I was just putting a salmon filet (marinated with mustard and maple syrup) into the oven when the phone rang. Nothing was farther from my mind than debating fur as the young man on the line asked if I would be renewing my support for Friends of Canadian Media. But when I explained that I never responded to phone solicitations, he chose instead to ask about my email address. Why was “fur council” in the domain name?

“It’s a non-profit association that supports the Canadian fur trade,” I said.

“Why would the fur industry have a non-profit?”

“Because the Fur Council of Canada is an industry association, not a business. It provides services including public education about why fur is a responsible and sustainable choice.”

“How can using fur be sustainable when animals are going extinct?” he snapped. The tone of the conversation had heated up a notch or two.

“Well,” I began, “there are two types of fur. If we begin with wild fur, one of Canada’s founding industries, …”

“Canada was founded on the genocide of aboriginal people and the destruction of forests,” he interjected before I could get any further. “Just because it’s foundational does not mean the fur trade is morally acceptable!”

“Fair enough. But we were talking about animals going extinct. The modern fur trade is very well regulated. All the furs we use are now from abundant species.”

“But we don’t need to kill animals for fur anymore. There are alternatives!”

“You mean fake fur and the other petrochemical-based synthetics in more than 60% of our clothing? Synthetics that we now know shed enormous quantities of microplastics into the environment …”

“Yes, plastics in the water, in the animals; that’s not right either," he conceded. "But it doesn’t justify killing animals for fur. We’re destroying nature.”

“Using nature doesn’t have to mean destroying it,” I said, trying to remain patient. “In any case, we can’t stop using nature, we are part of it. But animals and plants produce more young than their habitat can support. Most of this ‘surplus’ feeds others; that’s the real meaning of ecology: all life is intertwined. If we don’t want to saw the limb out from under us, we have to protect the habitat where plants and animals live -- and use only part of the surplus that nature produces each year. That’s the original meaning of sustainability -- ‘sustainable use’ is a concept coined by the World Conservation Strategy …”

Being a young man of his time, my interlocutor had found the World Conservation on the internet as I was speaking.

“Yes, I see that the World Conservation Strategy was published in 1980. Nice ideas, but I guess they’re not working because there are more animals than ever going extinct,” he proclaimed smugly.

“But not because of the fur trade!" I replied. "Beaver and other furbearer populations were seriously depleted in much of North America by the early 20th Century. But thanks to excellent regulations – and policies supported by trappers – all those populations have been restored. The modern fur trade is a real environmental success story … a true example of sustainable use.”

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story. Truth About Fur.

“That doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable to kill animals for frivolous needs!”

Ping-Pong Debate

“OK, that’s a different question.” I was trying to keep cool, but I hadn’t eaten dinner, and I’ve had too many of these ping-pong debates with activists who keep shifting the ground as soon as you answer one of their misconceptions.

“But how can we condemn using fur as ‘immoral’," I asked, when 95% of Canadians eat meat or dairy, and use leather, wool, and other animal products?”

“I’d say 100%,” he said, catching me by surprise. “I am vegan, but I sometimes sit on leather chairs or sofas …”

“Good point.”

“… and I am against vaccines that are made with eggs or tested on animals, but I work with the elderly, so I was vaccinated. I have arguments with other vegans about these things, but I am fact-driven, and the facts say there’s no need for trapping.”

Let’s talk about that when beavers flood your basement, I was going to say, or when rabies spreads to within 40 kilometres of Montreal, as it is again right now. But just then I remembered: the salmon! I tucked my phone under my ear, donned my oven mitts, and pulled out the Pyrex dish of sizzling, golden-brown fish.

“Gotta let you go – dinner’s ready. But if you want facts you should check out TruthAboutFur.com.” Saved by the bell, I’d had enough verbal sparring for one night. Heck, I’m supposed to be retired!

Why Bother?

We made an effort to say goodbye in a fairly civilized tone, but my adrenaline was pumping. That old familiar feeling. I wrote my environmental critique of the animal rights ideology more than 30 years ago, and since then have participated in countless debates, interviews, op-eds, websites, communications strategies … but the fur trade remains an easy target for activists, and a favourite scapegoat for society’s confused guilt trip about nature.

Why do I still bother talking with these people? I suppose because it was clear that my phone friend really cared, he was sincere in his belief that the fur trade is evil, and he was passionate – much like me.

I suppose I could have asked what humans are to wear if fur, wool, and leather are verboten, and he acknowledges the problems with petroleum-based synthetics -- and most cotton production is an environmental catastrophe. Talk about a naked ape!

SEE ALSO: What is "vegan fashion" and how true is the hype? Truth About Fur.

But none of my arguments would sway him because he doesn’t believe humans have a right to use animals at all. (Which begs the question of why humans are the only animals that shouldn’t use other animals. Are we part of nature or aren’t we?)

Of course, we don’t really need to convince dedicated vegans like my caller – although I could have told him that I know several vegetarian furriers.

The good news is that most Canadians (like Americans, Europeans, and people everywhere) do believe that humans have a right to use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes. To win their support, we have to do a better job explaining that the modern fur trade is well-regulated, responsible, and sustainable. We also need to explain the positive contributions that trappers make to wildlife management, habitat conservation, and public safety.

As the aboriginal peoples of North America understood long ago, using animals is not incompatible with respecting animals. Quite the contrary: recognizing how important animals are for our well-being provides the strongest incentive for protecting their habitat to ensure they will be there for us tomorrow.

Speaking of which, the salmon was delicious!

After decades of shrinking markets amid incessant attacks from animal rights groups, could real fur actually be on the verge of a comeback? And will it hinge on society's better understanding of sustainability?

Before you dismiss this is as just another puff piece from the fur trade, the mainstream media are asking the same question. Why is fur – real and pretend – everywhere again? asked Vogue this March. Can fur make a comeback? asked the Washington Post in April.

These are both prestigious titles not known for making stuff up, but there are plenty of other articles out there telling a similar story.

So if it's really true, why is it happening now? And should we really be surprised?

Understanding Sustainability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY7LetEbu8M

The last two decades have been tough for the fur trade, above all because of effective campaigns by animal rights groups to win over the media and vote-hungry politicians. It's impossible to count the number of media reports and pieces of legislation (particularly in the US) that have relied on half-truths and lies spoon-fed by these groups.

Two anti-fur campaigns have been particularly effective at hogging the media spotlight, in large part because they are highly repeatable. One involves pressuring well-known designer brands and retailers into dropping fur. The other seeks legal bans on fur production and retail at the town, city or state level. When one target has either capitulated or been bled dry of headlines, campaigners just move on to the next.

But while all this has been going on, the zeitgeist of society has changed dramatically. Thanks to the Internet, information is more available than ever before. And the conversation has changed too, and become more inclusive.

Above all, our focus now is on climate change. Scientists have been predicting trouble for years, but until recently they spent most of their time talking to one another, and most of us had little say. But now we're all involved, and many more of us can talk intelligently on topics as diverse as single-use plastics, watershed pollution, habitat loss, greenhouse gases, ozone holes and carbon footprints. Our grasp of these concepts has come on by leaps and bounds in a very short space of time.

As a result, some of the arguments the fur trade has been making for decades are now resonating with a much broader audience, among them the strongest argument in fur's favour: sustainability.

Just to recap the facts, in case you don't already know: Fur is a renewable natural resource, which means it is, by definition, sustainable. In contrast, petroleum-based synthetics like polyester, that now dominate the fashion industry, are non-renewable and therefore unsustainable. And contrary to what animal rights groups may want us to believe, fur is biodegradable, petroleum-based synthetics are not, and the environmental footprint of fur production is insignificant in comparison to that of synthetics.

