmental and ethical credentials."

Today's fashion industry is dominated by fast fashion, she explains, much of which is made of synthetic materials derived from petroleum. Petroleum is non-renewable and therefore unsustainable, its extraction and processing are polluting, and materials produced from it don't biodegrade.

"The fashion industry as a whole is now being challenged to be more environmentally responsible, and fur is one of the most environmentally friendly clothing materials around. So the workshop will look at the sustainability of fur in every area of the trade, from farming to trapping to dressing to manufacturing."

"We'll talk about the 52,000 tons of food waste Canada's fur farms divert from landfills each year, how the manure is used as fertilizer, and mink oil makes biodiesel. We'll talk about the role played by trappers in wildlife management and the protection of endangered species. We'll talk about the importance of trapping in keeping remote communities viable. And we'll put all this in the context of a fashion industry dominated by synthetics, and of the importance, now more than ever before, of shopping sustainably. Why buy a coat for a season when you can buy one to last a lifetime?"

The workshop will also examine the ethics of using animals for human benefit, with an emphasis on the importance of animal welfare.

"It is vital that fur designers of tomorrow know the realities of the modern fur trade so they are equipped to defend what they do," explains Melanie. "They need to know why fur is an ethical choice, and why the narrative pushed by animal rights groups is so misleading.

"Today's youth are a socially and environmentally aware generation, and our workshop will give future fur designers a solid platform from which to demonstrate why natural fur is the responsible choice."

***

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

The Israeli Government recently announced that permits for the importation, fabrication or sale of fur will no longer be issued, except for religious, scientific, or educational purposes. In short, the fur business will be effectively banned by regulation, by-passing the normal legislative process that was tried -- and failed -- a decade ago. This short-circuiting of due process is justified because banning fur is a moral issue, claims Minister of Environmental Protection Gila Gamliel. "Utilizing the skin and fur of wildlife for the fashion industry is immoral,” she insists. But she's so wrong.

What does it mean to say that using fur – or any other animal product -- is “immoral”? Some of the best research into public attitudes about using animals was done by the Canadian Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing. Based on opinion polling in six Western democracies (the UK, France, Germany, Norway, Canada, and the US), the Commission determined that four criteria must be met for animal use to be considered morally acceptable. Let’s see how the modern fur trade measures up to these four criteria:

1. Sustainability

For animal use to be considered morally acceptable, it must not threaten the survival of the species. So it’s important to know that all the fur used today comes from abundant populations, and never from endangered species.

Eighty percent of fur is produced on farms, so there's no threat to wildlife there.

The remaining 20% -- the wild fur trade -- is strictly regulated in North America by states and provinces, and internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. These laws and regulations ensure we are using only part of the surplus that nature produces each year, because beavers, muskrats, martens, raccoons, and other furbearers produce more young than their habitat can support to adulthood.

The regulated fur trade is, in fact, an excellent example of “the responsible and sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, as promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

2. Animal Welfare

The second criterion for moral acceptability is that the animals we use should suffer as little stress or pain as possible. The modern fur trade takes this responsibility very seriously.

In Canada, mink and fox farmers follow codes of practice developed under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), with veterinarians, animal scientists, and animal-welfare authorities. Other countries have similar production codes, and farmers have every reason to follow them, because the only way to produce high-quality fur is to provide optimal nutrition, housing, and care.

Animal welfare is also a priority in the wild fur trade: Canada has been a world-leader in humane trapping research and innovation since the 1970s. This research, coordinated by the Fur Institute of Canada, has resulted in improved trapping systems, trapper training, and regulations, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.

Activist claims about fur animals being “skinned alive” or otherwise mistreated have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

3. Important Use

A third moral criterion revealed by the Royal Commission is that animals should not be killed for “frivolous purposes”. This argument is at the core of much anti-fur campaigning, and is echoed by Gamliel in her assertion that it is immoral to kill animals “for fashion”.

Gamliel conveniently ignores the fact that animal-rights activists now openly oppose any use of animals, even for food. But to address the point at hand, humans have to wear something, and there is nothing frivolous about our need for long-lasting, eco-responsible clothing.

The fake furs and other synthetics promoted by animal activists are usually made from petroleum, a polluting, greenhouse gas-producing, non-renewable and non-biodegradable material. We now also know that these synthetics (which represent 80% of our clothing) leach nano-particles of plastic into our waterways each time they are washed, plastics that are now being found in the digestive tracts of marine life and even our drinking water. Cruelty-free indeed!

Fur, by contrast, is a long-lasting, renewable, recyclable, and ultimately biodegradable natural clothing material. So wearing fur is not so frivolous after all, especially at a time when we are trying to develop more sustainable lifestyles.

4. Complete Use

The fourth criterion for moral acceptability is that when an animal is killed to benefit humans, there should be no waste. This is why most people - animal-rightists excepted - consider it morally acceptable to use leather, because it’s the envelope that dinner came in. We ate the meat, so why not wear the skin?

