The following essay appeared recently in the Toronto Star (Canada’s largest circulation newspaper), as the pro-fur side of a debate on whether banning the sale of fur apparel and accessories is justifiable.

If we look at facts, those of us who care about the environment, ethical lifestyles, and social justice should promote natural fur, not seek to ban it. Let's review some of the reasons why wearing fur makes sense for anyone wishing to embrace a sustainable and responsible way of living.

Fur today is produced responsibly and sustainably. Only abundant furs are used, never endangered species. This is assured by provincial/state, federal and international regulations.

In the wild, most species produce more offspring than their habitat can support to maturity. Animals that don’t make it feed others, and we too can use part of this natural surplus. This is an excellent example of  “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, a cornerstone of the World Conservation Strategy.

There is little waste. Many fur animals – especially beavers and muskrats -- provide food for trappers and their families. Others are returned to the woods to feed birds, mice, and other animals. And because fur is “prime” in late Fall/Winter when the young of the year are already autonomous, activist claims that coyotes or other animals leave behind “starving pups” are nonsense.

Many furbearers would be culled even if we didn’t use fur. Overpopulated beavers flood property. Coyotes are top predators of lambs, calves and, increasingly, pets. Raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other diseases ... the list goes on. But if we must cull some of these animals to maintain a balance, surely it is more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away?

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

Trappers take animal-welfare responsibilities very seriously: Canada is the world leader in humane trapping research, and traps are certified to conform with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Trapping is also strictly regulated in the US, under state “Best Practices” provisions.

SEE ALSO: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping.

Fur farmers – producing more than half the fur in North America -- follow codes of practice to ensure their animals receive excellent nutrition and care. Farms are certified to confirm that codes are followed, and farmers may be charged for animal cruelty if they are not. In any case, providing proper care is the only way to produce high-quality fur.

SEE ALSO: Calling PETA: US fur farming is strictly regulated.

Farmed mink recycle left-overs from our own food production – parts of cows, chickens and fish that we don’t eat and might otherwise clog landfills. Manure, straw bedding, and other farm wastes are composted to produce high-quality organic fertilizer, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

In contrast to mass-produced “fast fashion”, each fur garment or accessory is crafted individually by artisans, maintaining skills passed from father to son or daughter. Furs are preserved (“dressed”) using alum salts, lanolin, and other benign chemicals; the activist claim that “a World Bank report cited fur dressing as polluting” is simply not true. Furthermore, furs come in a wide range of natural colours, minimizing the need for dyes.

Fur is long-lasting, recyclable, and after decades of service can be thrown into the garden compost. Compare that with fake fur and other synthetics: generally made from petrochemicals, they are not biodegradable and leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways when washed -- plastics that are now being found in marine life. Cruelty-free indeed!

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

Fur, however, is the activists’ designated scapegoat. Perhaps because fur is often associated with glamour and wealth? But most fur producers are not wealthy or glamorous. The ugly lies parroted by anti-fur activists are all the more odious because they attack the integrity and livelihoods of hard-working farm families; of First Nations and other trappers who are among the last people maintaining our North American land-based heritage; and of artisans producing warm and durable clothing with responsibly produced natural materials.

There is little public discussion of how insulting and hurtful activist lies are for the people involved. Living far from media centres, their voices are rarely heard. TruthAboutFur.com was created to help bridge that gap.

No one is obliged to wear fur, but each of us should have the right to make this decision for ourselves. Especially because animal activists now oppose any use of animals. The same misleading and insulting arguments and tactics used against fur are now being mustered against wearing leather, silk and wool; against eating meat or dairy products. Shall all these products be banned as well?

Each of us can decide where we draw the line, these are personal choices. But if you believe it’s ethical to use animal products that are produced responsibly and sustainably, you can wear fur with pride.