SEE ALSO: Fur, a renewable resource. Fur Is Green.

Less Gullible

Because most people now get the facts, we are also far less gullible than we once were. How many of the following half-truths and lies did you once believe but now reject?

• Fake fur is better for the planet than real fur, because it does not involve killing animals. This is demonstrably false on several grounds. Both extracting petroleum and producing fake fur are polluting processes which kill millions of animals indirectly. Furthermore, fake fur sheds harmful microplastics into the food chain when washed, and at the end of its life, it's either burned or sits in landfills, causing further pollution.

• For the same reason, "vegan fashion" is good for the planet. Most vegan fashion is made of plastic, while much of the rest uses cotton, with all the harm to the environment that cotton production entails. Do you remember "pleather"? It didn't take a genius to figure out it was made of polyurethane, so marketers rebranded it as "vegan leather". But it's the same thing.

SEE AlSO: What is "vegan fashion" and how true is the hype? Truth About Fur.

• Fur is a special case because it's especially "cruel" and "unnecessary". All animal-users have known for years that this claim is false. Fur is just a soft target, and the ultimate goal of the animal rights movement is to end all animal use. In 2022, longtime advocate of sustainable use Canada Goose yielded to pressure to drop fur, hoping animal rights groups would leave it alone. Instead, protesters just took aim at its use of down stuffing instead.

SEE ALSO: Canada Goose retreats from fur. We should all worry, not just trappers. Truth About Fur.

• Inhumane treatment of animals is unsustainable. Despite the fact that animal welfare and sustainability are fundamentally different issues, animal rights groups have enjoyed great success persuading fashion brands and retailers to drop fur by convincing them they are part of the same package. Companies like Gucci and Canada Goose have even incorporated animal welfare into their sustainability policies.

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused? Truth About Fur.

How many consumers now see through such nonsensical arguments is impossible to say, but surely the number is growing, and product endorsements from animal rights groups are fast losing their value.

Mob Wife Look

So against this backdrop, why do some media pundits think fur's comeback may be happening right now?

Almost every story about fur's comeback in the last few months mentions a fashion trend called the "Mob Wife aesthetic". Born on TikTok, the Mob Wife look asks ladies to dress how they think the wives of Sonny Corleone, John Gotti or Tony Soprano dress. And the look is not just for clubbing. If you're visiting the grocery store, throw on your leopard-print jumpsuit, high heels, giant shades and bling jewellery, and top it all off with a fur stole.

SEE ALSO: TikTok’s ‘mob wives’ trend is fueling a resurgence of fur. CNN Style, Feb. 1, 2024.

But where did the Mob Wife look itself come from? Fashionistas theorise that there's a rebellion against the "clean girl" and "quiet luxury" looks, but at a deeper level, there may also be a connection with our improved understanding of sustainability.

Here's the logic. As we question "fast fashion", reliant as it is on petroleum-based synthetics, we are turning to "slow fashion", with investment pieces made of more durable, natural materials. And as part of this trend, we're also seeing a surge in recycling, including buying used clothing at thrift stores.

Enter vintage furs. They're both slow fashion and recycled – and an integral part of the Mob Wife look.

On balance, growth of the vintage fur market must be beneficial to the fur market as a whole. A nuanced ethical debate is now being played out by people who – for now, at least – say they reject new fur because it involves taking animal life, but embrace vintage fur because the animals are dead anyway. Indeed, putting their fur to good use, they say, is actually more ethical than throwing it away.

So now there's a mix of people out there, wearing new, vintage and fake fur, all acknowledging its beauty and functionality, while having a spirited debate about which is more sustainable. This is far more positive than the predictable pro- and anti- arguments we've been hearing for decades (and that the media are probably bored with).

Meanwhile, realists point to the fact that supplies of vintage furs are limited, and that as supplies dwindle, some of its fans at least will switch to buying new.

What the future holds for fur is hard to predict, but we are now in an age of greater awareness about sustainability, and are counting on consumers to make wise choices. An obvious loser will be petroleum-based synthetic garments, while winners will come from a range of renewable natural resources. That should include fur.

This article was first published in Country Squire Magazine on Jan. 12, 2024, and has been slightly edited. It is reproduced with permission.

Being an Old Testament bloke, I usually reply in kind to those rude people who call law-abiding farmers, hunters, field-sportspeople and wildlife managers “murderers, killers and evil monsters”. I insult people who tell blatant lies about trophy hunting, and I mock demented Animal Rights (AR) evangelists who are so blinded by zealotry that they can’t tell a human from a hippo. It is therefore with awful sadness and restraint that I comment on one of my heroes and favourite people on TV, the wonderful Stephen Fry, whose appearances in Blackadder as Lord/General Melchett over 30 years ago and as the genial host of QI over 20 years ago (I know!) has enriched my life a bit and made him a firm favourite with the nation.

But now he has gone and done his own round of QI’s “General Ignorance”, concerning the bearskins worn by His Majesty’s Guards. Fry has unfortunately seen fit to front a campaign by PeTA ostensibly aimed at getting the Guards to use fake plastic fur instead of real fur bearskins – and fake sums up the whole AR campaign.

PeTA (also known as “PeTAnnihilation” from its habit of killing pets) you might recall, is the global AR behemoth (UK income £6 million, Global income $66 million and part of the $88 million that the network of mega AR parasites rake in annually). PeTA’s founder, stark-raving Ingrid Newkirk (“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth”), who openly condones ecoterrorism, set up PeTA to spread the mental disease of AR and oppose any use of animals by humans – no pets, no seeing dogs, no mine-detecting rats, no drug dogs, no farming animals, no nothing.

Unfortunately, since all of our physical resources and clearing land for any building work or farming, even vegetable farming (yes, vegans) or any other primary industry, involves killing animals, it is a simple fact of life that we humans couldn’t exist without killing animals, so the AR ideology is, in reality, an intellectual cow-pat. This is hardly surprising because Newkirk, like the rest of the AR souls, was apparently intoxicated by reading Peter Singer’s brain-fart of a book, Animal Liberation. He, in turn, is infamous for suggesting that, given a choice, competent monkeys should be given more rights than mentally incompetent human infants and he is AR’s founding father. There is, in fact, no such thing as animal rights, as any deer fawn can explain, shortly before being torn to shreds by an omnivorous black bear.

As Baldrick might have put it, “AR is a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”. AR is just about as realistic as that, too.

This story isn’t new. Bears and the King’s Guards, like naked women and red paint, make for wonderful press photos, so they have been a favourite target for PeTA for years; in fact the suggestion has been made that PeTA might want to let this particular golden goose live on. In the past, PeTA organised the usual petition and got their empty-vessel, willing donkey MPs to waste time in the Westminster Asylum debating their anti-bearskin nonsense and waste money taking the MOD to court in 2022. Bears are very charismatic in the UK – you will notice that AR souls make much less fuss here about rats, but even then, PeTA suggests that rats “should be caught gently in live catch traps and released not more than 100 yards from where they are caught” – an idea with obviously only one oar in the water, like most AR souls’ ideas. This is really all about publicity, not bears.

And what of the bears?

Well, according to Canadian government wildlife authorities, who may know a tad more about fur than either nut-roast PeTA or vegetarian Mr Fry, black bears are abundant and common in Canada. There is an estimated black bear population of about 500,000 black bears in Canada that is both healthy and stable. Black bear hunting and trapping has a very long history and is strictly regulated by both season and quota. In Canada, it contributes to food security and economic sovereignty in Indigenous communities and is an important source of rural income, especially where alternative economic opportunities are few. Bear meat and red offal are eaten, while grey offal is laid out for the natural scavengers or buried if you don’t want a bear’s picnic. There is nothing strange about any of it. We humans have been predators since before we were humans. Hunting by modern humans and our ancestors goes back at least 1,600,000 years.