All too often, however, people fail to understand that fur also respects this "no waste" principle.

In fact, farmed mink and fox help to reduce waste in our food production system, by consuming the parts of cows, chickens, pigs, and fish that humans don't eat. Furthermore, the manure, soiled straw bedding, and carcasses of farmed mink and fox are composted to produce organic fertilizer, returning nutrients to the soil and completing the agricultural cycle.

Meanwhile, beavers, muskrats and other wild furbearers provide food for trappers and their families, or are returned to the bush to feed other animals through the long, cold winter. Nothing is wasted.

Inconvenient Facts

If Minister Gamliel were to honestly apply the criteria above, she would have to acknowledge that the modern, well-regulated fur trade is as morally responsible as other commonly accepted uses of animals in our society, for food, clothing and other purposes.

And there are other serious problems with her "immorality" argument.

In North America (and other regions) where wild furbearers actually abound, populations have to be managed whether we use the fur or not. Overpopulated beavers flood farmland, roads, and homes; raccoons and foxes become more susceptible to rabies and other dangerous diseases; coyotes prey on livestock and are now taking pets in urban areas; and the list goes on. But if some of these animals must be culled to protect property and health, is it "immoral" to use their furs? Quite the opposite, in fact. The immoral deed would be to throw those furs away.

Meanwhile, Gamliel faces some moral dilemmas on her own doorstep, because her proposed ban would exempt furs used for “religious  purposes”. Obviously her intent here is to neutralize opposition from ultra-orthodox coalition partners, whose haredi men wear large fur hats, or shtreimels, on the Sabbath and other Holy Days. But these hats don't reflect any true religious practice; actually, they are rooted in 17th-century Eastern European fashion. Gamliel's exemption is driven solely by political expediency. So much for moral imperatives!

Then there's the inconvenient fact that the sacred Torah – the very heart of Judaism – is written on parchment, which is an animal pelt with the hair scraped off. Similarly, the prayers scrolled inside the mezuzot that grace every door of a Jewish house are also written on animal hides.

But what of the Jewish doctrine of bal tashchit – “do not destroy”, which is often cited by animal activists in Israel? In fact, bal tashchit is derived from a commandment in the Torah to not destroy fruit trees outside the walls of a city under siege. It is a recognition that people will need food, no matter who wins, and is one of the world’s first written environmental protection laws. It promotes responsible use and sustainability. But it certainly does not command us to abstain from using animals to meet human needs.

The Politics of Morality

In light of all the above, it is clear that Gamliel's proposal to ban fur has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is just politically expedient virtue-signalling to curry favour with Israel's strong animal-rights lobby, while the financial cost is born by farmers and trappers half a world away.

Apart from streimmels, there is little fur trading in Israel, which is why international animal-rights groups have identified it as an easy target, a thin edge of the wedge. But if one country should understand the dangers of embracing calls for scapegoating and ostracizing the fur trade, it is Israel, which itself is targeted by the militant Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) on university campuses around the world – often the same people who campaign against the fur trade!

No one is obliged to wear fur – or leather or wool, or to eat meat or dairy. Everyone is entitled to draw their own line concerning the appropriate use of animals, so long as sustainability and animal welfare concerns are respected. What cannot be justified in a modern democracy are political bans aimed at imposing one group's views on everyone else.

When a ban on fur trading was last proposed in Israel, ten years ago, I testified before a Knesset committee hearing on behalf of the International Fur Federation. I reminded the committee members that animal-rights activists also campaign against kosher slaughter in many European countries, in concert with anti-semitic hate groups. I also reminded them that Jews -- including my own family -- have played a prominent role in the international fur trade, and that anti-fur campaigns have sometimes included anti-semitic innuendos.

The turning point in the committee meeting, however, came when the chairman read from a letter received that morning from then Canadian Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan. Van Loan reminded the committee that Canada has always been a loyal friend and ally of Israel, and that the regulated fur trade supports the livelihoods and cultures of thousands of First Nations and other Canadians, especially in rural and remote regions. The governments of Denmark, Greece, the US, and the EU also expressed concern at a proposal that would scapegoat a responsibly regulated and sustainable industry. Suddenly, there was a political cost to banning fur. The proposal was quietly dropped.

This time around, Gamliel hopes to side-step the legislative process and ban fur trading with a simple regulatory change, a much quicker procedure. It is important that people who support the fur trade and consumer freedom again call on their own governments to intervene, to put some balance into this discussion. (See, below)

Let me conclude with a last word about shtreimels. While there’s no theological basis to the tradition of donning these splendid sable-trimmed hats, haredi men often say that the beauty and craftsmanship of a shtreimel show respect both for the Sabbath and for the animals that were used to make it. Fur apparel is, in fact, a marriage of the beauty of nature with human creativity. Wearing fur should remind all of us of our dependence on nature, and of our responsibility to protect it. If we wear fur with this consciousness, it becomes a moral act. The Israeli Minister’s cynical proposal to ban fur most certainly is not.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

It is unclear how quickly the regulatory change proposed to ban most fur trading in Israel can be implemented, but it is likely that only international diplomatic pressure can stop it. Ask your government to express concern about this arbitrary and anti-ecological ban. The following links may help.

