When New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who represents the Garment District, announced a proposal back in March to ban future sales of fur in the city, many viewed it as another case of politicians blindly following a trend. After all, the animal rights industry has made a national business out of vilifying the animal consumption world - regardless of what’s fact or fiction.

But what animal rights activists and political sponsors assumed would be an easy steam-roll over “rich white women” and “redneck trappers and farmers” who support fur usage, has proven shakier than imagined. Perhaps the large majority of Americans who recognize the regulated usage of animal by-products as both sustainable and practical, wasn’t quite anticipated.

We sure do live in interesting times in American culture! If I sound punchier than usual, it's with good reason.

When the public just won’t pay attention to self-righteous anti-fur diatribes, it's become a national trend to politically force legal bans upon the masses of your fellow citizenry instead.

California knows this process all too well, with the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco both imposing bans on the sale of fur recently. Political pressure has also been applied with current legislation seeking to totally snuff out regulated trapping and the sale of wild fur statewide.

It doesn’t take a business strategist to see what’s going on. Clearly, in the eyes of the animal rights industry, the “east coast” was in need of a dust-up with some good ol’ frivolous (and completely egregious) hunting and garment restrictions. Hopes were quickly imposed to ensure New York City becomes the next “fur-free” urban mecca.

The only difference from the antics playing out on the west coast: the Big Apple isn’t going down without swingin’… hard!

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

We Don't Care How They Do It in California

According to trade group FurNYC, the city still has the largest retail fur market in the country, stating the 150 remaining fur businesses in New York create 1,100 jobs and produce $400 million in revenue per year.

And it's not just backwoods fur trappers supporting the industry. As the NYC fur ban really started to heat up this May, folks from all walks of American life came out to fight the proposal.

African-American and Jewish faith leaders added to the protests in opposition, stating that the ban discriminates against their cultural heritage. Outspoken immigrants weighed in regarding the potential loss of skills and careers. Celebrities jumped into the mix to criticize government who thinks it can tell its people how to dress. Anyone who recognized fur as a sustainable material made sure to join the vocal movement against the ban.

"People feel complete when they put on something that they worked hard for, they have sacrificed for," said the Rev. Phil Craig, who was among 75 clergy and other advocates who turned out at one protest against the ban.

In a Tweet sent out in May, The Coalition For Blacks For Fur stated: “This fur ban will destroy jobs, the environment, and critical tax revenue.”

Apparently, the pushback from a ban on fur in NYC was more than the city’s politicians expected.

“Maybe I should have thought more about this before I introduced it because I didn’t realize the amount of pushback there would be,” Johnson told reporters at City Hall. “I was actually moved by some of the furriers and their testimony,” he said.

Animal rights proponents, on the other hand, still desperately contend the usage of fur is trending downward. (All the more reason to force a ban I guess, right? These folks clearly aren’t famous for their rationale.)

On the contrary, a national locavore movement seems to be fueling a revival in sustainable materials, like fur, which is probably why industry leaders like PETA and the Humane Society of the US are scrambling to support restrictions on fur usage and regulated hunting of fur across the country.

SEE ALSO: HSUS and PETA: Top fur ban proponents not credible. Truth About Fur.

We reported just a few months ago about the booming demand for coyote fur-trimmed winter jackets produced by Canada Goose. And it's not just fashion - more and more rural citizens are interested in ethically utilizing fur-bearing species that pose problems to homes, property, and livestock.

With synthetic fibers from “faux fur” coats flushing 1,900 fibers into our world’s waterways every wash, it's no wonder that eco-conscious citizens are turning to more natural ways to reduce the “plastic footprint” that all parties seem to agree is a global issue.

In the case of wild fur especially, the regulated seasonal trapping and usage of fur pelts from abundant wild species such as raccoons, skunks, and beaver is nationally considered wise use of resources that are otherwise destined for the landfill when they’re struck by vehicles, lose habitat due to urbanization, succumb to disease, or cause conflict for landowners and municipalities.

Environmental and wildlife management aspects aside, an underlying theme heard from citizens in the NYC fur ban debates is clear - freedom of choice.

The “my closet, my choice” meme seems to be resonating with a growing sector of the American population that has grown tired of hollow protests and frivolous government bans.

It appears as though the “freedom of choice crowd” carries the bigger stick - at least for the moment.

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

Wrong Info Creates Wrong Decisions

While some people are certainly foaming at the mouth to drive another nail in the coffin of rural culture, many more are lighting their torches and wielding their pitchforks against fur-supporters based on hearsay rather than tangible information.

“All-knowing” celebrities like fashion designer Tim Gunn have been outspoken supporters of the fur ban. Gunn told reporters that “Foxes, rabbits, chinchillas and even dogs and cats are anally electrocuted, gassed, bludgeoned and often skinned alive.”

Even Speaker Johnson, in explaining to reporters why he proposed the ban, said he “really just did it because I felt like it was the right thing to do in my heart.”

Apparently Johnson and Gunn, and also PETA representative Dan Matthews who echoed similar statements, did not do their homework before pushing for a city-wide ban. They also haven't been paying attention to the news lately.

In March, two Chinese workers came forward stating they’d been paid by animal rights activists to skin a dog alive on video. That video, which has been circulated around the internet, is the only crutch the animal rights industry has been able to rely upon for the out-of-left-field (and inherently false) statement that licensed trappers and fur farmers “skin animals alive for their fur”.

SEE ALSO: Notorious "skinning fur animals alive" video exposed as complete fraud! By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

Of course, licensed fur trappers and fur farmers know full well skinning animals alive isn’t part of the pelting process - but who asked them, right? Not the mainstream media, not the government officials imposing these bans from city to city, and certainly not the anti-hunting/anti-fur crowds.

While some may argue that fur pelts aren’t “needed” in the modern age, some could also argue that the detractions against regulated fur usage are also in dire need of some evolutionary creativity.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreements in opinion, the usage of animal byproducts, or even wildlife management fundamentals. A disagreement however, is far from shoving cult-like laws and legal bans down the throats of the American people.

No Such Thing As Bad Publicity

For the animal rights industry, I suspect the battles over fur bans from coast to coast (and coat to coat) present themselves as a win/win situation.

Even if the NYC fur ban caves to the pressure of citizens’ right to choose, the animal rights organizations spearheading the ban still walk away with profitable notoriety as a byproduct of their latest PR stunt.

Which is why, despite the lunacy of strong-arming a ban on the usage of a natural resource, the organizations, celebrities, and politicians involved in perpetuating the NYC fur ban will continue the circus act from city to city, state to state, country to country, and, inevitably, closet to closet.

Let's be real, if anyone supporting a ban on fur garments actually cared about animal welfare, they’d do their due diligence by researching all aspects of the debate, rather than selfishly hiding behind a protest sign or online petition. But alas, ignorance breeds ignorance; and a false sense of “moral superiority” just breeds more lackluster grandstanding - an obvious hot commodity surrounding the topic.

Perhaps it's time the (already heavily regulated) hunting, trapping, and fur-garment communities take a page out of the animal rights industry playbook and soak up a slice of the publicity pie themselves.

At the end of the day, groups like PETA don’t care if they win or lose another media-fueled public cage match - I’m talking about them aren’t I? And that’s what ultimately sells - whether the facts lean in favor of their views or not.

Supporters of the regulated usage of natural fur materials would be hard-pressed to find a better microphone than the one they’ve been forced to fight against in New York City - and it's time for those invested parties to take full advantage of this circus while it's still in town!

Suffice to say, the animal activism industry has a PR problem: the men and women protesting the NYC ban on fur aren’t your run-of-the-mill rural fur trappers and mink farmers the American public has been conditioned to demonize. Collectively, the folks most outraged over the proposed fur ban represent a cross-section of modern America - all creeds, all races, all classes, all political affiliations.

Sometimes, a government-backed “ban” on a particular material or chemical makes sense to protect the health of its citizens (or the natural resources we all cherish and have been tasked with conserving). The NYC fur ban, clearly, is not one of those instances.

A ban on clothing choice? Especially from a material that is regulated, and has proven no modern negative impact on our environment (while the alternative product has proven to cause environmental harm) - well now, we all know that’s just silly.

At the end of the day, whether NYC moves forward with its ban on fur or not, one thing has been made painfully clear: the animal rights industry can’t claim the “moral majority” any longer.

The growing opposition to Assembly Bill 44, which proposes a statewide fur retail ban in California, has taken longer than it should have for a simple reason: no one who farms and sells furs expected the state legislature to seriously try to target their centuries-old craft for elimination - certainly not businesses that legally operate, produce jobs, and pay their taxes.

Introduced in December 2018, AB 44 would "make it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, display for sale, trade, or otherwise distribute for monetary or nonmonetary consideration a fur product, as defined, in the state. The bill would also make it unlawful to manufacture a fur product in the state for sale."

AB 44 sailed to passage through its house of origin but is now encountering some increasing headwinds in the State Senate. A larger-than-expected number of opponents of AB 44 turned out at the measure’s hearing before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, June 25, a video of which can be found on the committee’s webpage.

SEE ALSO: Progressive politicians should promote fur, not ban it. By Alan Herscovici.

Opponents Line Up in Senate

Lining up to speak against AB 44 were people from all over California, including a Native American who told of fur’s importance in helping many of his people fight their way out of poverty. Earlier, the president of the California Black Chamber of Commerce and prominent leader with the Black Business Association told committee members of the affront AB 44 was to many members of his community who had fur as the only avenue open to them to overcome the many indignities of job and housing discrimination.