PeTA has been around for about 43 years.

Stephen Fry is simply wrong when he repeats PeTA’s dishonest but obligatory “Trophy hunting” jibe – harvesting bears per se is not trophy hunting. He’s having a stir. Trophy hunting (usually conducted by hunting tourists) is something entirely different – trophy hunters keep their bear skins for a start. The Canadian bear harvest is not a “sport” – it is closer to subsistence hunting, an ancient and honourable human activity aimed at sustainably harvesting a natural resource, like rabbits, deer or fish in the UK and, like all predation, it doesn’t have to be “fair” – it’s not some kind of frivolous urban game to be played.

Things get killed. It is a way of life and a cultural tradition. The number of Canadian bears annually harvested by legal hunting and trapping is only a maximum of 6% of the total population and the harvest is RATS – Regulated, Accountable, Transparent and Sustainable. The meat is eaten while skins, bones, claws, and grease, etc. are important by-products of this harvest and are sent to market, no different to leather, feathers, hide glue, deer antlers for handles or dog chews that end up in UK pet shops.

Could someone please tell critics that the MOD don’t look at a tatty old bearskin cap and immediately phone someone in Canada to go out and club a bear to death for a new one. The MOD has nothing to do with the Canadian bear harvest or its market any more than it buys steel for its guns or leather for its boots. The MOD buys their bearskin caps from a supplier, representing (in number) a minuscule 0.04% of the skins available from the bear population and if those suppliers did not buy them, it would not make a blind bit of difference to either the sustainable bear harvest or its market.

It is therefore not true for Fry to suggest that buying them “encourages hunting”. Bear pelts are a natural commodity like any other. As of 2020, there were 14 countries whose militaries used bearskin as a part of their ceremonial uniforms and there is an interesting piece about making the UK bearskin caps on the excellent and most illuminative Fieldsports Channel.

Of course, the public are not Royal Guards, so PeTA and Fry and their usual posse of rich, virtue-signalling slebs can pretend to their doting and donating public that plastic fur makes a better substitute and from there imply deceptively that it will save bears’ lives.

Wrong on both counts, as usual.

The MOD have made it clear here that fake fur isn’t up to scratch (so to speak) and, as you can see from the link, using fake fur won’t save a single bear. Quite apart from these practical and sensible considerations, there is also the serious matter of military tradition and esprit de corps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5aQFzTawAg&t=173s

AR souls, whose self-indulgent, look-at-me ideology is only possible because they are safe and well protected by the sharp sword and bright armour of the military, have no more idea about military tradition than they do about hunting culture. In the earlier debate about bearskins in the Westminster Asylum, Martyn Day MP (nothing to do with the shamed Al Sweady lawyer) got up to pee on military tradition, saying, “As the writer and philosopher G. K. Chesterton wrote: Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” He omitted to acknowledge that the sacrifices of those dead allowed him to stand in Parliament and freely spout his wrong-headed opinions.

Dear Readers, there is another serious, real-world note. Fake fur is made up of millions of tiny oil-based plastic fibres that snap off in sunlit use and inevitably break down into smaller and smaller pieces. We all know that trillions of micro plastics are shed by synthetic plastic clothes (up to 700,000 in a 6kg wash), exfoliants (up to 94,000 in a single use) and tyres (18,000 tons annually), making up 65% of the micro plastics released into UK surface waters that end up in the oceans and inside us. What we should be doing is stopping using fake plastic Franken-fur, not promoting it. It may well be poisoning all of us (and, ironically, the bears in Canada) just to keep a handful of gobby urban head-bangers happy.

Natural fur, on the other hand, has another story. It is an unbeatably warm and beautiful, sustainable and replaceable natural resource that can be absorbed back into nature’s own cycle – one that we have been using for the whole of our history. It is bio-degradable and uses fewer chemicals to produce than, say, leather. Sustainably utilising natural resources like fur and meat while managing wildlife populations is an excellent use for vast areas of remote wilderness, ensuring that it is self-protected from development or other uses such as farming. In doing so, all the other fauna and flora is conserved, too. Armchair conservationists may grumble and the AR happy clappers may moan, but hunters on the ground are often the first eyes and ears monitoring the condition of the environment and its residents.

Looking at the state of the world at the moment, surely we have much more important problems to attend to rather than waste time and money, pointlessly pandering to PeTA the Parasites or to the twisted ideology and emotions of rich, virtue-signalling AR souls – even souls of the otherwise exemplary stature of Stephen Fry, bless him.

On Nov. 23-24, all the right people – leaders from the European Union and Canada – were gathered in St. John’s for the Canada-EU Summit. Those of us representing Canadians who make their livings in remote and rural areas from Prince Rupert to Newfoundland’s outports, by harvesting fur and seals, were hopeful. Meetings such as these provide high-level government representatives with an opportunity to discuss issues that matter to their respective governments behind closed doors and far removed from everyday citizens.

And, this summit was different. Instead of being monitored only by political gadflies and lobbyists, people in remote communities across Eastern and Northern Canada watched closely. They watched because the summit was held in Newfoundland, where the ocean and its bounties have long been the bedrock of the economy and culture.

This, of course, is the same St. John’s that once was home port to steamers, which brought hundreds of Newfoundlanders to the ice of the North Atlantic to harvest seals. The same St. John’s where European celebrities descended to hold press conferences in front of TV cameras to attack the livelihoods of hunters who put their lives on the line on the ice to provide for their families. The same St. John’s where, for over 30 years, the elected officials of the provincial government sat on sealskin chairs as they debated the business of the day.

In 2009, the predecessors of those same EU officials who were fêted in St. John’s banned the trade of Canadian seal products, striking a blow to rural communities across Eastern and Northern Canada that had relied on the hunting of seals for hundreds of years. Regulation No 1007/2009 inflicted untold damage not only to communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, but also to Inuit communities across Canada’s North.

The impact on Inuit communities was the genesis of a challenge to the ban in the European Court of Justice, brought by Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and supported by the Fur Institute of Canada and others. This was followed by a challenge by the Government of Canada at the World Trade Organization. Though it upheld the ban, the WTO challenge forced the EU to allow an exemption for seals harvested by “Inuit and other Indigenous communities”.

This is the exemption that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said was “working well” and that a “good balance” had been found on seals. This is completely and unambiguously false. Only two bodies in Canada are recognized as being able to certify that a seal product comes from an Indigenous harvest: the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Northwest Territories. In a report from her own Commission, it shows that Nunavut has only exported two sealskins to Europe, in 2020, and the Northwest Territories exported just two sealskin coats, in 2022.

European Sealers Also Hamstrung

Perhaps even more revealingly, that same report contains four EU member states saying that the ban’s “impact has gone beyond its intended purpose”. These four states – Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Sweden – all still have their own seal hunts but are hamstrung the same way Canadian sealers are when it comes to trading their products.

In terms which would be shockingly familiar to anyone on Canada’s East Coast, these states raise concerns about the impacts of seals eating cod and salmon, about infecting fish with parasites, and impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries.

Unfortunately, EU and Canadian officials did not avail themselves of an ideal opportunity to reverse the historic injustice of the 2009 seal ban when they gathered in St. John’s.