CANADA
Embassy of Canada in Israel
Embassy of Israel in Canada
Find your Canadian Member of Parliament
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau email: [email protected]
Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois-Philippe.Champagne email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Embassy of the US in Israel
Embassy of Israel in the US
Office of the US Trade Representative

***

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

I hate to say "I told you so!" but only a fool could not have seen this coming. A few short years ago, while clearly being manipulated by animal rights groups, a wave of designer brands very publicly announced they would be dropping fur. Inevitably, they are now being pressured to drop exotic skins too, and many are capitulating. After all, how can fur be bad, but exotic skins ok? The question now is: how much of their core business are the big luxury conglomerates ready to sacrifice on the altar of political correctness?

Indeed, all the arguments for and against fur and exotic skins are essentially the same. On the one hand, both are beautiful natural materials, and if produced responsibly, they're renewable and sustainable, leaving a negligible environmental footprint. On the other hand, both involve the taking of life, which animal rights groups oppose on principle and work hard to present as cruel. For a contemporary twist, those same groups now also claim that trading in furs and exotic skins increases the risk of pandemics like Covid-19.

Yet this time around, advocates of sustainable use are hoping for some stiffer resistance, and specifically from two of the world's largest luxury goods conglomerates, LVMH and Kering. Not only do their corporate policies strongly endorse sustainability, but they are also invested in their supply chains for exotic skins. It seems unlikely they will abandon these investments without a fight.

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

As a subplot to the bigger story, the fur trade should watch Kering subsidiary Gucci closely. This iconic brand rocked the fashion world in 2017 when it dropped fur in the name of "sustainability". If it now dumps exotic skins, that would at least be consistent. But if it toes the Kering line and sticks with exotic skins, how will it explain the double standard?

So What Are "Exotic Skins"?

But first, let's clarify what an "exotic skin" is. It's a loose category used by the Western fashion industry mostly for the skins of reptiles - snakes, crocodilians, and lizards. Some fish are in there too, like stingrays and sharks. And then there are ostriches. (The jury seems to be out on whether kangaroo leather is exotic or not.)

Some animals are taken in the wild - obviously stingrays and sharks - but most are now farmed, with ostrich and croc farming having long histories. As for where the skins end up, most are used for shoes, bags and belts, plus a few jackets and hats.

To put the current exodus from exotic skins in context, we need to turn the clock back just four years or so. For two decades, animal rights groups - led by PETA and HSUS - had been pressuring designers to drop fur. And then suddenly, the dominoes started to fall. Armani, Hugo Boss, Versace, Gucci, John Galliano, Burberry, Prada - the list just kept on growing.

A very few, like Donatella Versace, seemed genuinely happy to drop fur, but all were either nudged gently or prodded hard by PETA and HSUS. And when they succumbed, they usually felt compelled to make public statements against fur that inevitably made it harder for other fur-using brands to stand their ground.

And to make it harder still, animal rights groups made sure these brands got lots of press coverage and showered them with "green" points. Yes, "green", because this mass defection from fur was not couched in animal rights terms, and only partially as animal welfare. Above all, we were told, it was about "sustainability". In short, by ditching fur, these brands were saving the planet!

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur? Truth About Fur.

Gucci's "Sustainability" Claim Slammed

None of the new converts appeared more opportunistic -- or misinformed -- than Gucci, previously such a prolific user of fur. And to make matters worse, Gucci is seen as a leader in the luxury sector, so its influence on other brands and the negative press it generated for fur were tremendous.

In 2017, Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri raised the eyebrows of anyone who understood sustainability when he announced the company's new policy. Dropping fur, he explained, was a demonstration of “our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business.” So, bizarrely, it was goodbye to renewable, biodegradable, natural fur, and hello to non-biodegradable fake fur made from non-renewable petroleum.

SEE ALSO: Fur-free Gucci policy contradicts company's "sustainability" claims. Truth About Fur.

As if that were not bizarre enough, conspicuous by its absence was any suggestion by Bizzarri that Gucci might drop exotic skins. His animal rights handlers were also silent on the subject, but was he really naive enough to think that would last?

In fact, for several years Gucci's parent company, Kering, has been in a partnership with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in a conservation and sustainable use project farming pythons. Cooperative ventures of this type are now commonplace for species in the exotic skin trade, securing supply chains while relieving pressure on wild populations, not least by reducing poaching. In short, Kering's python farm is the epitome of sustainability.

So sooner or later Gucci will have to address a quandary of its own making. An estimated 85% of fur today comes from farms (and wild-fur harvesting is strictly regulated), but Bizzarri says the trade is unsustainable. Meanwhile, Kering supplies his company with farmed python skins. Will Gucci now defy Kering and drop exotic skins too? Or will it make the totally unsupportable claim that snake farming is sustainable but fur farming is not?