Two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, asked the author of the bill, Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, if it is possible to amend her measure in a way that achieves her goal of improving the treatment of animals without destroying a whole industry.

There is a way to do that, which Friedman has steadfastly opposed so far. It would be amending AB 44 to adopt a global traceability and certification program that ensures all fur farms adhere to strict, science-based standards of animal welfare and sustainability with independent third-party audits and inspections every 15 to 18 months, as well as the integration of block chain technology to ensure traceability and access to information on every fur skin used in a garment all the way from the farm through processing and manufacturing and to the retailer.

Key word, that: "traceability". According to an Agence France-Presse news report, “French fashion designer Jean Paul Gaultier said Wednesday [July 3, 2019] he could go back to using fur if he could be sure it was entirely traceable. The flamboyant creator announced in November he was renouncing fur, a move hailed as a major victory by animal rights groups like PETA who have previously tried to disrupt one of his shows and occupied his Paris boutique.”

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

Retailers Fear Disruptions - or Worse

Friedman thought she made a point in asking members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee why, if her bill were so harmful to retailers, none of them were there to testify against it. Here’s why. Because retailers fear that groups like PETA and Direct Action Everywhere, one of whose adherents recently charged a stage to swipe a microphone from US Sen. Kamala Harris, would be organizing disruptions in their stores. Or worse, that they would subject retailers and their clients to the kind of harassment and intimidation that they have experienced at the hands of animal extremists for years, including vandalism of their stores and homes, destruction of inventory and, in some cases, even the use of Molotov cocktails thrown into their stores.

In fact, in 2017 animal activists were sentenced for splashing flesh-eating acid and other chemicals on the outside of a San Diego fur store, gluing their locks and spray-painting anti-fur screeds on the store’s exterior. The homes of the store owner and her elderly parents were similarly targeted.

However, it should be noted that retailers, consumers and other Californians have collectively sent upwards of 600 letters opposing AB 44, because they have had enough of government overreach and the attack on small businesses, jobs and personal choice.

Pushing for Compromise

AB 44’s next hearing was to be before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 9. That committee is chaired by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who is also a member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and at its June 25 meeting asked Friedman if there was a way to “create some kind of a compromise situation for those who insist upon producing fur, for those folk who are trying to do it the most humane way possible.”

It will be interesting to see if Jackson’s committee follows through on finding a compromise, which the proposed amendment mandating the comprehensive certification program is.

Problematic Process

One of the greatest challenges AB 44’s opponents face has been the process itself:

• Accelerated scheduling of hearings to challenge our ability to respond.

• The setup of the testimony itself whereby the author has 10 minutes and each of her sponsors has five minutes to introduce their bill, and we are allowed only two people who each have only two minutes to testify.

• Our being prohibited from raising questions or challenging falsehoods in these hearings.

• Instructions to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff to use the analysis done on the Assembly side.

The state’s handling of conflict diamonds holds a lesson for fur. As awareness of the consequences of conflict diamonds grew, including insurgencies and loss of human lives, lawmakers here did not ban diamonds. Instead, they adopted the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme rather than eliminate an entire industry. Why can’t lawmakers apply the same thinking for fur?

* * *

An earlier version of this article appeared on the website Fox&Hounds Daily.

Progressive politicians in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now New York City are trying to ban the sale of fur in their jurisdictions, claiming furbearers die for products we no longer need. New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson has proposed a ban "because I felt like it was the right thing to do in my heart." But is it the right thing to do?

“Progressives” pride themselves on supporting government action to promote social justice, equality, and, increasingly, protection of our natural environment. But the modern fur trade embodies many of the principles that progressive politicians claim to support.

Let’s look at some of the reasons why progressive politicians should be promoting fur, not seeking to ban it.

1. Fur Products Are Handmade by Skilled Artisans

In this age of industrialized mass-production, fur apparel and accessories are still cut and sewn by skilled artisans. These people maintain remarkable craft skills passed down from parents to their children through generations.

Because of the high value of the raw materials and the specialized skills required, fur products have never been made in the sweatshops that continue to plague parts of the apparel industry. Fur garments are one of the few things we buy that are still made individually, by hand. In fact, each fur piece is really wearable art, often involving 30 hours or more of skilled work to produce.

This remarkable heritage industry should be valued and protected by everyone who appreciates the cultural and human value of craft traditions.

SEE ALSO: Heritage products to warm the body and soul. By Brenda Dragon, president. Aurora Heat.

2. Fur Is Produced on Small Family Farms

More than half of the fur produced in the US (closer to 80% worldwide) is now produced on family-run farms. Fur farms are viable in regions where poor soil or harsh weather make other forms of farming difficult, and provide much-needed employment and income in many rural communities.

Industry standards (now being certified by third-party auditors) ensure that farmed mink receive excellent nutrition and care, in part because there is no other way to produce the high-quality fur for which North America is known. Farmed mink are fed left-overs from human food production - the parts of chickens, pigs and fish that we don’t eat, that otherwise might clog landfills. Mink manure, straw bedding and carcasses are composted to provide organic fertilizers to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

Support for rural communities and sustainable agriculture are two important contributions of fur farming that progressive politicians should embrace, not scapegoat.

SEE ALSO: Facts about fur farming. Truth About Fur website.

3. Trappers Maintain Land-Based Knowledge and Lifestyles

Trappers are, in a sense, the last of the Mohicans. They are among the last people on Earth who maintain the hunter/gatherer skills and knowledge that ensured human survival for 99% of our existence as a species. They are among the few who go into nature alone, continually studying animals and their environment.

We all care about nature, but most of us now  live in cities; it is trappers who sound the alarm when wildlife and their habitat are threatened by poorly-planned industrial activity. Trappers report eagle nests so loggers can avoid disturbing them. Like canaries in the mine, changing fur harvests can signal problems like mercury pollution harming mink reproduction.

We would need trappers even if we didn’t use fur. Regulated trapping protects land from flooding by over-populated beavers. It also protects human health (e.g., from rabies spread by over-populated raccoons) and livestock (e.g., from predation by coyotes) and endangered species (e.g., sea turtle eggs from foxes, raccoons and coyotes); and the list goes on.

Trapping in North America is strictly regulated by state, provincial and territorial governments to ensure that only abundant furs are taken and that the most humane trapping methods are used.

Especially in Canada, trapping also provides food and income for many First Nations communities.

Protectors of our land-based heritage and our natural environment, trappers should be recognized as true guardians of nature. The furs they produce should be respected and treasured by progressives. They should be purchased and worn with pride to support these unique lifestyles - not boycotted.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur website.

4. Fur Is Sustainable, Durable, Recyclable and Biodegradable

The massive over-production of inexpensive but poor-quality clothing is becoming a serious environmental problem. “Fast fashion” unfortunately also means “fast disposal” of increasing quantities of clothing that is only worn briefly. And as much as 80% of it is made of petrochemical-based synthetics, basically another form of plastic bags.

In landfills, synthetics do not biodegrade like fur and other natural fibres. And each time they are washed, they leach millions of plastic micro-fibres into our waterways that are now turning up in marine life - including species we eat, like oysters - and even in our drinking water.

SEE ALSO: The great fur burial. Truth About Fur proves fur biodegrades.

Intensive production of cotton, the second most common clothing material, is also causing environmental damage in many regions.

It is becoming clear that the only sustainable solution to this clothing crisis is to buy less of it, while ensuring the items we do buy are better quality and last longer with proper care. This sustainable future will include fur. Good-quality mink and other fur garments are often worn for 30 or more years, and unlike most clothing, can be taken apart and completely “remodelled” as fashions change. Fur is often passed down from mother to daughter, or granddaughter. Old furs can also be made into vests, pillows or other accessories.

And after many decades of use, fur can be tossed into the compost to return to the soil. Once again, we see that fur should be appreciated and promoted by environmentally-conscious progressive politicians, not banned!

Progressive politicians who are sincere about wanting to promote social justice, craft traditions, rural communities, and protection of our natural environment, should be asking how they can better protect and promote fur and our remarkable North American heritage industry. They certainly should not be seeking to ban it.

***

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

Sharon Firth and her late twin sister, Shirley, are legends in Canada for their feats as cross-country skiers. Their lives were rooted in living off the land, and today Sharon champions the cause of bringing natural fur back to Canada's Olympic uniform, not seen since their first games in 1972. Image: Canada Post.

Gliding stride-by-stride across the frozen ice and snow of the Northwest Territories. The sting of frigid -30°C air filling your lungs with each gasp as you ski on, mile after mile. Your legs and arms burning like fire as you push yourself. Just you, alone, fighting against the pain of fatigue, battling a darkened winter sky and the elements of nature.

It’s not something everyone can do or even imagine. But it’s exactly here that Sharon Anne Firth found her calling. It’s where she traces her life, from a child on the trapline with her family, to Olympic glory around the world, and now, all the way back again. All the way back home.

Sharon Anne and her twin sister, the late Shirley Firth, also an Olympic cross-country skiing legend, were born two minutes apart in Aklavik in the Northwest Territories, on the last day of 1953. They were two of 13 brothers and sisters.

Sharon Anne is Gwich'in, a group of Dené indigenous people that have lived in the Arctic from Alaska to the Northwest Territories since time immemorial.

Considered the hub of the McKenzie Delta, Aklavik had it all at the time: about 800 residents, along with a hospital, post office, radio station, and of course a Hudson's Bay Company store. But in 1959, with fears growing that the town was sinking into the river, many residents were shipped off to nearby Inuvik, including the Firths.