But it’s not too late. The European Commission is launching a review of the Regulation on Trade in Seal Products in 2024. Canada can, should, and must work closely with the EU member states that are unhappy with the ban, supported by Canada’s sealing industry and Indigenous leadership, to overturn the regulation.

We also need European Commission leadership to engage honestly and candidly on the damage done by this ban and chart a course to move beyond the mistakes of the past. This conversation must be elevated to the most senior levels and involve representatives of the industry and Indigenous communities directly impacted, not the extremist animal-activist groups whose goal is to destroy the way of life of people who live close to the land – and sea – and who use renewable natural resources responsibly and sustainably..

Considering how much trapping of wildlife takes place in Canada, it is very rare for pet dogs to become accidental victims. Finding a dog in their trap or snare is not something any trapper wants, but accidents do happen, and they almost always involve someone ­breaking the law. Maybe a trap was illegally set, or maybe a dog was off-leash where it shouldn't have been. Yet when the media report these stories, they hardly ever investigate the crime that's been committed. Instead they turn the story into an indictment of all trapping, including by licensed, law-abiding trappers.

Why is this imbalance occurring? And what can the trapping community do to encourage more balanced and accurate reporting?

Let's start by looking at two recent stories involving traps catching the wrong animals.

Case Study 1 – Prince Edward Island

Last December on Prince Edward Island, a four-year-old Pyrenean mountain dog called Caspie died in a snare while exercising with her owner, Debbie Travers. The dog was off leash, which was perfectly legal because they were on private property belonging to Travers's family. Authorities investigated and found that the snare had been set illegally by someone who had failed to get the landowner's permission. They also found and removed three other snares nearby.

Local media predictably jumped on this human interest story. Man's best friend had been killed, she had a name, a bereaved owner wanted justice, and there were photos of Caspie in happier times. The story's hook practically wrote itself.

The problem arose in the choice of people interviewed for context.

After covering the human interest angle, it should have been a straightforward crime story. There was a victim, the dog (or, legally, its human owner). And there was a perpetrator, the person who set the illegal trap.

A good reporter would address the legality of pet dogs exercising off-leash on this particular land, and explain how the story could have been different under different circumstances. He or she would also stress that the perpetrator was trespassing, and had set the snare without permission and with intent to poach. And while the dog's death was surely unintentional, she died as a direct result of these illegal acts, not due to legal trapping.

For expert comments, the reporter could then interview law enforcement, the government body regulating trapping, and the local trapping association. Between them, these sources could say exactly what laws had been broken, and make an educated guess as to why.

Instead, Canada's public broadcaster, CBC, devoted a sizeable chunk of its report to the views of an ambulance-chasing anti-trapping group. "These traps are indiscriminate, they injure both the target and non-target animals," said Aaron Hofman, a director of The Fur-Bearers. "Dogs, they have keen senses of smell, so what's gonna stop them from wandering into a trap versus, say, a coyote or fox?"

No representatives of the trapping community were interviewed.

SEE ALSO: 6 trapping safety videos dog owners should watch. Sportsman's Blog.

Case Study 2 – Calgary, Alberta

Our second case is different, but hopefully also instructive to reporters looking to ask the right questions.

This January, a bobcat in Calgary spent two weeks walking around a community with a small trap on its front paw. Authorities finally caught "Bobby" (as some locals called him), and took him to a wildlife rehabilitation facility, where we understand he's doing fine.

We can't be sure exactly what happened, but if reporters had bothered to ask people who actually know trapping, this is what they'd have heard.

The trap was a Conibear 110, a body-gripping trap designed to instantly kill small animals that enter it head first. It was not a foothold trap, even though it held the bobcat's paw.

We can also say that the trap was almost certainly not set by a licensed commercial trapper. Such a trapper would never use a small trap like this for a bobcat, and if it were set in an open area, he would have placed it in some kind of box to keep larger animals out. He might also have tethered the trap to something like a tree, as an extra precaution against a larger animal wandering off with the trap attached.

So what almost certainly happened was that someone with no trapping experience set the trap to deal with a small animal, and did it wrong. Maybe they were after a rat, or thought it would stop the neighbour's cat pooping in their flower bed.

Unfortunately, once again the CBC reporter did not interview any trapping experts, instead featuring a wildlife rehabilitation expert who said: “the device clamped on the animal's paw was a conibear trap, which is typically used to ensnare skunks, raccoons or foxes.” As trappers reading this know, 110s are only AIHTS-certified for muskrat and weasels, not raccoons or skunks, and it would be too small for fox. This is likely not intentional misinformation, but simply an over-simplification from a non-expert on trapping. A trapper would have been able to tell the reporter that Conibear-style traps come in a wide range of sizes and strengths, and that no trapper worth his salt would set a 110 for a bobcat.

What to Do?

We all want to be fully informed on subjects that matter to us, and seek out media that produce balanced and accurate reporting. But as these examples show, that's not always easy.

To understand why, consider the life of a local news reporter. In this fast-paced world, deadlines are getting ever shorter, plus most local stories have short shelf lives anyway. If a cat gets stuck up a tree, it either makes the evening news or it's forgotten. So reporters bang out their 800 words as fast as they can, and just hope they got the facts as straight as they could.

Anti-trapping groups pander to this weakness. Even though they don't know how to trap, and have no experience in improving trapping technologies, practices, or regulations, they have made themselves go-to sources for comment whenever trapping makes the news. They make themselves very accessible, and have sound bytes and images ready to go.

They're sneaky too. On their websites they're clear about wanting to ban all trapping, but for the media, they take a soft-sell approach to make them sound reasonable. Regulations should be tightened, they say. More safeguards are needed. They may even act like they have a great new idea, though in truth every option to make trapping safer has already been considered somewhere in the country.

And the result, almost always, is a news report that is a one-sided indictment of all trapping, including the legal activities of licensed commercial trappers. We all get tarred with the same brush.

So if we hope to see balanced, objective reports about trapping, we need to be playing this game too. We are the authorities, not them, and we need to make sure reporters know this. But even more important, we need to be accessible, and that's the tricky part.

We can't match the accessibility of anti-trapping groups because we simply don't have the manpower to flood reporters' email or voice mail. Plus we have other work to do – be it actual trapping, or unrelated jobs that most trappers have. In contrast, all anti-trapping groups have to do is make noise.

So we need to work smarter, and to that end I offer these suggestions:

• We must be proactive. Trapping associations must make sure their local reporters know they exist before a story breaks. Call them up, build a rapport, and let them know you are available for comment at any time. Invite them to your events, show them that trapping is alive and well, let them know what your organizations are up to.

• When a story does break and a reporter contacts you for comment, you need to respond as quickly as possible. This may mean establishing a rota at your association so one person is always available. The last thing a reporter with a deadline wants to hear is an automated reply like, "I'm out of the office for the next three days."

• If you see a news report that is negative about trapping and does not include a trapper's perspective, contact the reporter or editor and point out the omission. And, of course, suggest someone they can contact in future. As proof that this approach works, FIC reached out to CBC following its unbalanced report on the PEI incident, and two days later it published a new report which gave top billing to the views of an actual trapper.

• On the other hand, when you see a news report that is positive about trapping, and includes a trapper’s perspective: like, comment, share! Even contact the reporter and let them know that you noticed they provided balanced coverage. If reporters see that stories they write that feature trappers telling the truth about trapping get better feedback than the stories with the anti-trappers, they will be more likely to feature trappers again.

With luck, the next time a dog is caught in a trap, the trapping community will be treated fairly by reporters. And hopefully there will be fewer nasty quotes from anti-trapping groups that don't know what they're talking about.