First to Fold: Chanel

First to fall among exotic skin users was independent fashion house Chanel, in 2018, and it came out of the blue. Designer Karl Lagerfeld told Women's Wear Daily it was "a free choice" rather than “being imposed on us. We did it because it’s in the air," implying that animal rights groups were not directly involved. It was generally assumed that Chanel's weak supply chain for exotic skins meant it could no longer meet its needs, so it just threw in the towel.

Whatever Chanel's motivation, it went public with the decision and PETA made a big song and dance over it, so they both got their free publicity.

And then, as in the fur exodus, others followed suit, all garnering the same free publicity and lavish praise from animal rights groups.

Since last year, the following brands have sworn off exotic skins, and there are surely others: Victoria Beckham, Jil Sander, Paul Smith, Mulberry, Vivienne Westwood, Diane von Furstenberg, SMCP (parent of Sandro, Maje, Claudie Pierlot and De Fursac), and PVH (owner of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger). Retailers Selfridges, Brooks Brothers, Topshop, and H&M won't be stocking exotic skins anymore, and Nordstrom will phase them out by the end of 2021. And three fashion weeks so far have banned them: Melbourne, Helsinki and Stockholm.

But LVMH Calls Fur and Exotic Skins "Precious"

Yet perversely, this latest triumph of animal rights over sustainable use may be a blessing in disguise - the wakeup call the luxury industry needs to say enough is enough. Both LVMH and Kering are committed to exotic skins and fur, and while they don't dictate what materials their subsidiaries use, they have huge influence. They also have a public voice, so if they're ever going to make a strong stand in support of sustainable use, now is the time.

LVMH oversees such household names in fashion as Celine, Christian Dior, Fendi, Givenchy, Louis Vitton, Marc Jacobs, among many others. Kering's stable is smaller but nonetheless impressive. In addition to Gucci, it represents names like Yves Saint Laurent, Balenciaga and Alexander McQueen.

So it was gratifying that at its virtual annual shareholders' meeting last June, LVMH issued a strong endorsement of both exotic skins and fur.

As a shareholder, PETA emailed a question asking whether LVMH would be giving up fur and exotic skins "as of today". Group managing director Antonio Belloni responded (at 46:28): "This is a recurring question on their part. Now, our position is that natural raw materials constitute a precious material and are at the heart of the outstanding products of our houses. Each house can decide on these materials, but must strictly comply with our code of practice pertaining to responsible sourcing of animal raw materials that sets out long-term commitments in three areas: traceability of supplies, animal welfare, and lastly the respect for local populations, the environment, and biodiversity."

The problem is, this endorsement didn't grab any headlines, but that just underscores the lack of media clout sustainable users have compared with animal rights groups. If LVMH had come out against exotic skins and fur, PETA and HSUS would have had the story on every front page from New York to Shanghai. Bottom line: there is a story here, and we just need to be more effective at telling it.

As animal rights groups continue to pressure luxury conglomerates to drop exotic skins and fur, the fur trade should be looking to revitalise the strategic alliance it has long had with these corporations, and demand they stand up and be counted. And if clueless Gucci continues to embrace exotic skins while rejecting fur, we should demand to know why.

***

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

Like so many in the industry, Dan Kahnert’s relationship with fur is a family affair. “My great-grandfather learned the fur trade in Germany and came to Canada in the late 1800s. His son, my grandfather, moved to Toronto where he would travel around taking orders, and then cut and sew coats in his home. It was my father, Allan, who opened our first showroom on Avenue Road in 1957, where Kahnert’s is still located.

“I would help out at the store on weekends, and decided by the end of high school that I wanted to join the family business. That’s what I did in 1984, after completing my degree in economics and business at the University of Western Ontario. I arrived home with all my college furniture and everything on April 30 and began working full-time in the store the next day; it was storage season and there was no time for a break!

“We worked hard, six days a week, but I enjoyed the challenges of running a business, being our own bosses, analysing problems and implementing a plan. My older brothers, Bernie and John, were already working at the store with my father, and John and I still run the business together today. It really helped that dad was very open to letting us try new ideas, like when I brought in computers in the 1990s.”

"A Pleasure Doing Business"

So what does Dan like best about being a retail furrier?

“In addition to working with my brother and running our own business, what I enjoy most is the opportunity to meet lots of new people. While not every customer is easy, as everyone working in retail knows, generally we meet lots of very nice people. When we say, ‘It’s been a pleasure doing business with you,’ it’s not just a cliché, it really is how we feel.”

We are proud to do our part to promote fur on behalf of all the people who make up this uniquely Canadian heritage industry!

“Fur retailing does have one very important advantage: we see our customers twice a year, for storage pick-up and delivery. This continuing relationship with our customers is quite unique. When customers come into the store in the Fall to pick up their coats, we have an opportunity to show them our new collections, and a large proportion of our sales are to repeat customers. Repairs, alterations, and remodelling are also important parts of our business, and, again, we have an opportunity to discuss these options with our customers at storage time.