The demise of Aklavik, as it turned out, was greatly exaggerated. While government was busy pushing people out of the town, a committee led by A.J. “Moose” Kerr fought back against the relocation. And in the end, the town was saved. In more ways than one.

“Today the motto for the town is ‘never say die,’ which makes a lot of sense,” Sharon Anne says laughing.

Love for Nature, Skiing

The Firth family lived a traditional lifestyle including fish from the river and lakes, the wood and stone materials around them, wild game from the forests and tundra, and furs from the trapline.

But the people of the north don’t just want to survive, they seek to thrive. And so it was that in 1967 teenagers Sharon Anne and Shirley had their date with destiny. While in a residential school that brought in children from upwards of 63 communities, they were introduced to cross-country skiing.

The person who introduced them to the sport was none other than Norwegian skiing legend Bjorger Pettersen, who was running clinics in the north with a view to identifying possible talent and growing the sport nationally.

Sharon Anne and Shirley were naturals.

“As soon as we put on the skis we immediately fell in love,” Sharon Anne says. “The McKenzie Delta was really full of raw talent for things like snowshoeing and skiing. We are an endurance people, we love the long distances and we love being outside in all sorts of conditions. It’s who we are. It’s in our genes and our lifestyles.”

Pettersen certainly recognized the raw talent in his midst and the Firths, along with some other local athletes, were asked to enter into serious training. Sharon Anne recalls that they had to get permission from their parents first before committing. That permission was granted and the training began immediately with some, well, unusual challenges.

“Coaches would put the training program on the wall each day and we would be running across the tundra to train,” she recalls. “We would run for hours, and of course, before we began, they reminded us that there was no berry-picking while we were out training!”

Off to the Games

The training, combined with the talent, paid off. And quickly.

After first laying eyes on skis in 1967, just five years later, Shirley and Sharon Anne, then just 18 years old, were faced with a prospect almost too big to fathom: competing at the Winter Olympics in Sapporo, Japan.

But even then, things would not come easy for the twins.

Shirley fell ill and landed in hospital. Her illness was such that she was told she should not only forget about making it to the Olympics, but about competitive skiing altogether. But when you come from a town whose mantra is “never say die”, you don’t throw down the skis and quit.

“I visited her every day in hospital after I was done training, and the more I went to see her, the better she got. She was very strong-willed. She decided she was going to get out of the hospital, get back on her skis and fight to make the Olympics - and that’s exactly what she did. And so we both went to Japan,” Sharon Anne recalls proudly.

The Firths were the first Indigenous women to wear the Maple Leaf and represent Canada at the Winter Olympics. There was a huge sense of pride and accomplishment, but also pressure.

“Shirley and I pushed ourselves, we fought hard, and trained like you would not believe,” Sharon Anne says. “We were representing ourselves and our country, but also Indigenous peoples. We had gone from the trapline all the way to the Olympics. This wasn’t just about us and sports and competition. We were athletes and role models, and we knew it.

Having real fur on our Canadian Olympic uniform, it was a sense of pride and also made us feel connected to our home even though we were halfway around the world.

“It was a powerful feeling in the starting gate,” Sharon Anne says, recalling there was one thing that gave her strength as she prepared to step into the games: fur.

“Having real fur on our Canadian Olympic uniform, it was a sense of pride and also made us feel connected to our home even though we were halfway around the world.”

In all, Sharon Anne would represent her country and her people at several national and world championship skiing events, and at four different Winter Olympics: Sapporo 1972, Innsbruck 1976, Lake Placid 1980 and Sarajevo 1984.

She retired in 1985 and faced a question many elite athletes do after years of structure and training and planning, and strictly regimented living: now what?

For Sharon Anne, the answer was simple. She would go home.

Back to the Northwest Territories

“I knew I had to go back to the Northwest Territories,” she says. “I was raised on the trapline and on the land; it was what I knew, what I loved. Hunting, fishing and trapping and living a life in nature, with nature.”

She moved back to her home territory and settled in the capital, Yellowknife. Her first job was at Expo 86 in Vancouver, working with young people relaying to them the amazing life she had led. In the years that followed, she worked for the government, and the honours and accolades worthy of a trailblazing athlete of her stature have flowed appropriately.

She is a member of the Order of Canada, and more recently, the Order of the Northwest Territories. She is a member of the Canadian Museum Ski Hall of Fame, Canada’s Sports Hall of Fame, Banff Sports Hall of Fame, and NWT Sports Hall of Fame. She has received the Queen’s Golden and Silver Jubilee Awards, a National Aboriginal Achievement Award, and an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from the University of Alberta, and has been named an Adjunct Professor University of Alberta, School of Public Health.

Recently Sharon Anne and Shirley were immortalized when they were added to the Women in Winter Sports stamp series from Canada Post that includes themselves along with other sporting legends Nancy Greene, Danielle Goyette, Clara Hughes and Sonja Gaudet.

Champion for Natural Fur

And now you can add a new title to Sharon Anne’s lengthy résumé: a champion for natural, sustainable fur.

As a person who has lived from the land for a great part of her life, and who understands the positive impact of natural fur in rural and Indigenous communities, she has a new mission: to give Olympic athletes a choice to be able to wear fur at the Winter Games just like she did.

“Natural fur is my passion,” she says. “I was raised on the land, we always had the very best of things from the land including our furs. People in the south go to the mall or grocery store to get what they need, we go to the land or the trapline.”

She says fur is part of the Canadian cultural fabric, but also part of the ecological landscape.

“As a people we understand management and balance in nature, we never take more than is needed, and we use whatever nature gives us. It’s pure and natural,” she says. “Hunting, fishing and trapping unites us all across this country, it always has.”

Fur is Canada ... I’d like to see athletes be able to wear natural fur at the Olympic Games, to feel the connection to their culture and country the way I did.

And for a young teenager, standing in the starting gate at her first Olympics in a country she had only ever read about, fur was something else. It was part of the theme that has permeated Sharon Anne's life.

Fur was, in a way, home.

“Fur is Canada,” she says. “So yes, I would like to see athletes have a chance to experience what I had as an Olympian. I’d like to see Canadian athletes be able to wear natural fur at the Olympic Games, to feel the connection to their culture and country the way I did.”

"Never Give Up"

Shirley Firth, meanwhile, got married in 1984 and lived in France for many years. But she too stayed connected with her home as she worked with universities and Canadian Embassies in Europe promoting the Northwest Territories and its people.

Sadly, Shirley’s life, though so full and amazing, was cut far too short. She passed away in April 2013.

But Sharon Anne's connection to her twin sister has never faded. “She is always with me,” she says. “She is always reminding me to never quit, never give up.”

***

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

Fur Trade Tales feature real-life stories from real people of the fur trade. This is our third Trapline Tales, but look out for Fur Farm Tales, Furrier Tales, and more to come. If you'd like to contribute, please contact [email protected]

I love reminiscing about the wholesome way of life I experienced growing up in British Columbia on my parents' trapline in the 1960s and '70s. In this instalment of Trapline Tales, I'll introduce an old trapper who played an important part in our lives, even though none of us even know who he was: Greasy Bill.

Our trapline was registered in my father's name only, but rest assured it was every part my mother’s trapline too. Often she was a weekend widow throughout the winter months, but after I left home, both my parents spent many a day on the trapline, and great times they were.

SEE ALSO: Trail-building in the high country. By Calvin Kania for TruthAboutFur.

So one November, Ma and Pa (as they called each other) headed for a trapper's cabin located at the confluence of Grizzly Creek and Greasy Bill Creek to get ready for the season that was upon them. The cabins on Dad's line were built in the 1940s by old-time trappers, this one by a trapper called Greasy Bill.  I'm not sure why he got that nickname, but I can only imagine!

SEE ALSO: Ski Doos and marten scent. By Calvin Kania for TruthAboutFur.

The cabins were small, built from large timbers of western red cedars and roofed by hand-split cedar shakes. They were low-rise structures typically fitted with one window, one door, a table or bench and two chairs, a bed, and a wood-burning stove. Flooring was made of wood planks, and a large overhang extended out the front of the porch to keep the firewood dry and to provide a place to hang furs while they were drying. Furs were also dried inside the cabins, but sometimes the ol' wood stove would be pumping out so much heat the furs could dry too fast.

My father liked getting out in November for beaver trapping so he would have marten bait later in the season. For the beaver trapping, he would take the truck back out of Grizzly Creek and head up into the main valley of Koch Creek to a place called Camp Eleven, an old logging camp of the 1940s. Just down the road at Camp 10, which was the main logging camp, is where David Suzuki’s father almost lost his life in an avalanche. My father's trapline has a lot of colourful history. You could never see any beaver activity from the upper road, but once you got down into the main creek, there was beaver logging everywhere.

At the end of their beaver trapping day, my parents settled into their evening of playing a couple of card games, probably whist or pinochle as that’s what we grew up with, and a shot of rye whiskey was course for the evening. It being November, the rains started to fall, the fog rolled into the narrow valleys and a dampness set in, but with the wood stove burning, Greasy Bill's cabin was toasty warm.

Wood is the best heat as it’s the most comfortable. My home on the west coast is electric baseboard as back up, but I have wood-burning stove inserts upstairs and downstairs. If it gets too warm, I just open the doors to outside and don’t feel the least bit guilty.