Raised by humans for more than 150 years, farmed mink are significantly different from their wild cousins and are now clearly domesticated, despite animal activist claims to the contrary. This is important because the claim that farmed mink are not domesticated, but rather are “wild animals kept in captivity”, sits at the heart of activists' critique of mink farming.

Activists argue that, because wild mink travel and hunt over large territories, it is impossible to satisfy their fundamental needs on farms. Therefore, they claim, mink farming cannot be humane or ethical, and should be banned.

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

But is it true that mink farmers are keeping “wild animals” in captivity?

To support their claim that farmed mink are wild, activists point out that they have been raised by humans for only a short time compared with cattle, chickens, pigs or other farm animals. As a result, they say, farmed mink maintain much of their “wildness” – often they can only be handled wearing gloves – and are “biologically unchanged”, so they can survive if released (accidentally or intentionally) into the wild, and can even interbreed with wild mink.

Let’s look more closely at each of these claims.

How Long Does Domestication Take?

It is true, of course, that mink have been raised by humans for much less time than many common farm animals. Mink were first bred and raised in captivity in North America as early as 1866, but the ancestor of our domestic chickens, the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), was domesticated some 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in India and China. The domestic pig, derived from the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), dates from around the same time.

It is worth noting, however, that for most of their history, domesticated chickens, pigs, and other farm animals were raised mostly outdoors. The time these animals have been raised indoors, in more confined cages or pens, is not really that different from mink.

The more important question is how long is really required for an animal to become domesticated? And to answer that question, we must ask what domestication really means.

Animal scientists and biologists consider that domestication involves directional selection that produces morphological, physiological (or functional), and behavioural changes in the animal – changes that allow the animals to successfully adapt to husbandry conditions, and to better satisfy human needs.

Like other domesticated animals, selection for various traits in mink may be “active” (e.g., farmers selecting breeding pairs to develop new fur colours, or to produce larger animals with more fur per animal), or “passive” (e.g., physiological or behavioural changes that emerge because mink are no longer subjected to the natural selection pressures of finding food and mates, or avoiding predators).

Selection Brings Changes

Following are some of the changes observed in farmed mink that show they have, in fact, undergone a process of domestication through active and passive selection.

CHANGES IN SIZE AND PHYSIQUE

Such changes are a common result of domestication. For example, chihuahuas and bulldogs are very different from wolves. Similarly, farmed mink can be twice the size of wild mink – the result of many generations of selecting for larger animals that produce more usable fur per animal.

CHANGES IN FUR COLOUR

Many domesticated species of mammals and birds show a range of fur and feather colouration that is either rare or unknown in the wild. Wild mink are usually dark brown, but farmed mink have been selectively bred for a wide variety of consistent colour phases, ranging from pure white to jet black. Paler-coloured mink also tend to be larger than darker strains, and more docile.

CHANGES IN MUSCLE AND FAT FORMATION

Farmed mink have more subcutaneous fat than their wild cousins. This fat is rendered into mink oil, for waterproofing and conditioning leather. The increased fat appears to be a secondary effect of selecting for larger animals.

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES

Farmed mink are fertile over a longer period than wild mink, and they also have larger litter sizes. Wild female mink produce an average of two to three kits, while farmed mink average five to six, and sometimes as many as 12. Farmers sometimes select breeding stock for larger litter size, but there is evidence that the (passive or active) selection for less aggressive behaviour (“docility”) may also result in increased fertility and larger litters.

CHANGES IN BRAIN SIZE

It is well known that the brain volume of domesticated animals is generally smaller than in the wild animals from which they are descended. This can range from a reduction in volume of about 14% in domesticated ducks and guinea pigs, to as much as 25-34% in sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, and ferrets. Similarly, when corrected for body size, the brains of farmed mink are about 20% smaller than those of their wild cousins. The heart and spleen of farmed mink are also smaller, which had also been observed in other domesticated animals. Reduced brain volume and other changes are likely the result of the removal of natural selection forces including the need to find food and flee predators.

CHANGES IN BEHAVIOUR AND TEMPERAMENT

While most farmed mink must still be handled with gloves, they are considerably less fearful or aggressive than wild mink – as anyone who has visited a farm can attest. When we enter a barn, most mink will come to the front of their pens to see who’s there; they show curiosity rather than fear or aggression. While farmers have selected mink mostly for size, fur colour and quality, and sometimes for litter size or maternal instinct, there is also a degree of active and passive selection for tameness. This is because highly fearful or aggressive animals do not thrive in a farm environment, are more difficult to handle, and may not reproduce as readily. The codes of practice for raising mink in both the US and Canada include provisions for selecting against fearfulness and abnormal behaviours (sterotypies). Increased fertility, larger body size, reduced brain volume, and certain paler colour phases are also correlated with increased tameness.

Animal Activist Arguments

This brief summary shows that farmed mink clearly exhibit a number of morphological, physiological and behavioural traits commonly associated with domestication. But what about the issues animal activists raise to argue that farmed mink are not domesticated?

For example, take what happens when animal activists raid a mink farm and release the animals. Usually they remain close by and are easily recaptured, if they are not killed by passing cars first. But some can survive in the wild, and even interbreed with wild populations. Activists cite this as “proof” that farmed mink are really “wild animals”, but we know that cats, pigs, and other indisputably domesticated species are also able to survive, and breed, in the wild. Dogs, for example, can interbreed with wolves and coyotes.

Activists also claim that wild mink are agile (hard to handle), carnivorous, solitary, and shy in nature, and therefore not good candidates for domestication. However, other carnivorous animals – like cats and ferrets (a close cousin of the mink) – are also agile, solitary and shy in the wild, but have clearly been domesticated.

When pressed, activists argue that mink simply have not been raised on farms long enough to be domesticated. But the experiment conducted by Dmitri Belyaev and Lyyudmila Trut, in Siberia, famously demonstrated that selecting for just one trait – tameness – in farmed silver foxes was sufficient to produce dramatic physiological changes and dog-like behaviours in only 20 generations. Mink have been raised on farms in North America for about 150 years – that's 150 mink generations -- more than enough time for active and passive selection to have induced changes normally accepted as domestication, as summarised in this article.

What Scientists Say

Much of the information in this brief summary is taken from two scientific papers: “Is the mink domesticated?” by Prof. Eddy Decuypere [Physiology Research Group, Faculty of Bioengineering Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, 2005], and, “The welfare of farmed mink as compared to other farmed animals, and the question of domestication of farmed mink”, by Prof. B.M. Spruijt, [Animal Welfare Centre, Veterinary Faculty, Utrecht University, 1999]. Those interested in this subject would do well to consult these papers, as well as the extensive scientific references they cite to support their observations.

Prof. Spruijt concludes: “Farmed mink are surely a domesticated species, as evidenced by certain defined characteristics of domestication present in mink, like changes in fur colour, physiology and behavior brought about by selection.” While acknowledging that ”docility” is one aspect of domestication that seems less pronounced in mink (and that he thinks is worthy of further research), he reports that “Given the relatively short history of mink breeding, the welfare assessment of farmed mink suggests that mink have adapted reasonably well to captive conditions,” and that “Compared to the welfare of other farmed animals, there is no reason to suggest that their level of domestication presents an unacceptable welfare problem.”

Prof. Decuypere similarly concludes that, “based on a number of typical domestication characteristics such as changes in fur colour, the lengthening of the mating season, the reduction in brain volume and behaviour changes, and by analogy to changes in these characteristics in animals known to us from time immemorial, the bred mink is unmistakably a domesticated animal."