“But the bottom line is that, as a retailer, your success depends on satisfying your customer. We are located in a wonderful residential neighbourhood and therefore do not rely on tourist sales that might occur in downtown Toronto. We rely on community word of mouth with support from our online business. We have one of the city’s best collections of high-quality coats, and we work hard to take good care of every customer."

Adapting to Animal Rights Campaigns

How has the business changed over the years?

“There’s no way around it, aggressive animal rights campaigning has hurt us," says Dan. "Most people still love fur, but the activists have made them feel nervous about wearing it. Some of these intimidation campaigns are really a form of violence against women, which is very sad.

“Unfortunately, we have difficulty getting across our messages about the real environmental advantages of wearing fur. Fur is a sustainably produced, long-lasting, recyclable and biodegradable natural material. Animal activists have created very damaging confusion about the real environmental issues. It makes no sense telling people to use petroleum-based synthetics instead of long-lasting natural and biodegradable materials. The saddest thing is that most consumers we speak with do appreciate the warmth, comfort and beauty of natural fur, but they feel intimidated.

Fur, unfortunately, has become a scapegoat ... We don’t have the financial or professional clout that large corporations can muster to tell their story when they are attacked.

“We have adapted, of course: we will sell our customer a shearling coat – because, ironically, shearling is not seen as fur. Or a fur-lined coat. We have also added cashmere and other cloth coats, with or without fur trim. Not because there’s anything wrong with fur, but because fur has been tangled up in a very complex societal discussion about using animals, which includes everything from medical research to circuses to eating meat.

"Fur, unfortunately, has become a scapegoat, because we are really a very small-scale industry. We don’t have the financial or professional clout that large corporations can muster to tell their story when they are attacked.”

After the Pandemic?

So how do you see the future of fur retailing?

“I don’t think fur will ever really go out of style, because it is so in tune with growing environmental concerns," says Dan. "We have to keep working on telling that story. But ultimately it is up to the consumer to make an educated decision on the benefits of buying fur products."

So what about the Covid-19 pandemic? Will that have a lasting impact?

“In more than thirty years in business, I have seen many highs and lows, and for sure the industry will be very different once the pandemic ends and we get through this difficult period.

"For one thing, every sector of the industry will be smaller in scale. I think fur is likely to be more of a niche market, for those who appreciate high-quality natural materials and fine craftsmanship. I think there’s a percentage of the population that will be ready to appreciate fur as a natural, truly environmentally sustainable clothing material. But it’s always hard to predict what consumers will decide.

"We are on the front line with consumers, and we are proud to do our part to promote fur on behalf of all the people who make up this uniquely Canadian heritage industry!”

SEE ALSO: Fur retail: The art and science of making sales. Truth About Fur.

***

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

With the slogan #Reconnect - Time to Slow Down, a new campaign by the International Fur Federation urges designers, independent brands, fashion groups as well as consumers to change their consumption habits to help the planet. Sustainable sourcing, producing less, reducing waste, reducing pollution, buying fewer but higher quality garments, and wearing them for longer. This reflects growing criticism of the environmental harm caused by our “fast fashion” culture, while also highlighting fur’s solid credentials as a sustainable natural resource.

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

So what does it take to create a campaign like this? Truth About Fur talked with the man responsible for pulling it all together, IFF's fashion director Jean-Pierre Rouphael.

Truth About Fur: The principal video for this campaign contains a powerful indictment of the fast fashion scene: "Just spend your money, shelf it, wear it, post it, chuck it, REPEAT." As an alternative, you urge us to "Reconnect" with nature, and give it a helping hand by buying fewer garments and wearing them for longer. It's "Time to Slow Down." Support for this sentiment has been growing in recent years, and many in the trade believe fur should be part of this movement. Is it time to put it centre stage?

Jean-Pierre Rouphael: Yes, the conversation has been brewing for a while and keeps aligning closer to the fur industry's values, so the world is definitely ready for this. At IFF, we've been developing this message for the past three years, and this campaign is a continuation. In 2018, we began presenting fur as "natural" and '"kind to the planet", and promoted this heavily via Vogue magazine in eight markets. This has helped influence the media conversation about natural fur versus fake fur, and more broadly has given the fur industry a voice in the sustainable fashion conversation. Our latest campaign builds on this same message, while staying consistent and focused.

TAF: A consistent message makes sense for the fur trade, given that our sustainability credentials are so strong. But while you were developing this campaign, the Covid-19 pandemic struck. Has that changed fashion conversations at all?

Rouphael: It has definitely further prioritised the sustainability agenda and put it at the forefront of those conversations. The pandemic has shown in practice the positives that happen once we slow down - cleaner air, cleaner waters, a nature reboot. People have found a new appreciation for nature, and the industry is taking notice.