As my parents' evening of playing cards came to an end, they settled into bed. The coal oil lantern was turned off and left on the kitchen table across the room. It was pitch black. My father could not see his own hand in front of his face. As he was getting comfortable, my mother was already sound asleep and blowing the horn. He chuckled to himself, lying thinking about what and where wolverine and lynx cubbies he was going to build over the next few days. Then he realized that darned wood stove was pumping out the heat again, so much so that he reached over and unlatched the door to the cabin, which slowly opened and a coolness wafted in. 

Mystery Visitor

He was lying there thinking of tomorrow when all of a sudden he heard footsteps - four of them. It was right there beside the bed, beside him. It took a few sniffs, walked into the cabin, and sniffed around some more.

My father lay there, thinking out loud in a whisper, “Coal oil lantern on the kitchen table, flashlight on the cupboard bench, rifle standing in the corner on the other side of the room. Hmmm, what now?"

He thought, “The nearest light is the pack of matches in my pants pocket at the end of the bed. Any slight move is going to spook or provoke this animal in perhaps not a good way. What do I do?"

It was either a lynx, wolverine, coyote, bobcat or young black bear. Its footsteps were heavy enough to be any of those. He was anxious to see what it was that so innocently entered the cabin, but if he made a dash across the floor to the flashlight on the bench, there was a good possibility of a mid-room collision. Nah, not a good idea.

He had to be quick, so the matches at the end of the bed were his best bet. He abruptly sat up, grabbed his pants, twisted them upside down, right side up, fumbled for the matches, only to find they were a bit damp and didn’t want to light right away. At the same time the four-legged creature made a quick exit out the cabin door and into the darkness.

While all this commotion was taking place, my mother snorted lightly a couple of times, woke up, and in a groggy voice said, “Huh, what’s going on?” My father replied, “Ahh nothing, I’ll tell you in the morning.”

It being November and the rains upon them, snow had not quite reached the cabin area, so there weren't any tracks to look for in the morning. The mystery animal will be a mystery forever.

Changing Times

They were great times. Everyone was accepting of the lifestyle, and the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC) ruled the fur market in Canada from buying trappers' fur pelts to selling fur garments in their department stores from Victoria to Halifax. Although HBC Point Claire Quebec Auction House did have competition from rivals Dominion Soudak in Winnipeg, Ontario Trappers Fur Auction in North Bay, and Ted Pappas at Western Canadian Fur Auction Sales in Vancouver, they still ran the show. Oh, how times have changed.

Today, I find myself criss-crossing China and other parts of the globe searching out markets for our furs. We have to, as many Canadians no longer understand our trapping heritage. That’s right, our fur trapping heritage.

Canada does have a unique fur-trapping culture which is one of the building blocks of our nation, but it seems that many Canadians are ashamed of it. I will probably take flak for this, but much of the blame lies squarely at the feet of the Canadian fur industry as we allowed this to happen. Companies like Canada Goose should receive the Order of Canada for promoting fur to Canadians. Instead, they’re scapegoated by animal-rights terrorists and an ill-informed public. There is nothing more natural than fur.

SEE ALSO: 5 reasons why PETA won't make me ditch my Canada Goose. By Alan Herscovici, TruthAboutFur.

Canada is the leading nation when it comes to international trapping standards. We are signatories to the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). I sat on that committee in the early years when Canada was forced to adopt trap standards in order to meet European Union legislation on the importation of wild fur.

Sharing the Land

Speaking of the changing world, I want to share a story with all trappers across Canada. Be very aware of your trapping rights. It’s your heritage and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

You have to protect yourself against the possibility that, despite following all proper procedures, a domestic animal or pet could unfortunately be captured or harmed. With modern trapping standards this doesn't happen often, but it can happen. I cannot reiterate enough the importance of having liability insurance on your trapline to cover any eventuality.

Be very aware of your trapping rights. It’s your heritage and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

This past winter we found ourselves in a difficult situation. My assistant on the trapline accidentally caught a pet dog in a bobcat set. He was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Provincial Conservation Officer Services; he had followed the law and proper procedures to the letter. My trapline is on Crown Land as all Registered Traplines are in British Columbia. It's also on Sinixt First Nation Traditional Territory for which I sought permission to be on and was granted permission. However, after a few months we were served with a civil lawsuit by the pet owners in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver.  

As more city people move into rural areas, the potential for problems increases and trappers are doing what they can to avoid conflicts. For the 2019/20 season, for example, all Registered Traplines across British Columbia will be posted with "Active Trapline" notifications. The BC Trappers Association is working with the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development in rolling out this program.  

I would also urge fellow trappers to consider posting a notice in your local paper, advising the public about trapping seasons and reminding them of the importance of keeping dogs on-leash - for the welfare of ground-nesting birds and prevention of harassment to other wildlife, and reminding the public about their own responsibilities in the woods.

Trappers also need to put your local Conservation Officer Services on notice that you expect them to enforce the law under the Wildlife Act and lay charges against anyone interfering with legally set traps. If you are worried about interference, trail cams can help to document unlawful acts.

As for our lawsuit we have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in which the details are locked up in a confidential contract and cannot be disclosed.

Return to Greasy Bill Creek

My father passed away in November 2015, on his 97th birthday. A few days before he died, I took my mother to visit him at the seniors home, she knelt down beside his bed and asked, “Well Pa, do you have any regrets?” "No Ma, I don’t," he replied."We did everything we wanted to do in life and more. Heck, we pretty much outlived all our friends. What about you Ma?” She answered, "No Pa, none."

The service for my father was two weeks later, family and friends attended from far and wide. Through the whole ordeal and for several months after, I never once saw my mother mourn or grieve. Was it shock? Or was it just because they had been together so many years and it was time to go?

The following summer the family arranged a week-long gathering to celebrate my father's life.  The whole family - children and spouses, grandchildren and great grandchildren, uncles, aunts, cousins, in-laws and out-laws - converged on the family homestead. A celebration it was!

We arranged one of our favourite family outings, heading to Greasy Bill Creek for a fish fry. Kids and adults were fitted with fishing licences, fly rods and flies, and were dispersed in all directions up and down both creeks to catch lunch, with instructions to return by 1 p.m. As we approached Greasy Bill's old cabin, we found it had seen better days. A large hemlock next to the creek had decided to lay its timber across the roof of the shack, and it had caved. But the door was still upright, and above the doorway a sign read, "Trappers Cabin, please respect it and keep door closed. Ed Kania - Trapper".

As soon as my mother read that, was the moment she broke down and grieved and mourned. It was then and there that took her back to those marvellous days on the trapline with a man she had married 72 years earlier.

Finally! The infamous “skinning fur animals alive” video has been exposed as a complete fraud, orchestrated and paid for by animal activists to discredit the fur trade. There is probably no single animal-rights lie that has done more harm to the reputation of the fur trade than this video, first released by a Swiss animal-rights group in 2005.

Entitled "The shocking reality of the China fur trade", the video shows two men in a dusty Chinese fur market town, beating and then skinning an Asiatic raccoon that is clearly still alive. The video went viral and was subsequently repackaged by PETA and many other animal-rights groups around the world as “proof” that animals are abused in the fur trade. It is the centrepiece of campaigns to convince designers to stop using fur, and politicians to ban fur farming or even the sale of fur products.

Most recently, this vicious lie was repeated in support of a proposal to ban the sale of fur products in New York City, notably by the proposer of the ban, NYC Council Speaker Corey Johnson, and actress Angelica Huston, in an opinion piece published in a New York paper.

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry.

But now, an investigation by the International Fur Federation (IFF) has revealed – and documented with filmed confessions and signed affidavits -- that the horrible scenes shown in that disgusting video were, in fact, intentionally staged by professional activists who paid poor Chinese villagers to perform these cruel acts for the camera.

People in the fur trade have known from the start that the scenes shown in the video did not represent normal practice. In 2016, TruthAboutFur published “5 reasons why it’s ridiculous to claim animals are skinned alive”. That article attracted enough attention that it generally pops up first on Google if you search for “skinning animals alive for fur". But pictures speak louder than words, and shocking videos are grist for the Internet mill. What was needed was absolute proof that this video was staged – and now we have it.

Road to Shancun

The IFF sent an investigative team to China to search for the men shown in the shocking video, and they found them – in the dusty market town of Shancun, a few hours drive south of Beijing.

In a new documentary video released by the IFF, the men testify that they were bribed by a woman, who they now understand was a professional activist, to carry out the horrific stunt.

The two men provided sworn affidavits about that fateful day - damning evidence of a calculated conspiracy to mislead the public and damage the fur industry.

Even now, after so many years, every time I think about what we did it makes me uncomfortable.

The two men, Ma Hong She and Su Feng Gang, were working in the Shancun fur market when they were approached with a bribe. “We were working that day and a man and a woman approached us,” said Mr. Ma in Chinese. “They had a camera and were filming. We asked 'What are you doing?’, and the woman said her grandfather had never seen a raccoon skinned alive. She asked if I would do it, and she’d like to film me doing so.

“I told her we can’t do that because the animal might bite us. She said she’d buy us a good lunch, or she’d give us a few hundred Yuan to buy our own lunch. After we finished the skinning we felt uncomfortable. It was cruel for the animal. Even now, after so many years, every time I think about what we did it makes me uncomfortable. It is something we regret. This video was posted on-line. When we saw the video, we felt unwell just to realise that we had been used by these people.

“I worked in the skinning area for two years. We’d never skin animals alive, and I’ve never seen anyone skin an animal alive,” said Mr. Ma.

"Rag-bag Package of Lies"

Mark Oaten, IFF CEO, said: “We have endured 13 years of lies and smears against our industry but we have finally ended this once and for all. We aim to explode the myth with irrefutable proof that the animal rights movement is behind a cynical stunt to discredit our industry.

