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

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

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

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

Sustainability Is One Thing …

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

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

Here are its main credentials:

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

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

… Animal Welfare Is Another

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

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

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

QED: Fur is unsustainable.

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

Case Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here’s what it looks like in practice:

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undermining Conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunate Statement

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

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

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

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

Vicious Circle

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

DEFRA Questionnaire

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

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

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

Something for Everyone

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

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

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

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

Perfect for North Americans

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

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

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

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

Fur industry sues San Francisco. January 15, 2020.

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

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

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

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

***

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

A troubling new trend among progressive legislators in the US is to virtue signal by proposing to ban the sale of natural fur products. Apart from the question of whether it is appropriate for government to legislate such personal choices, even a quick review of the facts suggests that progressives should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to ban it.

Unfortunately, the sponsors of recent fur-ban proposals in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and several other states have clearly not bothered to do their own research. Instead, they just parrot animal activist inaccuracies and even lies.

Take, for example, a House bill in Rhode Island, H 7483, and a House bill, H.965, and Senate companion, S.623, in Massachusetts. All three bills use the exact same language in claiming that farm-raised mink “endure tremendous suffering”, despite the fact this simply isn't true. North American farmed mink receive excellent nutrition and care, not just because it's the ethical thing to do, but also because it's the only way to produce the high-quality fur for which North America is known. Standards for pen sizes and handling farmed mink are developed by veterinarians, animal scientists, and animal-welfare authorities.

Scaremongering Over Covid

Fur-ban supporters are also guilty of scaremongering about the susceptibility of mink to Covid-19, claiming that mink farms are a threat to public health. Strict bio-security measures in place on all North American mink farms are one reason the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can state: "Currently, there is no evidence that mink are playing a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people."

As for the fear that a virus strain that showed up on mink farms in Denmark will lower the efficacy of vaccines, America's top infectious disease official is not too worried. "[A]t first cut, it doesn't look like something that's going to be a really big problem for the vaccines that are currently being used to induce an immune response,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was Chief Medical Advisor under President Trump and has stayed in the role under President Biden.

Bear in mind also that when there are outbreaks of swine flu (H1N1) or avian flu in chickens, we do not ban the sale of pork and poultry – although this is exactly what animal activists call for. Instead, farmers work closely with public officials to resolve the problems, just as US mink farmers have done with Covid-19.

Ignoring Positive Contributions

Fur-ban proponents also refuse to acknowledge the many positives of producing and wearing fur.

For example, they ignore the fact that farmed mink, as carnivores, eat by-products from human food-production – the parts of cows, pigs and fish that we don’t eat, expired cheeses, broken eggs – that might otherwise end up in landfills. Manure, soiled straw bedding, and other farm wastes are composted to produce organic fertilizers, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. And mink are raised on family-run farms, providing employment and revenue to support rural communities.

They also fail to mention that half the fur produced in the US is taken from the wild, and from abundant species only. This way they avoid the awkward truth that many of these furbearers are so numerous that they'd have to be culled even if we didn't use their fur. Overpopulated beavers flood homes and roads; raccoons spread rabies and other dangerous diseases; coyotes are the main predators of young calves and lambs, and even pet dogs and cats; and the list goes on. Regulated trapping, as practiced in the US, helps to maintain more stable and healthy wildlife populations by smoothing out boom-and-bust cycles. And if we must cull some of these animals, it is surely more ethical to use their fur than to throw it away.

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

Finally, it is grossly misleading for fur-ban proponents to claim that alternative materials render the use of natural fur “unjustifiable”. Fake furs – and more than 60% of all our clothing – are synthetics, mostly made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. We now know that each time these synthetics are washed, they leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways that are now turning up in marine life, drinking water, and even breast milk. Cruelty-free indeed!