The pandemic has also changed the way fashion conversations are taking place. Before Covid, key fashion conferences were typically expensive affairs, for paying guests only. But the pandemic has pushed them to open up, so now anyone can log in remotely from home via Zoom and be part of what were formerly closed conversations. Interestingly, a recent panel discussion I attended also touched on the rise of siti casino italiani, exploring how digital platforms in various industries, including online gaming and fashion, have had to adapt to shifting consumer behaviors. The discussion highlighted how brands are leveraging interactive and immersive digital experiences to engage audiences in ways that were previously unimaginable. The pandemic has also given us more free time to listen in, making it easier for us to put our hand on the industry's pulse.

Pulse of the Industry

TAF: And what have you learned? What is the "pulse" of the industry?

Rouphael: We are delighted to see that the fashion industry today is calling for the exact same things the fur industry has been advocating for many years. Quality, long-lasting, handmade, investment pieces made from sustainable materials and not depleting nature's resources. Overall, a promotion of slower fashion.

And this provided the base for our current campaign. We believe that natural fur is exactly the kind of material the fashion industry is calling for right now. For every quality the fashion industry wants to promote, a fur garment checks all the boxes.

Our task was to transform this concept into a campaign that is visual, educational, aspirational, and easily absorbable by end consumers.

"It Takes an Army"

TAF: Your behind-the-scenes photos show that a lot of people were involved in bringing this campaign to life.

Rouphael: All IFF campaigns are big collaborative projects. They start in-house, but once we've defined what we want to say, we invite outside parties to join. And when they say it takes an army, it's true! Almost 50 people were involved in different capacities in this campaign.

After the director and I agreed the visual direction to take and signed the storyboard, we set about choosing the best team, and the list was long! We needed a producer, a director of photography, lighting, retouching, hair and makeup, a casting director, a stylist, a behind-the-scenes photographer and videographer, a location manager, an editor, a copywriter, someone for voiceovers, a catering manager, and assistants all round.

Plus, of course, we needed a cast of models, and it was important to us that they represent a broad mix of ethnicities, as well as different shapes and sizes.

TAF: Didn't Covid-19 have an impact here too? The IFF is based in London. Wasn't there a lockdown?

Rouphael: It's not generally known that we actually shot the campaign in Dubai! The Covid rules were more relaxed there, and the budget was more affordable. Even so, we were all tested Covid-free prior to and post the 14-hour shoot, and had a government medic assigned to us throughout.

Still, Dubai did present some challenges. For one, we shot part of the campaign outdoors, and when the temperature tops 40°C it's not ideal for modelling fur! But the models and the team were ultra-professional, and you really can't tell from the videos and photos how difficult it was.

We also had to find a location with massive panoramic windows with green backdrops so we could shoot indoors but make it look like we were outdoors. And then there was the challenge of getting the fashion into Dubai as Covid was delaying shipments. For this reason, the stylist and I limited the number of brands we used and chose ones which were geographically closer. Still, we ended up with nine brilliant brands, and about 15 looks.

And after the actual shoot, we then had the post-production tasks of editing the videos, selecting the final photographs, and deciding the mood for retouching.

Last but not least, our website developer created a page to host all the new content, and compiled a media kit to deliver to all IFF members around the world.

Measuring Success

TAF: Once a shoot is a wrap, how do you launch a campaign and then measure its success?

Rouphael: The main objective of all our recent campaigns has been to position fur as part of responsible natural fashion, with an emphasis on its sustainability. At the same time, of course, we want to keep fur's image current and fashionable.

Every year, and depending on our budget, we work out a media plan pre-release and identify global print, digital and social media outlets we want to collaborate with, and accordingly make our bookings ready to launch. After the campaign wraps, we get all the analytics from the media with how many people clicked on the ads, how many people came to our website after seeing an ad, how many people we have reached in general, and so on. And then we report these numbers back to IFF's members.

This year, unfortunately, we don't have a budget to promote the campaign through external media (whether print or online), but we'll still be posting and boosting the campaign via our own social media. It's not the optimum way to reach the widest audience possible, but IFF has 55 member associations, and each of those has its own members, so it's amazing how far a campaign can reach when everyone is ready to share.

***

How You Can Help ...

Whether you're a member of the trade or just a fur fan with a blog or social media account, you can help spread IFF's message by sharing this campaign.

The simplest way is just to link to IFF's landing page for this campaign, where all the materials are on show and you can understand the story. To share specific materials or to combine them with your own content, they're all available for downloading from a dedicated public Dropbox link. We all have the power to influence the fashion conversation, so please, get sharing!

***

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

This opinion piece by Truth About Fur's Alan Herscovici was published in the Vancouver Sun on July 22, 2020, under the headline: "BC mink farms are family owned and operated and these farmers respect animal welfare." Note: On August 17, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food announced the first confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 on mink farms in North America.)

In a July 13 column, Lesley Fox, executive director of The Furbearers, and infectious disease doctors Jan Hajek and Robert Reynolds played on concerns about COVID-19 to call for an end to mink farming in B.C.