“We do not skin animals alive and animal rights activists are aware of this,” said Oaten. “This is why they have had to stoop to bribery to try to damage our industry. We want to send a clear signal to anyone who seeks to deny consumers the freedom of choice by these quite wicked and, frankly, twisted tactics – if we find you out, we are coming for you and we will expose you. And if you repeat this behaviour, we will sue you for damages.

“Our industry is no longer prepared to sit back and allow these fanatics to march into the boardrooms of designers and bandy around a rag-bag package of lies and prejudice about our business. My team has gathered a solid dossier and we look forward to challenging every animal rights group which continues to use this staged video,” said Oaten.

Sick, But Not the First Time

So now we know: the cruel actions shown in this video were intentionally staged to make a vicious anti-fur propaganda piece. It’s a sick thing for anyone to do – hard to even believe – but it’s not the first time animal activists have stooped this low to falsely claim that animals are “skinned alive”.

The film that launched the first anti-seal hunt campaigns, in 1964, showed a live seal being poked with a knife by a hunter – “skinned alive!” the activists cried! But a few years later the hunter, Gustave Poirier, testified under oath to a Canadian Parliamentary committee of enquiry that he had been paid by the film-makers to poke at the live seal, something he said he would otherwise never have done. [For more on this, see my book, Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (CBC 1985; General Publishing, 1991), pg 76.]

Now, more than 50 years later, we finally have proof that this more recent claim of “skinning animals alive” is also a complete fabrication, based on another staged video.  The IFF has exposed the truth; now it’s up to each of us to share this link to its documentary every time this malicious activist lie is published.

***

HELP EXPOSE THIS BIG FAT ACTIVIST LIE! Please share this blog post, or copy this link to IFF's video every time you see activists claim that fur animals are "skinned alive", in news reports or comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6joIOEk6JU&feature=youtu.be.

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

As proposals to ban fur retail in California and New York grind their way through their respective political processes, two giants of the animal protest industry are just behind the scenes, pulling the strings. But how credible are these groups, and what credentials do they really have to be dictating public policy?

SEE ALSO: 6 reasons why banning fur sales is a very bad idea.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) want to end all use of animals by society. In their pursuit of this agenda, fur is just the thin end of the wedge. The thick end includes the giant food industry, as well as leather, entertainment (zoos and circuses), transportation, pets, medical research -- the list of ways that animals enrich and improve our lives goes on and on. In a chart showing all these uses of animals, the fur trade would barely register -- probably less than one-quarter of one percent of the animals used in North America.

So why does fur feature so prominently in recent animal-rights campaigning? First and foremost, fur is seen as a soft target. Totally ignoring its virtues -- like keeping people warm and providing sustainable livelihoods -- HSUS and PETA present fur as a cruel and frivolous luxury worn only by rich people with more money than taste. Selling this message to politicians is made easier by the fact that most people don't own much or any fur, so they can take it or leave it. Convincing folks to give up their hamburgers and leather shoes is a much tougher sell.

Make no mistake though: if HSUS and PETA ever succeed in toppling the fur trade, they have plenty of other targets lined up to take its place.

Meanwhile, these groups rake in tens of millions of dollars each year from well-meaning donors, exploiting freedom of speech to the legal limits as they smear the fur trade and other animal industries as cruel and unnecessary.

With skillful manipulation of traditional media, complemented by social media and direct-mail campaigns, HSUS and PETA have perfected the art of fundraising; their war chests are overflowing with cash. But how is this money really being spent? Let's turn the projector around for a change, and see how credible these groups really are.

HSUS Does Not Run Animal Shelters

HSUS coyly calls itself an "animal protection" organisation, and its propaganda strongly suggests its mission is animal welfare, a moral principle which any decent person supports. Closer examination, however, reveals that its real agenda is "animal rights" -- in other words, no use of animals. As long ago as 1980, an HSUS convention explicitly resolved "to pursue on all fronts ... the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals ... within the full range of American life and culture."

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

So when it comes to animal agriculture, for example, HSUS officially campaigns for higher welfare standards, but statements by several of its officers over the years indicate a desire to shut down animal agriculture completely - something most Americans don't support at all.

Equally misleading: many HSUS pop-up ads and other fundraising materials show cute puppies and kittens, creating the impression that it runs animal shelters. This has broad public appeal. But in fact, HSUS doesn’t run a single shelter and only gives a tiny fraction of its income to groups that do provide this important service.

While HSUS may not devote much time to running animal shelters, it's a master at fundraising, leaving no stone unturned in its efforts to part potential donors from their money. You don't even need to be alive! Just name HSUS "as a beneficiary in your will, trust, insurance policy, donor advised fund, or foundation." A subsidiary called the Humane Legacy Society promises an "experienced team is here to help" you kiss your money goodbye.

All of this obviously works: according to its 2017 Form 990, which American tax-exempt nonprofits file each year with the Internal Revenue Service, in just that one year HSUS generated revenue of $142 million from well-meaning donors, legacies, and investments.

And what does HSUS do with all this money? According to CharityWatch, 48% of HSUS's budget goes on overhead, including fundraising expenses, salaries and pension plans, which is why it gave HSUS a "D" rating in 2018.

Indeed, HSUS has a reputation for being very generous to its own officers. The same Form 990 shows that Wayne Pacelle, who was CEO from 2004 to 2018 when he resigned following accusations of sexual harassment, received $387,200 that year, while five other executives received over $200,000 each. And that's not counting their expense accounts.

SEE ALSO: 10 things you should know about HSUS. Humanewatch.org

PETA Wants "Total Animal Liberation"

PETA is cut from the same cloth as HSUS, with a few twists.

First, PETA is more honest about its primary agenda (if not much else), stating in its 2017 Form 990 that its mission is the "protection of animal rights". It wants "total animal liberation", meaning an end to everything from honey and silk, to zoos and seeing-eye dogs, and, of course, all meat, dairy, leather, wool, and medical research using animals. So, at least with PETA you know who you're dealing with.

Second, PETA is not quite as obsessed as HSUS with amassing funds, or perhaps it's simply not as good at it. PETA's declared revenue in 2017 was $53 million - still a huge chunk of change, but only one-third that of HSUS. And, officially at least, president Ingrid Newkirk paid herself a modest $46,600, although a few officers received more than double that.

But like HSUS, there are some disturbing skeletons in PETA's closet. According to PetaKillsAnimals.com, PETA gave grants to arsonist Rodney Coronado and the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front. PETA also gave money to a spokesman of the Animal Liberation Front, and footed a $27,000 legal bill for animal activist Roger Troen. It's also produced shocking propaganda targeting children, mocking religion (it claims Jesus was vegetarian), and comparing farm animals to Holocaust victims. The biggest surprise for many supporters, however, has been the revelation that PETA euthanises homeless pets - in droves! According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, PETA has killed 33,000 animals entrusted to its care since 1998. In 2018 alone, of 2,470 dogs and cats it received, 72% were reportedly put to sleep!

SEE ALSO: 8 things you didn't know about PETA. PetaKillaAnimals.com

Peddling Half Truths and Lies

"We are complete press sluts," PETA boss Ingrid Newkirk told The New Yorker in 2003. And that means peddling everything from half truths to "fake news", including one particularly shocking fabrication. No group bears more responsibility for spreading the lie that the fur trade "skins animals alive" than PETA. In the current campaign to ban the sale of fur products in several American cities, that lie has been regurgitated by influential people like New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson and celebrity Anjelica Huston.

SEE ALSO: 5 reasons why it's ridiculous to claim animals are skinned alive.

HSUS's wall of shame includes an expensive but ultimately unsuccessful bid to have Asiatic raccoon fur labeled as "raccoon dog" by the Federal Trade Commission. This animal is the only species in the genus Nyctereutes, and is more closely related to foxes than domestic dogs. HSUS claimed the Asiatic raccoon label was "fraudulent" and "bogus", but anyone can see through its game. It wants consumers to think they are being offered dog fur, which is both illegal in the US and morally unacceptable to most Americans.

Another tactic used by both HSUS and PETA is to claim that the fur trade tricks consumers into buying its products. In large retail operations, errors inevitably occur from time to time in labeling, catalogues and advertising materials; we have all seen corrections published to clarify such errors. The protest industry has sought out and exploited cases where real fur was occasionally mislabeled as "faux" by department stores. For example, when an HSUS "investigation" found that Kohl's department store had mistakenly labeled rabbit and Asiatic raccoon fur as faux, CEO Kitty Block called it evidence of a "fraudulent fur industry".

Of course, fake furs are usually marketed as a lower-cost alternative to the real McCoy, so no business person would intentionally label real fur as fake. But why let common sense get in the way of a good propaganda story?

Browbeating Brands

Recently, HSUS and PETA have generated headlines by pressuring several leading designer brands into dropping fur, while implying it just required a little gentle persuasion for these companies to see the light.

Sure, it's conceivable that a few brand executives may have fallen hook, line and sinker for the activist spiel - Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri comes to mind - but it's clear that most, like Giorgio Armani, Hugo Boss, and most recently Prada, were subjected to varying degrees of sustained pressure, including aggressive letter-writing campaigns and rowdy protests at their stores and fashion shows.

It is not hard to imagine why some CEOs are tempted to step away from fur, at least temporarily, when 90% of their security costs stem from products representing only a small fraction of their sales. Can you spell "protection racket"?