It should be noted that while we have focussed on farmed mink in this survey, many of the same arguments for domestication – e.g., on-going selection for increased size, new colour phases, more docile temperament – can also be made for farmed foxes.

Of course, none of this will satisfy activists who subscribe to the extreme “animal rights” philosophy. For them, animal welfare concerns like those raised by the domestication debate are just a smokescreen, because they know that most people do not share their belief that humans have no right to use animals at all, for any purpose.

The claim that farmed mink are not domesticated animals is just the latest Trojan Horse that animal activists are wheeling out to insinuate their no-animal-use agenda onto consumers, the media, and politicians. Like so many activist claims, it is not supported by the facts.

***

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

A major new public opinion poll shows that, despite decades of aggressive and misleading activist campaigning, most Canadians are still fine with wearing fur and other natural clothing materials -- but are increasingly worried about the environmental costs of petroleum-based synthetics that activists love to promote as “vegan”.

The survey of 1,500 Canadians was commissioned by the Natural Fibers Alliance, and conducted in August 2022 by Abacus Data, a leading public affairs and market research consultancy.

SEE: Canadian Public Opinion on Mink Farming and Fur Use, and Public Opinion on Fur & Mink in Canada. By Abacus Data, August 2022.

The research completely contradicts animal activist claims that fur is no longer socially acceptable. In fact, two-thirds (65%) of Canadians believe that wearing fur is acceptable so long as the industry is well regulated and animals are treated humanely. Only one in five (21%) of Canadians do not agree – with just 10% saying they “strongly disagree”.

More than three-quarters (77%) of Canadians also believe that wearing fur is a matter of personal choice – putting the lie to activist claims that the public supports their call for fur bans. (Politicians take note!)

Seven in ten (71%) Canadians also agree that warm clothing is a necessity in many countries, and that natural fur is a sustainable warm clothing choice.

It is fascinating to see that, despite years of activist propaganda against mink farming, 35% of Canadians have a positive view of the sector while 25% are “neutral”, and only 21% have a negative view – of which only 10% are “very negative” – about mink farming. (18% feel they don't know enough to form an opinion.)

Encouraging for Mink Farmers

Mink farmers will also be encouraged to learn that younger people tend to have a more positive view of their sector: 41% of 18-29-year-olds have a positive view of mink farming, compared with 35% of 30-60-year-olds, and 25% of those over 60. Again, these findings completely contradict activist claims that the future is theirs.

Strong pluralities of Canadians also believe that the mink farming sector supports rural communities (41%; versus 8% who disagree); that it is environmentally sustainable (38%; versus 12% who disagree); and that it takes care to maintain animal health and welfare (37%; versus 16% who disagree.) About one in five Canadians are “neutral” about these questions, while the balance don’t feel they know enough to state an opinion.

More broadly, this study completely debunks activist claims that the public is buying into their no-animal-use, vegan agenda. Despite all the hype we see these days about vegan products and vegan menu choices, 96% of Canadians are still open to eating animal products like eggs and dairy, while 90% think it’s OK to eat meat. So much for the vegan wave!

SEE ALSO: What Is "Vegan Fashion" and How True Is the Hype? Truth About Fur.

Consumers Worried by Synthetics

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-JC8HmyTRdg

Three-quarters (74%) of Canadians also say they are comfortable with people wearing clothing or accessories made from leather, fur, wool, down, or other animal-derived natural fibres. (15% are “not too comfortable” with such choices, while only 7% of Canadians say they are “not at all comfortable” with animal-derived clothing materials.)

In fact, it is not fur or other animal-derived natural clothing materials that have consumers worried, but petroleum-based synthetics. 83% of Canadians are concerned that such synthetics – now in more than 60% of all our clothing – don’t biodegrade. 86% worry that synthetic fibres pollute our waterways and poison aquatic life. 83% are concerned about microplastics in our food and water.

SEE ALSO: The Great Fur Burial. Truth About Fur.

Because of such concerns, most Canadians (87%) now feel we should strive to use fewer synthetic fibres in our clothing (58%), or phase them out completely (29%).

Two-thirds of Canadians, in fact, now believe that “fast fashion” is contributing to an ecological crisis – and 60% of consumers feel that an environmental fee should be applied to all non-renewable clothing materials, because of their impact on the environment!

Again, completely contradicting activist claims, most consumers (77%) believe that natural fur is a more environmentally sustainable clothing choice than synthetics. Nearly two-thirds (64%) also believe that fur is a more socially responsible choice, while 59% consider fur to be a more ethical choice than synthetics.

SEE ALSO: Is It Ethical to Wear Fur? Truth About Fur.

Important Lessons

Bottom line, this new research provides some important lessons for the fur trade, the fashion industry, consumers, politicians, and the media:

1. The Fashion Industry: Designers, manufacturers, and retailers should listen to their consumers. Contrary to activist claims, most Canadian consumers do want to buy and wear fur, leather, wool, and other animal-derived products, so long as they are produced responsibly and sustainably. In fact, consumers today are more comfortable with responsibly produced animal-based clothing products than they are with petroleum-based synthetics.

2. Politicians: This research puts the lie to activist claims that Canadians want mink farming banned. In fact, more Canadians have a positive impression of mink farming than a negative impression, and more believe that the sector respects animal welfare and environmental sustainability. The research also completely debunks activist claims that the public want the sale of fur products banned. Quite the contrary, an absolute majority of Canadians believe that it is morally acceptable to use fur, and more than three-quarters believe that wearing fur should be a matter of personal choice. (The father of the current Canadian prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, once famously said that “the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”.  It’s time to remind politicians that they shouldn’t be in our clothes closets either!)

3. Consumers: Those who appreciate its warmth, comfort, and beauty can wear fur with confidence, knowing that most Canadians agree that wearing fur is morally acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and a matter of personal choice.

4. Media: With this research at hand, journalists should stop giving a free ride to fraudulent activist claims that “consumers no longer accept that wearing fur is ethical”, or that “80% of Canadians want fur farming banned.” This research shows clearly that it is petroleum-based synthetics that have Canadians worried, and that most think that fur and other responsibly-produced animal-based clothing materials are a better environmental choice.

5. People of the Fur Trade: This research provides a powerful and timely response to anti-fur propaganda — but it is only useful if it is seen by others. It is up to people in every sector of the fur trade – trappers, farmers, designers, manufacturers, and retailers – to make sure this important information is widely circulated. Share this summary with your local and regional politicians. Use these statistics to respond whenever you see activist lies reported in the media — and to reassure customers, friends and neighbours.

Charles Dickens’ classic novel A Tale of Two Cities begins with the wonderful sentence: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” This describes very well the situation of the fur trade today. Clearly the industry has been seriously damaged by decades of activist bullying and lies. At the same time, the growing public concern for protecting the environment provides a golden opportunity for the fur trade: when it comes to responsibly and sustainably produced clothing, fur checks all the boxes. We have long known this, and now we have the statistics to prove that many Canadians understand it too.

It’s now up to everyone in the trade to share and promote this important news!

SEE ALSO: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the First Round of Negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty. By Olivia Rosane for EcoWatch, Dec. 9, 2022.

***

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

Like any advocacy group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) thrives on media attention, and when a campaign generates that attention year after year, you keep it going. That's how it has been with PETA UK's 20-year campaign to have bearskins removed from the heads of the King's Foot Guards.

As long as PETA fails to achieve its goal – something it's "successfully" failed to do since 2002 – this gift just keeps on giving. Indeed, so successful has PETA been at failing, that cynics now wonder whether it wants to win at all, since winning would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Bearskin caps are actually worn by the military and marching bands of no fewer than 10 countries, including Canada. But above all they are associated with British pomp and circumstance, and are a must-see for any tourist visiting London. It's hard to imagine the Changing of the Guard without them.