Natural fur, by contrast, is produced responsibly and sustainably. Each fur garment is cut and sewn individually by artisans maintaining heritage handcraft skills. A well-made mink coat can be worn for 30 or 40 years or more, passed from mother to daughter and granddaughter. Unlike most clothing, a natural fur coat can be taken apart and completely restyled. And after decades of use, it can be thrown into the garden compost where it will biodegrade completely. Using natural fur makes more sense than ever at a time when environmentalists are saying we should buy better-quality clothing and keep it longer.

Scapegoating Artisans

So why do we hear so much anti-fur rhetoric? Despite its “luxury” image, the fur trade – from farmers to trappers to craftspeople -- is a small and artisanal industry that has been unfairly stigmatized and scapegoated. The fur trade is easily sacrificed by politicians bent on winning votes and raising funds, in the knowledge that it simply doesn't have the resources to compete with multi-million-dollar, media-savvy, “animal rights” lobby groups.

No one is obliged to wear natural fur – or, for that matter, wool or leather – or to eat meat or dairy. These are personal choices, and they are rarely black and white. For example, despite the growing popularity of vegetarianism, few of us actually go the whole nine yards, let alone become vegans. Instead, we may opt to become pesco- or ovo-vegetarians, meaning we still eat seafood or eggs. Others choose to buy organic beef, or free-range eggs.

As we navigate these choices, we want more information about the environmental and ethical implications of our decisions. In response, the International Fur Federation is launching FurMark this year to further enhance traceability and transparency about industry standards.

What is not appropriate is for legislators to impose such decisions from on high. Rather, it behooves them to actually meet with the people whose cultures, reputations, and livelihoods they are so blithely and unfairly attacking. Politicians who fancy themselves to be progressive may then find that they should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to arbitrarily ban it.

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Signed by Indigenous Fur Trappers & Supporters.

• Chief Roy Jones, Haida Gwaii First Nations.

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

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

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

***

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

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

Silver Lining 1: Closed Season on Retail Bans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silver Lining 3: The Rush to Replace NAFA Is On

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preventative Measures

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

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

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

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

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

Neither "Cruel" Nor "Unnecessary"

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

1. Sustainability

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

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

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

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

2. Animal Welfare

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

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

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

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

3. Important Use

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

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

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

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

4. Complete Use

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

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

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

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

Inconvenient Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Politics of Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT YOU CAN DO

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

So What Are "Exotic Skins"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gucci's "Sustainability" Claim Slammed

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

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

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

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

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

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

First to Fold: Chanel

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

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

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

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

But LVMH Calls Fur and Exotic Skins "Precious"

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

Mission Creep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virtue Signalling and Protectionism

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

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

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

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

Founding Principles Perverted

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

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

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

Stop Meddling in Domestic Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Your idea of what makes a current event important may differ from mine, but occasionally a story comes along that grabs everyone's attention. Enter coronavirus COVID-19. At the time of writing, some 6,000 people have already died, and that number is sure to rise - a lot. And if fears of a global recession to follow prove founded, billions of us will be negatively impacted. Millions already have been.

In short, it's the kind of event that makes people rethink their priorities. The price of potatoes suddenly seems inconsequential, and we may even put our favourite advocacies on hold. Who has the time to complain about white people wearing dreadlocks or mansplaining when lives are on the line?

And that's why I predict a small silver lining for the fur trade amidst the current catastrophe. In the coming year, there will be no major campaigns launched by animal rights groups in North America - or if there are, they will be roundly ignored. I also believe this lull will provide an opportunity for us to regroup and rethink our strategy after taking some tough knocks in 2019.

Posturing Politicians

Last year was hardly quiet on the news front, but unless you lived in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar, or quite a few other places to be honest, the news was unlikely to kill you. Climate change advanced apace, but even the most pessimistic of forecasters think we can still turn it around. The refugee crisis in Europe worsened further, but it barely affects North Americans. The Hong Kong riots grabbed headlines for a few months, but the Western media lost interest when China failed to invade. And everyone was sick to death of Brexit years before it even happened.