There may be an even more cynical explanation for why some designers caved to activist demands: the rowdy protest campaigns provided a politically correct cover story for companies switching to lower-cost (and more profitable?) fake fur. Now brands can cheapen their production inputs while claiming it's an "ethical" commitment.

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

Whatever their real motivation, designer brands dropping fur has far-reaching implications. While most consumers, media, and politicians are aware that animal rights groups play fast and loose with the truth, they now have the likes of Gucci's Bizzarri claiming that fake fur (usually made from petroleum) is a more sustainable choice than natural fur. Rightly or wrongly -- very wrongly, in this case -- executives of famous brands have media appeal and thus credibility when they claim to be saving the planet, much like Hollywood movie stars.

For decades, fur has served as a go-to scapegoat to fuel fundraising drives by HSUS, PETA and dozens of other animal rights groups. That money funds more campaigning and more fundraising, and on it goes – a disturbingly effective business model.

Now, with several top designer brands helping to generate headlines, activists can argue that fur is no longer "socially acceptable". This has been the cue for politicians sympathetic to the activist cause -- or simply enticed by the votes and cash that animal rights groups bring to the table. The political battle is especially fierce at the municipal level, where a small group of council members makes decisions, and there are fewer checks and balances than in state or federal governments. And while mainstream media had mostly ignored anti-fur demos in recent years, the political campaigns are "news".

What we are now seeing, in other words, is a scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours convergence of interests among the protest industry, some designer brands, celebrities, media (including the new social media), and sympathetic or opportunistic politicians. At the heart of this self-serving dance - like a spider at the centre of its web - are HSUS and PETA.

Which brings us back to the central question: how credible are these groups really, and should they be dictating public policy priorities? It's time for politicians to take a closer look at who is pulling their strings.

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

(Editor's note: Wildlife management in Africa may seem far removed from managing beavers and coyotes in North America, but combatting misinformation from animal rights groups is a challenge now being faced everywhere. Photo: The True Green Alliance.)

The scourge of animal rights-ism permeates the whole world. It is as rife in Africa as it is in North America and the rest of the world. I am an 80-year-old ex-game warden with 60 years of experience in the management of Africa’s national parks and big game animals. My particular interests concern maintaining the health and vigour of national park habitats, and the proper management of elephants and black rhinos; and I pull my hair out at the blatant lies that the animal rightists tell innocent nature lovers, the world over, about both species.

The most recent one is that the African elephant is facing extinction. We are told that unless the world stops the sale of ivory, stops the legal hunting of elephants, and stops their lethal management (culling), the elephant will slide down the slippery slope to extinction. This comes from people, remember, who live in the First World, who have never seen an elephant in their lives, and who have no accountability for whatever bad recommendations they make to "save" the African elephant. Meanwhile, the opinions of experienced elephant managers, like myself, are pushed aside as "contrived fabrications". And the whole world believes them, not the likes of me!

The elephants of Africa occur in 37 countries, or “range states”, and form 150 distinct populations. The habitats vary widely, including montane forests, deciduous forests of many kinds, savannah (treed grasslands), grasslands, thornveld, dry bushveld, teak forests, swamps, and true deserts. The rainfall in these different habitats varies from practically no rainfall at all to over 200 inches a year. Their interactions with humans are sometimes hostile - both ways - and sometimes docile. Some are poached, others are not poached. And the natural environmental pressures that each population has to endure due to variances in vegetation type, altitude, temperature and rainfall, are never the same. Consequently, the management needs of each of these populations have to be assessed on their own merits, and a management strategy, that is entirely focussed on one population at a time, has to be applied.

If this requirement is not complex enough, the management strategy that is applied to each population has to take cognizance of each population’s "safety status", which is determined by the elephant carrying capacity of the population’s habitat, measured against the number of animals in the population. Thus, if the sustainable carrying capacity of the habitat is 2,500 elephants and the population numbers 50,000 (as is the case with Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park today), the population is determined to be excessive (grossly excessive, in this case). If the sustainable carrying capacity is 10,000 and the population numbers 8,000 to 10,000, the population is deemed to be safe because it is "inside" (below) the carrying capacity limitation. And if the carrying capacity of a habitat is determined to be 10,000 and the population number is only 1,000 and falling, that population is deemed to be unsafe.

A Complex Science

Safe populations require conservation management (annual culling) to make sure they don't grow to the extent that they exceed the habitat’s carrying capacity. And unsafe populations need preservation management (protection from all harm), with the purpose of helping the population to return to a safe status. Excessive elephant populations require drastic and immediate population reduction. This is for the sake of the elephants themselves, for the health of their habitats (which excessive populations totally destroy), and for the maintenance of the biological diversities of our national parks. Indeed, the first action that needs to be taken on an excessive population is to reduce its numbers as quickly as possible, by no less than 50%.

SEE ALSO: Thousands of baby elephants starve every year - Too many for national parks. By Ron Thomson, True Green Alliance, Apr. 21, 2019.

All this will tell you that elephant management is a complex science.

It will also tell you that labelling the African elephant as an “endangered species” is simply a very stupid act. The very name “endangered species” implies that every single elephant population is unsafe, declining, and facing extinction, and that they thus all deserve to be managed according to the prescriptions of preservation management. But that is not the case at all.

Lots of elephants in West Africa are unsafe (due entirely to bad governance), many in East Africa are (now) safe, and every single elephant population in southern Africa (south of the Zambezi and Cunene Rivers) is grossly excessive. So, if an elephant population is declared to be endangered – and all its populations are subjected to preservation management - its excessive and safe populations will all be subject to total mismanagement. All the elephant populations of southern Africa exceed the carrying capacities of their habitats by between 10 and 20 times the numbers that they should be! For example, there could be as many as 200,000 too many elephants in the Botswana mega-elephant-population.

And yet the animal rightists continue to tell these lies in order to fraudulently make money out of a gullible public; the press continue to support them; and the governments of the world allow all this misrepresentation to happen. It is a crazy world that we live in – because we know that we are right and the animal rightists are wrong. All we can do is keep trying to create a properly informed public because they are the people who can make a difference.

Sustenance Through Wildlife, Not Livestock

There is a human population explosion in Africa, and the realities are as follows. There were 95.9 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa in the year 1900. By 2000, that number had increased to 622 million. And if the same rate of population increase continues throughout the 21st century, there will be over 4 billion people living in this same region by 2100. And they will all be trying to eke out a living from this finite continent, with its finite resources.

There will, by the year 2100, certainly be no wild land left unoccupied by humans. And in their never-ending search for a means to survive, Africa’s rural people will have, by then, extirpated all wildlife outside the national parks (and maybe inside the national parks, too). And they will be entirely dependent on domestic animals and cultivated crops for their survival.

By the year 2100, therefore, the only animals that are certain of survival will be domestic animals – cattle, sheep and goats. Why? Because the rural people of Africa cannot afford to have them become extinct.

Meanwhile, their wild equivalents – elephants, buffaloes, lions, leopards, rhinos, etc. – are potentially far more valuable than livestock, and people could make infinitely more money out of their sustainable use than they could ever hope to make from cattle, sheep and goats.

People like me (and there are many of us) are therefore striving to get Africa’s rural people to convert their means of earning a living, from livestock to wildlife. Only in this way can we be sure that the elephants, buffaloes, lions, leopards and rhinos of this continent will survive this century.

It is ironic, therefore, that the animal rightists, by insisting that man cannot and should not be able to “make money out of wildlife”, could be the very people who cause Africa’s wildlife to become extinct. 

SEE ALSO: The elephant's Armageddon (1). By Ron Thomson, True Green Alliance, Oct. 16, 2017.

SEE ALSO: The elephant's Armageddon (2). The elephant is not facing extinction. By Ron Thomson, True Green Alliance, Oct. 19, 2017.

In this age of mass-produced, imported goods, textile artist and jewellery designer Vanessa Ægirsdóttir belongs to a growing band of people who want more of the benefits of commerce going to producers of raw materials, and specifically in her case to Canada's First Nations trappers. While her family name reflects her Icelandic heritage, this artisan is Canadian born and bred, and currently lives in Whitehorse, Yukon. Together with her partner, Tlingit trapper George Bahm, her mission is to generate more economic returns for trappers of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council, in whose traditional territory they reside.

TruthAboutFur: Last year you opened a boutique in Whitehorse selling mainly fur jewellery. The Yukon is known for hats and mittens made by First Nations artisans. Why not do the same? Are you trying to create a new market?

Vanessa Ægirsdóttir: Our products include scarves, hair scrunchies, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and rings. We will be growing the line to include housewares and garments in the future. When developing the line, I wasn’t so much trying to create a new market as much as I was looking to enhance an existing one. Yes, the Yukon is known for mukluks, moccasins, mittens and trapper hats, but there was room for me to add a jewellery line and other accessories.

I feel strongly that it is not my place to elbow my way into the traditional fur products market, and there are many extremely skilled makers who are far more qualified than I am to be making these products. When folks inquire with me about having these traditional items made, I forward the contact information of the makers that have opted into being on a referral list that I share. So while I am an agent, I am not a middle man, and we don't sell their goods in our boutique.

I also know that many of those makers (several of whom are Elders) rely on the income generated from sewing traditional fur and hide garments, and I have absolutely no interest in taking that away from them. It’s a matter of respect.

TAF: How do you source your furs?

Vanessa: Preference is given to First Nations trappers when buying our furs. First, I buy all the furs of my partner, George Bahm, then if we need furs that his trapline didn’t produce, we go to his cousins and uncles. If we still need furs, we extend our search to his home community of Teslin and outward from there, always giving priority to First Nations trappers.