To justify their proposal, the authors cited a recent Dutch government decision to close farms after a number of mink contracted the virus from infected workers, but they omit to mention that a politically motivated ban on mink farming was already coming into force in that country. The reaction of other European governments - including Denmark, the EU’s most important producer of farmed mink - was to enhance monitoring and established farm biosecurity measures.

In fact, antibodies for COVID-19 were also found in several farm cats in Holland. It’s known that cats, hamsters and other animals are also susceptible to COVID-19, and Dutch researchers believe the virus may have been spread between farms by feral cats. Interestingly, Fox doesn’t propose banning cats in B.C. 

The authors of the recent column acknowledge that “secluded mink farms are unlikely to be a major source of community spread.” This is true: in Holland, as a precaution, air and dust samples were collected in the vicinity of affected farms but no sign of the virus was found. The fact that mink are raised “behind closed doors” is reason for reassurance, not concern.

Claims that mink are 'hidden from public and government scrutiny' are simply not true.

Nonetheless, Fox et al. stoke fears that raising animals in an enclosed space might provide “favourable conditions for viruses to evolve towards more virulent forms.” This argument could apply to any animal husbandry, and vegan activists have already jumped on this bandwagon to call for an end to meat and dairy production. This ignores the fact that animal scientists have gained considerable knowledge about the relatively small number of species we raise on farms. Of much greater concern are pathogens spread by wild species - think mosquitoes - which are becoming especially unpredictable because of climate change.

Similarly, claims that mink are "hidden from public and government scrutiny" are simply not true. B.C. mink farms are licensed annually and inspected every two years (sometimes more often) by the Ministry of Agriculture’s compliance, operations and data officers. These officials report directly to the province’s chief veterinary officer.

Mink Farms Not "Factory Farms"

Like most animal agriculture in Canada, B.C. mink farmers follow codes of practice developed under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council, with veterinarians, animal scientists and animal-welfare authorities.

B.C. mink farms are inspected by licensed vets and third-party auditors, and certified to ensure that the codes are respected. Farmers who don’t provide proper care for their animals can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code.

More to the point, mink farmers have every reason to provide excellent care for their animals, because this is the only way to produce the high-quality mink that Canada is known for.

Far from being “industrial” or “factory farms,” B.C. mink farms are family owned and operated. They provide employment and support rural communities. Claims that these hardworking B.C. farm families would mistreat animals or keep mink in unsafe or “miserable conditions” are unjustified and insulting.

Instead of slandering B.C. mink farms, we should recognize their contributions to rural economies and environmental sustainability. Mink are fed leftovers from our own food production: the parts of pigs, cows, chickens and fish that we don’t eat and might otherwise end up in landfills.

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

Unlike today’s “fast fashion,” fur apparel can be restyled and passed down through generations. After 40 or more years of use, fur can be thrown into the garden compost and it returns to the soil.

By contrast, the synthetic alternatives proposed by animal activists are usually made from petrochemicals, a non-renewable resource. Such synthetics leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways each time they’re washed - micro-particles that are now being found in marine life. Cruelty-free indeed!

Of course, no one is obliged to wear fur or leather, or to eat meat or dairy. But that doesn’t give animal activists the right to insult the moral integrity of B.C. farmers, let alone impose their beliefs on others with political bans.

Mink farming is a part of B.C.’s agricultural heritage, but it also has an important place in our future. As we seek to reduce waste, environmentalists say we should buy better quality clothing and keep it longer -- making fur an ideal choice.

SEE ALSO: COVID-19 and Animals, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated June 22, 2020. "Based on the limited information available to date, the risk of animals spreading COVID-19 to people is considered to be low."

***

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

Animal rights NGOs are currently exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic to close down animal farms and prohibit all trade in wildlife. I am on the frontline of that battle. From 1982 to 1990, I headed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Today I speak as a founder and coordinator of the Sustainable Use Alliance, which seeks to represent the interests of countries, wildlife farmers, fisherfolk, traders, hunters, trappers and others who support the wise use of flora and fauna. So, here comes our beef.

I’ve been associated with CITES for around 45 years. In that time, I have witnessed a paradigm shift. Unlike when I was in charge, in the 21st century a CITES Conference of the Parties, or CoP, resembles a religious festival. The activists that attend in great numbers are immune to rational argument because they are on a mission to save nature from humanity. During debates, especially when they win the vote, activists stamp their feet, wave banners, clap and cheer, while sometimes dressed in animal costumes - synthetic, of course. They arrive at CITES CoPs with fixed agendas, secure in the knowledge that they have predetermined most of the outcomes.

How this transformation occurred takes some explaining, so let’s start at the beginning.

Mission Creep

In the early 1970s, as a representative of the Canadian government, I played a small part in the creation of CITES, and I was proud to have been given that opportunity. Then almost ten years later, I was prouder still to be made its secretary-general. Back then I thought, as I still do, that CITES was a much-needed intergovernmental institution, which implemented improvements to the regulatory status of flora and fauna that were being endangered by international trade.