For the last two decades though, PETA has been badgering the UK's Ministry of Defence (MOD) to drop bearskins and go fake instead. True, the synthetic replacements would be made from polluting petroleum, but PETA calls them a "vegan upgrade", so they must be good for the planet, right?

To no one's surprise, the MOD has resisted – in deeds if not always in words. And all the while, PETA has milked the to-and-fro for its endless supply of free publicity.

Life of Its Own

When PETA started this campaign, it probably never dreamed it would take on a life of its own.

Its humble beginnings came straight out of the standard PETA playbook. Pick a target (the Guards), trot out the usual stories about how terribly animals (black bears) suffer, then see if the media would take the bait.

Not interested, said the MOD. The Guards took "great pride" in wearing an "iconic image of Britain", and wearing plastic just wouldn't be the same.

But unlike the MOD, the media were very interested, because the story provided a perfect mix of what readers craved. The visuals came easily: a spectacular photo (or five, for the tabloids) of Guards on parade (just as we have done), with the Queen or other prominent royals for good measure. Then the text need only mention the royal family and suffering animals to provoke a range of strong emotions, and a PETA spokesperson would happily provide the mandatory quote while blowing their own horn. Perfect for selling papers, and perfect for PETA.

Indeed, the free publicity came so easily that PETA just had to keep it going, but how? Then it had a brainwave: offer the MOD a fake alternative specially developed to meet its requirements, and hope the MOD played along. Crucially (some say naively), the MOD did just that, agreeing to test whatever PETA came up with. PETA's foot was firmly in the door.

And so began PETA's partnership with fake fur maker Ecopel, knowing that if they could keep supplying prototypes, headlines would be guaranteed at least until the MOD capitulated, and that could take years.

Since 2015, the MOD has conducted tests on four iterations of fake bearskin, and each time determined that they don't meet requirements. PETA, meanwhile, says its latest offering meets, or even exceeds, those requirements, and is now threatening legal action, accusing the MOD of failing to fulfill its "promise" to carry out a proper evaluation.

All the while, fresh publicity is generated for PETA every time photos of glamorous Guards and royals adorn the media. And this will continue for as long as PETA keeps feeding the media fresh hooks to hang their stories on. Next, presumably, will be the lawsuit itself, but whether it is thrown out or not, PETA will be there, lapping up the attention.

Trans-Atlantic Cooperation

Of course, the MOD realises now that it's painted itself into a corner, especially when it has to answer questions in Parliament, as happened this July. So all the fur trade can do is ensure the MOD has the best information available.

Particularly concerned is the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), since the bear pelts used in the MOD's bearskins are sourced exclusively from Canada.

"The good news is that the MOD are completely on-side," says FIC executive director Doug Chiasson. "They understand that Canada's black bear harvest is strictly regulated and informed by both the best available science and Indigenous knowledge. They know that black bears are abundant here, and that they must be managed to ensure the health of the overall population while limiting human-wildlife conflict. And particularly important in the battle against PETA, they know that we don't kill bears to order. The same number of bears will be hunted whether the MOD buys them or not."

SEE ALSO: Doug Chiasson: What does the Fur Institute's New ED Bring to the Table? Truth About Fur.

The FIC and MOD have also discussed all the benefits of natural fur compared to the petroleum-based variety. It's a renewable natural resource, fur garments last for decades, and they biodegrade at the end of their long lives.

"They get all this," says Chiasson. "They get that synthetics are polluting, that microfibres are piling up in our oceans and even in the food chain, and that they don't biodegrade. They get the importance of wildlife management, and of adherence to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species."

But that doesn't mean it's time to relax, he cautions.

"Just because the MOD has all the arguments on its side, doesn't mean we've won. Under the current Conservative government, bearskins are probably safe, but with the UK's departure from the EU, pressure is mounting to ban all fur imports. If Labour wins the next general election [to be held no later than January 2025], the future of bearskins will be up in the air. So we must remain vigilant, and continue to ensure that the MOD and other parts of the UK government have the most accurate information at their fingertips to fight the disinformation from PETA."

Meanwhile PETA UK just keeps counting all the golden eggs this goose has laid, and wondering how long it will live. Obviously the MOD doesn't want PETA to win, but maybe PETA is in no hurry to win either!

***

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

Animal activists want to drive all animal users out of business, so it pays for the fur trade to keep abreast of their latest tactics. One now being pushed hard is "vegan fashion", but what exactly is it? And how true is the hype? Does it really save animal lives, as proponents claim? And is it really more sustainable than alternatives?

First up, what qualifies as vegan fashion?

There is no strict definition, but the general idea is that no animals can be killed or harmed in any stage of its production. So it's much like a vegan diet, except that you keep it in your closet.

But there is one important difference. Vegans only eat plants, but if you think they only wear plants, think again. Vegan fashion also contains lots of synthetics made from oil.

The most popular plant fibre with vegan fashionistas (and everyone else, for that matter) is cotton, but there are a lot of other choices. Some are familiar, like linen, hemp, cork and rubber, while others are obscure, like ramie, banana leaves, mushrooms and even coffee grounds!

Then there are semi-synthetics derived from plants, like bamboo rayon, viscose from wood pulp, and modal (made from the pulp of beech trees).

And then there are all the petrochemical synthetics vegans can wear with a (supposedly) clear conscience, like polyester, spandex, nylon, PVC and acrylic. Vegans say they prefer if their synthetics are recycled, not virgin (new), but since most recycled synthetics contain some virgin product for added strength, it's hard to know if they're getting what they want.

As for materials that are off-limits, some are obvious, like leather, fur, wool and silk. But others require vigilance if they are to be avoided.

For example, the glue used in shoes and handbags normally contains collagen derived from animals. So vegans must seek out synthetic alternatives, even if there are health risks associated with making and using them.

They must also avoid screenprinting inks containing gelatin from cows and pigs. A popular synthetic alternative is plastisol, but again, vegans must look past the health risks of the phthalates usually found in plastisols.

And a minefield for vegans is buying cosmetics and personal hygiene products. Anything with honey, lanolin or keratin is out, as are soaps, shampoos, shaving cream and lotions containing stearic acid from animal fat. If your skin moisturiser contains glycerol, beware that the most common source is tallow, a rendered form of beef or mutton fat.

So Does Vegan Fashion Really Save Animals?

The main claim made for vegan fashion is that no animals are killed or harmed in its production. At first glance this sounds logical, but the claim does not stand up to scrutiny. It would be accurate to say that no animals are bred and killed to produce vegan fashion, but plenty of animals still die.

But before we start pointing fingers at who kills most animals, we need to recognise that there are different ways of counting animal lives, depending on our biasses.

In theory, we should give equal weight to all lifeforms, such that swatting a fly is equal to slaughtering a cow. In practice, though, we never do this. We prioritise, valuing some species over others.

Most of us are class-biassed (mammals trump reptiles, for example, and insects always come last). We prefer benign herbivores to carnivores that might eat us. Beautiful animals come before ugly ones. Or if you're a conservationist, an endangered native species always beats a plentiful invasive one.'

And all these biasses give rise to paradoxes that can be hard to reconcile, like self-proclaimed "animal lovers" who feed their pet dogs the meat of other animals, bathe them to kill ticks and fleas, deworm them, and give them vaccines tested on other dogs in labs.

Vegans, of course, have their biasses too, so when they say vegan fashion saves animal lives, which animals do they actually mean? All animals? No. Above all, they mean barnyard animals that are purposely bred to provide food and clothing.