TAF: What incentive do trappers have to sell to you, rather than sending their pelts to auction, as is the common practice?

Vanessa: We often pay the same as, if not more than, what is typically obtained through the auction houses. This is a multi-faceted decision.

We want our local trappers to have choices about where their furs go, so by offering to buy the furs instead of them having to send them out, we create an option for them. We want to put more power back into the hands of the trappers. Normally, trappers can sell at auction for an unknown (often disappointing) price, or keep the furs and make finished goods themselves -- but this is something not everyone can do due to skill, time, or interest.

We also want to help our trappers make informed decisions about which furs to target, and how to invest in capital assets for their trapline operations. Knowing the current values of furs at the outset of the trapping season gives the trappers the choice with regard to what species to target and in what quantities.

Also, in our experience, it is rewarding for the trappers to see how the furs are being used, which is not an experience many are familiar with because furs sent to auction are never seen again.

"More than Just Harvesting Fur"

TAF: So your motivation is not just to build a successful business for yourself. Tell us about your larger vision.

Vanessa: Incentivising our First Nations trappers to sell their furs to us is not my main intention. More than that, I want their trapping to be sustainable and profitable.

Having spent only part of one winter out on the trapline with my partner, I have merely glimpsed a fraction of the beauty and teachings that await on the trapline. But I know that this traditional practice, with its skill, stories and lessons, will be lost if the wild fur industry continues as it is. My hope is to protect the importance of what is out on the trail, in the quiet of a fresh snowfall, so that future generations of fur harvesters can reconnect with their ancestors and the teachings that have endured for thousands of years. Trapping is so much more than just harvesting fur.

It is from this perspective that I might play a small part in an act that builds bridges and relationships between myself, as a non-Indigenous person, and the First Nations trapping community.

SEE ALSO: "'Trapping is beautiful' says proud Cree Robert Grandjambe."

Cultural Immersion Through Weaving

TAF: You have sought to immerse yourself in First Nations culture, and in particular the textiles aspect. But you are also mindful that you yourself are non-Indigenous. Tell us about your journey. Has it been easy?

Vanessa: In addition to working with fur, I am also a Ravenstail weaver. This ancient form of weaving predates the more commonly known Chilkat, and is similar to basket weaving. It originated on the Pacific West Coast with the First Nations (Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian, among others) who wove and traded Ravenstail robes long before contact. I learned this weaving method from Lily Hope whose mother, Clarissa Rizal, was a master weaver.

I have been warmly welcomed into the weaving community, which is comprised almost exclusively of First Nations weavers. Because of the teachings I’ve been given and the protocols that have been shared with me, in addition to my own skill and cultural awareness, I am allowed to do this weaving work. That’s not to say it has been without question and even upset some members of various First Nations communities. However, we try to use these interactions to inform and to dialogue with those posing questions and expressing concern, and are able to explain the special nature of the permissions given to me to be welcomed into the weaving community. This extends to my relationship with the fur and hide-maker community.

But make no mistake, I am aware that I am a non-Indigenous maker, and I don’t for a minute pretend to be First Nations. I am a guest, and it is a privilege to be welcomed into these various circles of knowledge. I treasure that deeply and take pains to preserve that.

Adding Value to Furs

TAF: So how do you see the current state of trapping in the Yukon? Presumably all is not well, or you wouldn't be striving for change.

Vanessa: There are around 300 to 400 trapping licenses currently issued by the Yukon Department of Environment, of which I guess fewer than half are held by First Nations trappers, mostly operating on traplines that have been in their families for generations.

What I see is that most trappers, regardless of their indigeneity, are limited in how to add value to their furs. We have the Yukon Trappers Association, which works with trappers of all backgrounds to get their furs to market. They make tools, traps, scent, and boards available for purchase, and also hold workshops. The YTA will batch furs from several trappers and send them out for tanning, which is not a service that is otherwise readily available in the area. Aside from individual makers (traditional or otherwise), there aren’t local manufacturing or design facilities that are taking the furs and producing Yukon-made fur garments.

Many First Nations trappers continue to produce finished goods from their furs like mitts and hats, but as is the case with most producers, the supply chain favours the final seller and not the producer of the materials or the finished goods. If these makers have an established clientele, they are positioned to make a reasonable income, but for those who rely on retail vendors to get their products in front of consumers, their work is shockingly under-valued. For example, it’s common for a maker of moccasins (smoke- and brain-tanned moose hide, beaver fur, and beadwork) to receive only $100 from a retail store owner, regardless of the innumerable hours spent in production.

While there may be a limit to what the market will bear in terms of the final retail price of such goods, it is seldom the maker who is receiving the majority of the money for the product being sold. We’re working to improve that balance.

***

SEE ALSO:

"Fur jewellery shop works to raise awareness about Indigenous culture", Yukon News, Jan. 24, 2019.

"Yukon artist and Tlingit trapper create stunning jewelry", Broadview, Feb. 13, 2019.

***

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

New York furriers are fighting back against a misguided proposal to ban the sale of fur products in New York City – a proposal that would destroy thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity generated by one of the city’s founding industries.

150 furriers and fur workers protested outside New York City Hall on March 28, as the fur ban proposal was presented to City Council by Speaker Corey Johnson and several other council members. The proposal was referred to the Committee on Consumer Affairs and Business Licensing for further discussion.

SEE ALSO: 6 reasons why banning fur sales is a very bad idea.

Family Businesses, a NYC Heritage

“We have to fight because this is a threat to so many people’s jobs. There are more than 1,500 people working in the fur trade and affiliated businesses in New York City,” says Maria Reich, the dynamic CEO of ER Fur Trading, Oscar de la Renta Furs, and Reich Furs, who was a spokesperson at the demo.

“This is also a direct threat to our freedom of choice,” she told me when I contacted her after the demo. “It is sad and worrisome that our local government could think they should dictate how we dress, what we eat, how we live. If the sale of fur can be banned by politicians, so can any other legitimate industry. Speaker Johnson thinks it’s his mission to save animals, so what’s next? Wool? Leather? Meat?

“What’s encouraging is how everyone in the trade has come together to fight against this completely unjustifiable proposal. With support from the Fur Information Council of America (FICA) and the International Fur Federation (IFF), we are signing petitions, calling and writing to our council members, speaking to the media, and getting the word out to the rest of the industry and the public about what’s happening,” she says.

“I have all my social media sites referring people to ShoppersRights.org, where they can easily let New York council members know what they think of this crazy proposal. People are being very engaged and supportive -- they want to help get the word out that people’s jobs are being threatened here, for no good reason.

“The modern fur trade is one of the most sustainable industries; the production of fur is well regulated and we are implementing full traceability with the new FurMark program. It’s just crazy that the council would even think about attacking this quintessentially New York industry. The fur trade is part of New York’s roots, going right back to the Native American people who lived here, and then the Dutch settlers and traders in the 17th century.

SEE ALSO: "Fur is a sustainable natural resource" on TruthAboutFur's website.

“Our company was started by my late husband’s grandfather, Charlie Reich, who arrived here from Poland in 1938, fought in World War II, and then returned to start Reich Furs. His great-granddaughter, Samantha Ortiz, is now president of the company. I am a single working mom, and small businesses like ours are the heart of New York. We are a design-driven company and we directly employ 20 people, but we also work with - and provide work for - many other New York Garment District companies: designers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers.

“It is really shameful that the councilman Johnson, who is supposed to represent the Garment District, is the one presenting this crazy proposal to shut down small family businesses and destroy the livelihoods of hard-working New Yorkers,” she says.

Fur Ban Is an Attack on Small Businesses - the Heart of NYC

Nick Pologeorgis is another leader of the New York trade; he also serves on the boards of FICA and the IFF. His father, Stanley, started Pologeorgis Furs in 1960, after arriving in New York from Crete. He apprenticed in a fur workshop without pay and became a master fur craftsman. He was one of the first furriers to forge relationships with top international designers, collaborating with Pierre Balmain from 1970. Nick joined the business when he finished college in 1984. His sister, Joan Pologeorgis, who graduated from the Fashion Institute of Technology, serves as vice-president in charge of production and is co-owner. It has been a family-owned and operated business for over 60 years.

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion.

“We love fur; not everyone has to like fur, but that doesn’t give them a right to ban it. There are real people’s jobs at stake here. This is the trade they know; they support their families,” says Pologeorgis.

“There are more than a thousand direct fur-trade jobs in New York, but our industry now also works closely with many other sectors. Fur is used for accessories and for home furnishings. Fur is used to make felt for hats, and for rugs.

“Think about it: more than $3 billion in economic activity would be lost over the next ten years if this ban was passed – that’s $3 billion taken from New Yorkers’ pockets, from New York families. And for what?

“New Yorkers are upset about all the jobs that were lost when Amazon decided to pull out of our area. More jobs stand to be lost in fur manufacturing with the proposed ban. They want to destroy jobs and small businesses like ours when they should be supporting us and fostering growth in NYC.

"The elected council members don’t really understand all the issues here. They say they want to save animals but what about people and their livelihoods?

“It’s a slippery slope from fur to many other products. What is next?” he asks. "I coach my son’s baseball team and we use leather-covered baseballs and leather mitts. So, is it also unnecessary and cruel to use baseball mitts?

“What is important now is that everyone in the trade – and everyone who supports consumer freedom of choice – should get involved and make their voices heard. You can go to ShoppersRights.org, and everything is there to make it easy to send a message to the city council members. FICA also has a social media tool kit that’s easy to use.