But over the decades, external meddlers took control of CITES' affairs and mission creep set in.

Species that CITES was never meant or equipped to list have been listed regardless of the consequences.

Today, numerous species that are not endangered by trade, and some of which are barely traded, have been added to the three CITES Appendices - lists of species afforded different levels or types of protection from over-exploitation.

Species such as most marine fish, that CITES was never meant or equipped to list, have been listed regardless of the consequences. Often CITES lacks the ability to implement listings effectively, or the listings undermine other more appropriate regulatory regimes. For land-based species, the consequences include depriving nations of the financial means and/or incentives to conserve species, such as elephants, rhino, giraffes and big cats.

This corrosion of CITES’s core purpose and integrity was instigated and led by NGOs.

SEE ALSO: Animal rights lies hurting African wildlife management. By Ron Thomson for Truth About Fur.

Virtue Signalling and Protectionism

There’s no doubt that CITES has been the victim of pork-barrel politics, much as was seen at FIFA, the international governing body of football. This includes vote buying, orchestrated by third parties which have taken advantage of the plight of the often chaotic decision-making processes in some developing countries. But there were two more important developments that handed the NGOs their "license" to deracinate CITES. 

First, in the late 20th century, Western powers began to feel the urge to virtue signal. Actually, this represented little more than a modern makeover of their discredited 19th-century colonial outlook. Its main purpose was to demonstrate the "moral superiority" of the old powers over "lesser" countries, located mostly in Africa and Asia. This trend later became entwined with a second key ingredient that helped empower NGOs, which was the re-emergence of protectionism. Protectionism in its original pre-1945 incarnation, of course, had long been discredited, so the modern version came wrapped in the deceitful language of conservation or public health protection.

It was the popularization of these two trendy but disingenuous mantras that opened the space for mega-rich NGOs, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Pew Charitable Trusts, to capture CITES. This was something they were itching do anyway because they oppose international trade in wildlife as a matter of principle, and not for scientific reasons. They are driven by emotions - the same emotions that have them ranting and raving about the "immorality" of alligator handbags and shoes, or garments made from fur.

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

Founding Principles Perverted

So today, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that the founding principles of CITES have been perverted. An example of this was the listing of the mako shark in Appendix II at CoP-18, in August 2019. More than 20 million makos are neither endangered nor threatened by international trade - of which there is very little. Actually, with some worrying exceptions, most mako populations are stable or growing. But CoP-18 saw fit to ignore the compelling scientific evidence that was put before it. And this was not an isolated incident.

On 11 separate occasions, COP-18 adopted proposals for listing species in CITES Appendices against the recommendations of the CITES Secretariat. Now, of course, I’m not suggesting that the CITES Secretariat is infallible. But I have to say that at CoP-18, its recommendations mostly reflected those of the established experts.

The reality is that well-resourced NGOs, staffed by sharp-suited zealots, work behind the scenes to manipulate the agenda-setting process. They spend millions of dollars on propaganda and other initiatives designed to list as many species as possible in CITES Appendices. These NGOs, such WWF, Pew, IFAW and the Humane Society of the US, consistently secure votes in support of their preferred outcomes ahead of debates. They do this vote-acquisition work even before the relevant scientists and authorities have had a chance to make objective assessments of the efficacy of particular proposals for a listing in the CITES Appendices.

Stop Meddling in Domestic Affairs

So, after CoP-18, many Parties and trade representatives from around the world were filled with a fury that I’ve never seen before. They can no longer tolerate or ignore how a body that once concerned itself with international trade has seemingly been completely lost to reason and common sense. They want CITES to stop meddling in their domestic affairs, for instance, by banning ivory markets and/or all trade in rhino and elephant byproducts. So, responding to that welcome mood, I played a leading role in helping to create the Sustainable Use Alliance.

Formed in Geneva in February 2020, the Sustainable Use Alliance brings together a diverse group of representatives of countries (10 so far) and trade bodies from around the world. The SUA is not a tight-knit organisation, but a loose grouping that is open to debate and disagreement. What unites the SUA’s ranks is a shared commitment to the founding principles of CITES, with the goal of restoring its integrity.

It will take a major, well-planned endeavour to ensure that the animal rights NGOs do not win this war of opinions and consequences.

And thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic, the need for our initiative is now more important than ever. It doesn’t take a genius to predict that in the next few years, the fear of zoonoses - diseases or infections that are transmissible to humans from other vertebrates - will feature prominently in the debates within the fora of CITES and elsewhere in society, as a fierce spotlight is shone on all trade in wildlife.

It will take a major, well-planned endeavour to ensure that the animal rights NGOs do not win this war of opinions and consequences. Because, make no mistake, the utopian view of the world pushed by animal rightists threatens more than international trade in wildlife, and the vital incentives this brings for science-based conservation. It also endangers every aspect of humanity’s relationship with nature, and the many benefits that the wise use of wildlife delivers - including my leather shoes and fur hat.

***

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