So it was against this backdrop of a "normal" news year that campaigns to ban fur retail sales in California and New York City were able to gain traction. Politicians could posture before potential voters, the media lapped up a polarising issue as they always do, and advocates could focus fully on either saving or destroying an industry.

SEE ALSO: There's no justification for banning the sale of fur. By Alan Herscovici.

Big Stories

But now the whole news landscape has changed, and, in just the last few weeks, been turned on its head.

For me, the change began with the Australian bushfires. It took a few months for them to register on the international radar, but when they did, we were appalled to see the extent of the devastation and loss of life. It was also a huge shot in the arm for the climate change campaign.

Then for a few days in January, while the bushfires were still at their peak, we seemed to be staring down the barrel of World War III. The US assassinated Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Iran vowed to retaliate, Trump vowed to retaliate back harder, Iran fired missiles, and bizarrely the situation was only defused when Iran "accidentally" shot down a civilian airliner with no Americans on board but loads of Canadians. All very scary.

So the transition from 2019 to 2020 was a rollercoaster ride. And just when you thought it couldn't get any hairier, along came a pandemic.

I don't need to tell you the details of COVID-19 because, unless you live under a rock, you know them already. Suffice to say, this story will hog the headlines for the next several months at least, with new life being breathed into it every time a famous person falls ill or a major public event is cancelled. And even after a vaccine is found, the global recession that some experts are predicting will keep copywriters busy for years.

Changing Priorities?

So what does all this have to do with the great fur debate?

Well, I predict that life will change in myriad ways, one of which will be a resetting of priorities, not just at the government level but also at the personal level. Even more emphasis than before will be placed on cooperation on issues that really matter to the global community, while less time and effort will be spent on issues that are, in the grand scheme of things, unimportant.

It goes without saying that the world will emerge from this better prepared to face the next pandemic. Climate change will continue to garner great interest, in tandem with sustainable living. And it's way past time for governments to be held accountable for perpetuating war in Syria, Yemen, and anywhere else faced with this ultimate scourge.

In contrast, I believe, people wanting to "make a difference" will be less inclined to expend energy on petty and divisive issues to which there are no solutions anyway because there's no "right" or "wrong". When human lives and the future of the planet are at stake, there are surely better ways to spend your time than campaigning against smoking in public parks.

OK, so there's some wishful thinking on my part that this change will last, but I do believe that at least for the duration of the coronavirus crisis, animal rights groups will have a hard time getting anyone's attention, and might as well take a vacation. Remember, you heard it here first. For as long as the pandemic lasts, there will be no new initiatives launched to ban fur retail.

It's a simple matter of priorities. In quiet times, on the domestic front anyway, politicians obsess with pandering to any demographic group they think might help get them re-elected. But in a time of coronavirus, their focus must be on keeping their constituents alive. In quiet times, news desk editors lap up a PETA stunt, particularly if half-naked women are involved. But with coronavirus running amok, they're smart enough to know that their audience has no time for anything else. And as for the public, they're far too busy stockpiling toilet paper (I still can't see how that helps) to worry about whether Canada Goose is opening a new store for its coyote-trimmed parkas.

SEE ALSO: Five reasons PETA won't make me ditch my Canada Goose. By Alan Herscovici.

This new reality will provide an opportunity - or at least a time-out - for all animal users to regroup and strengthen our message in preparation for the time when animal rights groups think it's business as usual again.

We already have a formidable arsenal of arguments in our favour, dealing with issues that are important to a growing number of people. We can effectively argue sustainability, ethics, cultural heritage, jobs, wildlife management, and more. I believe that post-coronavirus, the world will be more discerning about which messages it listens to, and we just have to be more effective at getting ours across.

Don't get me wrong about absolute priorities. There's a potentially lethal pandemic under way, and nothing is more important than staying safe. And that goes for everyone - even animal rights extremists! But when the smoke clears, there may be a rare opportunity here for the fur trade to change the narrative.

***

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