“Many people are working very hard to fight this terrible ban proposal, and we can succeed, but we need everyone’s help. It's time to speak out -- to defend our jobs and our rights!” says Pologeorgis.

*  *  *

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:

1. Go to www.ShoppersRights.org to send a message to NYC council members. (You can also send messages about ban proposals in San Francisco and Los Angeles.)

2. New York residents: Encourage your friends and family in NYC to get involved by visiting the website of Fur NYC.

3. Everyone: Follow the Fur NYC campaign on Twitter.

4. Share this TruthAboutFur blog post on social media. And also share our other posts: "6 reasons why banning fur sales is a very bad idea" and "Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion".

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

Recent proposals by Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now New York city councilors to ban fur sales should not only worry furriers who risk losing their jobs and businesses. These proposals should be a matter of grave concern to anyone who values living in a free, fair and tolerant society.

There are so many things wrong about the proposed bans on fur sales that it is hard to know where to begin, but let’s look at six of the most important problems:

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry.

1. These proposals to ban fur sales are a flagrant example of arbitrary government infringement on fundamental human rights. No one is forced to wear fur, and animal activists are free to campaign against the fur trade, but this does not give them the right to impose their personal beliefs on others. After decades of anti-fur campaigning, many people still clearly want to buy fur. The activist response is to seek legislation that would take away our right to choose for ourselves. This should have alarm bells ringing on all sides of the political spectrum!

2. It is illogical and discriminatory to consider banning fur sales when 95% of Americans eat meat and wear leather. Of course, PETA and other “animal rights” groups that are lobbying to ban fur sales are equally opposed to any use of animals, even for food.  But most North Americans do not accept this extreme view; most of us believe that humans do have a right to use animals for food, clothing and other purposes, so long as these animals are treated responsibly. There is no justification for banning fur sales while hundreds of millions of cows, pigs and sheep, and several billion chickens, are killed each year for food in North America. Even philosopher Peter Singer stated in his landmark Animal Liberation – the book that launched the animal-rights movement – that it is completely hypocritical to campaign against the fur trade while most Americans continue to eat meat, eggs, fish and dairy.

3. As a society we do, of course, sometimes restrict personal choice, but only for very important reasons. To ensure that animals will be there for us in the future, for example, we ban trade in endangered species. But endangered species are never used in the fur trade; all the furs we use today are raised on farms or culled from abundant wildlife populations. This is assured by state, national and international regulations. Animal welfare must also be respected -- and decades of scientific research and government regulations ensure that fur today is produced responsibly and humanely. Trapping in North America is regulated by state (in Canada, provincial) wildlife authorities, in accordance with ISO standards and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Fur farms are being inspected and certified to ensure compliance with codes of practice developed by veterinarians and animal scientists. There is simply no credible evidence that fur animals are treated less respectfully than other animals we use for food or clothing.

4. Wildlife populations often must be culled to protect property and human (and animal) health, whether or not we use their fur. Overpopulated beavers flood homes, farms and roads; raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other diseases; coyotes are the main predators of lambs and calves – and now attack pets and even people in urban areas; predators must also be managed to protect sea turtle eggs and other endangered species; and the list goes on. But if we must cull some of these animals, surely it’s more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

5. The fur trade supports livelihoods and cultures, especially in rural and remote regions where alternate employment may be hard to find. We all care about nature, but most of us now live in cities; indigenous and other trappers are our eyes and ears on the land, the people who monitor wildlife on a daily basis and can sound the alarm when nature is threatened. Fur farms provide employment in regions where the soil is too poor for other agriculture, helping to support rural communities. Fur artisans maintain handicraft skills that have been passed down from generation to generation. In this age of mass-production, each fur garment and accessory is still made individually, by hand. The fur trade maintains a range of remarkable skills and knowledge, a part of our human heritage that should be respected and encouraged, not persecuted with bans based on hateful and misleading propaganda.

6. Finally – and certainly not least – fur apparel is a long-lasting, natural material that is recyclable and completely biodegradable. After many decades of use, your fur can be thrown into the garden compost where it returns to the Earth. By contrast, most clothing today is made from petroleum-based synthetics that do not biodegrade. Instead, these synthetics leach thousands of plastic micro-particles into our waterways every time they are washed – plastic that is now being found in oysters and other marine life. It is bizarre at a time when we are trying to reduce our use of plastic – for example, by banning the use of plastic bags and water bottles – that some cities would even consider banning a long-lasting, recyclable and biodegradable natural material like fur!

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion.

As this quick review shows, recent proposals to ban fur sales are anything but “progressive”. They would unjustifiably usurp our right to use a sustainably produced, natural and biodegradable clothing material. They are arbitrary and discriminatory, especially in a society where most people eat meat and wear leather. They are completely unjustified because the modern fur trade is extremely well-regulated to ensure environmental sustainability and the responsible treatment of animals. And they would unfairly attack the livelihoods and cultures of thousands of people who maintain heritage craft skills and a close relationship with the land.

Again: no one is forced to wear fur. But everyone should be concerned about these misguided proposals to take away our right to make up our own minds about very personal and complex ethical choices.

********

What you can do to help! Make your voice heard at: www.ShoppersRights.org

Fur stories in the media are becoming increasingly nuanced as reporters strive for more balance or a new angle, or simply don't have time for the research needed to pick a side. Black and white stories that support or condemn fur unequivocally are becoming less common as editors seek somewhat more sophisticated, multi-faceted arguments -- but often what they get is just muddled thinking.

The most common problem the fur trade now faces is when so-called "balanced" reports just pit one side against the other, while making no attempt to sift the truth from the lies. The Independent did this in "Are faux alternatives more sustainable than the real thing?" Sure, a fur trade spokesman was allowed to explain that real fur is "a totally natural product, it is bio-degradable and in the case of wild fur it comes from conservation and population management projects.” But the same space is allotted to an animal rights spokeswoman, who claims, “There’s water pollution in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus from animal waste, air pollution from incinerating animal carcasses and releasing pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and hydrochloric acid.” Rather than investigating who's telling the truth, The Independent just leaves it up to readers to decide, and that doesn't really help anyone.

SEE ALSO: Is fur processing bad for the environment? TruthAboutFur website.

Meanwhile a Daily Mail writer gets totally muddled in "Don't hate me for wearing granny's fur!" Wearing vintage fur is great on every level, the writer asserts. "In so many ways it ticks the 'politically correct' box. It is a 100 per cent sustainable, renewable and biodegradable piece of vintage clothing that has been mended, reconditioned and recycled through three generations - possibly even a fourth when I offer it to my daughters." But then she says "a ban on new skins is laudable." So vintage fur is great for the environment but new fur isn't. Does that make any sense?

Another muddled argument which is simultaneously pro- and anti-fur comes from Argentine company Yerra, which makes luxury rugs from hide and fur. Says Yerra's owner, "Being environmentally conscious is very important to us and we don’t take this lightly." And what exactly does this mean? For one thing, it means only using hides and fur that are by-products of meat production. So using sheepskin and rabbit fur is "environmentally conscious" but using coyote and mink is not. Really? Why?

Speaking of different perspectives, last month TruthAboutFur interviewed fur designer Pamela Paquin from Massachusetts, who works exclusively with "accidental fur". Meanwhile, in New Zealand, Jane Avery works exclusively with invasive rabbits that are being eradicated anyway. (You may recall that TruthAboutFur interviewed Jane last year.)

Federal Protection for Wolves No Longer Needed?

Gray wolves seem to have bounced back in the US, and now the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to revoke their federal protection and put them under the authority of states across the Lower 48. "We need to take control of these wolves," says Tony Demboski of the Upper Peninsula Sportsmen's Alliance in Michigan. "They're cleaning up our deer herd, we've got people scared to go for a walk in the evenings. We've just got too many wolves."

Meanwhile, in Idaho and Montana, where wolf hunting was reinstated in 2009, the Associated Press reports that concerns this will hurt populations seem to be misplaced. "[W]olves are such prolific breeders that after each hunting season, their numbers bounced back the next spring. That continued even as wildlife regulators loosened trapping restrictions and allowed individual hunters and trappers to harvest multiple animals."

And speaking of wolves, the Labrador Winter Games was a chance to hold a week of seminars on clothing design, and fur sewers came from across Canada. Wolf hat, anyone?

Demand for pelts of the wolf's smaller cousin, the coyote, remains strong, says the Associated Press in "Popularity of fur-trimmed parkas a boon for coyote trappers". If you're in the mood for audio rather than print, listen to the Marketplace's take on the coyote market here:

Bits 'n' Bobs

We're thrilled for Brenda Dragon and her Fort Smith-based company, Aurora Heat, that makes fur-lined hand and foot warmers. Brenda wrote a blog post for TruthAboutFur back in 2017, when she was starting out. Now she's set for a bigger market, as Hudson's Bay Company has begun stocking her beaver fur hand-warmers in its Winnipeg store.

Jim Gibb, chairman of the Fur Institute of Canada, has a novel perspective of sustainability, as he told TruthAboutFur in "Living sustainably: A trapper’s thoughts on orange juice".

And since we started this news roundup discussing mixed messages, let's end with the viral story of YouTube "star" Yovana Mendoza Ayres. Yovana promotes a vegan lifestyle to her 2.5 million subscribers, but they turned on her when another YouTuber filmed Yovana eating ... fish! Her excuse? Her doctor said her vegan diet was harming her health!