If their calculations were to include all animals, would switching to vegan fashion really save lives? It's highly unlikely, and in fact the death toll would probably rise.

Killer Cotton

Now let's take a closer look at what are probably the two most common materials in vegan fashion, cotton and polyester, and ask how animal- and environment-friendly they really are.

Everybody loves wearing cotton, but we also know that growing it – especially by traditional methods – is punishing on the environment.

The trouble starts the moment natural habitat is destroyed and replaced by a monocultural plantation. Then the crop is notoriously thirsty, often requiring far more water than can be supplied by rain alone. And then there's the heavy use of pesticides. All of these factors exact a toll on animal life, as well as damaging the environment in other ways.

Much of the killing is intentional, as farmers wage war on the myriad insects that cotton attracts. Bollworms, boll weevils, mirids, aphids, stink bugs, thrips, spider mites – the list is long.

And once the insecticides have fulfilled their purpose, they don't stop killing, or even stay within the confines of the plantation. They drift on the wind, and wash into waterways. Birds, lizards and amphibians die when they eat insects or seeds that have been sprayed, or mistake insecticide granules for food. Fish die when insecticides enter rivers. Pollinators like bees die too, often resulting in lower crop yields.

Genetic modification of cotton is helping reduce the need for insecticides, but there's still a long way to go. Meanwhile, so-called organic cotton, which uses far less in the way of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, still only accounts for 1-2% of global cotton production.

Other unintentional deaths occur when water supplies are mismanaged, harming or even destroying surrounding habitat. To appreciate just how badly things can go wrong, look at Central Asia's Aral Sea – or what's left of it. Once the world's fourth-largest lake, tributaries were diverted to irrigate crops, mainly cotton, and most of the sea just vanished. Billions of animals surely died, and populations may never recover, including 20 local species of fish now thought to be extinct.

In short, if we all ditched leather, wool and fur tomorrow, and increased cotton production to fill the shortfall in clothing materials, the total number of animal lives lost would certainly rise.

Plastics Are No Better

So how about the other staple material of vegan fashion, polyester? Its credentials as a clothing material are impressive. It's cheap, durable, wrinkle-resistant, stretchy, lightweight, quick-drying, it breathes and it wicks moisture. No wonder it accounts for at least half the world's clothing, and dominates fast fashion and sportswear.

But like cotton, it's also terrible for the planet. It's made from non-renewable oil which must be extracted from the ground. The manufacturing process leaves a big carbon footprint – up to 40% of the fashion industry’s total CO₂ emissions. When washed, polyester garments release microfibres that pollute the oceans and are now turning up in the food chain, even in drinking water. Polyester is also part of the bigger problem of plastic pollution in general. A widely cited estimate is that plastic pollution kills 100,000 marine mammals and turtles, and a million seabirds, every year. And of course, these plastics don't biodegrade.

In their defense, vegan fashionistas say that a lot of the polyester they wear is recycled, which means it's actually good for the environment, "sustainable" even. But this is essentially an exercise in denial.

Recycling polyester is indeed less harmful to the environment than creating virgin polyester. It consumes a lot less energy and water, and CO₂ emissions are far lower. But that doesn't make it good – just less bad.

Furthermore, recycling polyester cannot possibly be sustainable since it is inherently dependent on a nonrenewable resource. All it does is extend the life of polyester already in circulation. Plus, limitations in current recycling technology mean that recycling polyester actually perpetuates demand for virgin polyester. Each time polyester is recycled, it loses strength, and this problem is rectified by mixing in virgin material. And when polyester is blended with other fibres (typically cotton), recycling is all but impossible. Last but by no means least, just like virgin polyester, recycled polyester still sheds microfibres and does not biodegrade.

SEE ALSO: The Great Fur Burial, Part 1: Burial. Truth About Fur.

Accusations of Greenwashing

Just to confuse consumers even more, companies producing and using petrochemical-based synthetics now routinely face accusations of greenwashing – making false claims about the environmental friendliness of their products.

It comes as no surprise when animal activists engage in greenwashing, since they have never let the truth get in the way of a good story. So if they tell you wearing recycled soda bottles will reduce global warming, you can believe it or not.

More troubling are apparent efforts by the fast-fashion industry to improve its public image. Having faced a storm of criticism in recent years for various practices, the industry is now desperate for a makeover, which includes casting petrochemical synthetics in a better light.

But now the media, consumer protection groups, and others are asking tough questions.

Matters came to a head last June, when the New York Times ran an in-depth article entitled "How fashion giants recast plastic as good for the planet". Renaming products is just one way, the article says. For example, fake leather used to be called "pleather", a clear indicator of its plastic origins, typically polyurethane. But now it's called "vegan leather", a change the NYT calls "a marketing masterstroke meant to suggest environmental value."

In critics' crosshairs is the controversial Higg Index, launched in 2012 by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), a nonprofit group that includes major fashion brands and retailers, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Intended to rate the environmental impact of various fabrics used in clothing, the Index "is on its way to becoming a de facto global standard," says the NYT.

But hold on, the article continues. The Index "strongly favors synthetic materials made from fossil fuels over natural ones such as cotton, wool and leather. Now, those ratings are coming under fire from independent experts as well as representatives from natural-fiber industries who say the Higg Index is being used to portray the increasing use of synthetics as environmentally desirable despite questions over synthetics’ environmental toll."

In particular, critics say the Index doesn't accurately reflect the full life-cycles of synthetics, including harmful emissions during production, how much ends up in landfills or incinerators, and microfibres polluting the oceans.

Shortly after, the SAC announced that it was pausing the use of consumer-facing Higgs labels globally, following a conclusion by the Norwegian Consumer Authority that the Higg Index was misleading consumers.

Bottom Line

While the debate will continue to rage about how best to clothe 8 billion humans, the simple truth is that all currently available alternatives have their downsides. They all result, directly or indirectly, in the deaths of animals, and leave environmental footprints of varying size.

But since the two major claims being made for vegan fashion are simple, let's try to answer them in simple terms:

Does vegan fashion save animal lives? If enough people were to wear vegan fashion, and especially if they were to adopt a vegan diet too, fewer barnyard animals would be bred. So in that sense, yes, vegan fashion has the potential to save the lives of domesticated species like cows, pigs and sheep. But if all animal lives are given equal weight (i.e., a snake or boll weevil is equal to a cow), this saving would be more than offset by the loss of animal life caused by converting more land to plant agriculture.

As for petrochemical synthetics like polyester, it is now universally recognised that their usage is harmful to the environment, including wildlife. So even if your polyester blouse is made from recycled soda bottles, it may slow the production of virgin polyester, but in the long term it offers nothing in the way of a solution.

Is vegan fashion more sustainable than alternative choices? There is almost no basis for this claim, as vegan fashion currently exists.

Noble efforts make the headlines regularly as innovative companies strive to develop more sustainable materials and methods of producing them. But we're not there yet. Which means that vegan fashion will continue to rely on crops like cotton, which are harmful to the environment, and petrochemical plastics like polyester, which are not only harmful but also the antithesis of sustainable.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Jonathan Haidt summarises his six moral modules as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strict Biosecurity Protocols Followed

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

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

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

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

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

“Pandering to Animal Activists”

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5809NZNzCDM

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

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

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

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

John Easley DVM
Director of Research
Fur Commission USA

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainability Is One Thing …

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

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

Here are its main credentials:

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

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

… Animal Welfare Is Another

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

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

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

QED: Fur is unsustainable.

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

Case Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here’s what it looks like in practice:

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

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

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

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

***

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