***

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

City’s Fur Ban an “Unconstitutional Attack on Consumer Rights”

The International Fur Federation (IFF) has launched litigation to prevent San Francisco from implementing a city ordinance banning the sale of fur. The ordinance, passed in 2018, gave existing department stores until Jan. 1, 2020, to sell off their remaining fur stock and prohibits the sale of newly manufactured fur coats, hats, gloves, fur-trimmed parkas, and other products.

The lawsuit, filed on January 13, argues San Francisco has “no legitimate local interest to ban fur sales” and that the ordinance is an “unconstitutional restriction on interstate and foreign commerce”.

“In an attempt to legislate morality, Supervisor Katy Tang, sponsor of the ban, stated that businesses ‘need to get with the times.’ Yet the current times do not allow for ignoring the Constitution’s prohibition on restraining interstate commerce,” said Mike Brown, the IFF’s CEO for North America.

“Proponents of San Francisco’s fur ban, including the radical animal rights group PETA, also want the sale of leather, wool, and other animal products to be banned,” said Brown.

Contrary to San Francisco city council claims, fur products remain popular with consumers in that city and nationwide. Fur sales in San Francisco alone are estimated to be $40 million annually. Globally, the fur industry is a $23 billion business. A 2019 Gallup poll also confirmed that a majority of Americans believe that it is morally acceptable to wear fur.

While fur producers worldwide are complying with the humane standards under the IFF’s new FurMark program, San Francisco’s fur ban is so extreme that it blocks even humanely certified products. FurMark is a certification program to provide consumers with assurance about animal welfare and sustainability standards in place for the production of fur products in North America and Europe.

The San Francisco fur ban is completely arbitrary and creates a troubling precedent for other responsibly produced animal products. “If this law is allowed to stand, there’s nothing stopping San Francisco from banning wool, leather, meat, or other products that a small group of activists don’t approve of,” said Mark Oaten, CEO of the IFF.

“Californians should have no fewer rights than residents of other states. They should be free to buy legally produced goods unless there is a public safety or health issue - which does not exist here,” said Oaten.

Counter-Productive in Fight Against Pollution

Along with harming local businesses, San Francisco’s fur ban will have unintended consequences that damage California’s efforts to fight pollution, because the “fake fur” alternatives to natural fur are made with petroleum. Research is showing that these synthetics shed microfibers into the waterways when they are cleaned. Plastic microfibers are now even being found in marine life. A single garment can shed 100,000 microfibers in the wash.

“Plastic microfibers are a leading cause of ocean pollution, in San Francisco Bay and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The National Science Foundation recently announced that microplastics may be 1 million times more prevalent than previously estimated,” said Oaten.

SEE ALSO: Global Campaign Highlights Benefits of Real Fur Over Plastic Fake Fur. Truth About Fur.

California Faces Flurry of Legal Challenges

The IFF lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal challenges to California’s attempt to legislate “morality”. The state of Louisiana and a coalition of members of the alligator/crocodile supply chain have sued California over its ban on alligator and crocodile products, which was slated to take effect Jan. 1. As a result, a temporary stay was imposed on the implementation of this ban.

Recently, California was also sued by the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council over the state’s sweeping ban on the sale of conventionally produced pork products, legislation slated to take effect in 2022. Litigation against California’s foie gras ban is also ongoing in federal court.

SEE ALSO: Why a Ban on Fur and Foie Gras Should Matter to Ranchers.

The fur industry’s legal challenge zeroes in on the constitutionality of state and municipal fur bans in California under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Additionally, legal experts believe US states cannot arbitrarily ban products from foreign countries from being sold under free-trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. The IFF lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Los Angeles and the California state legislature also passed fur bans in 2019, but they do not take effect for several years.

“California’s fur bans are an arbitrary assault on consumer choice and retail businesses," said Brown. "These laws ban a responsibly and legally produced natural product from the marketplace simply because certain special interests don’t like the product. This is a startling precedent, to impose the morality of specific groups onto all citizens. There is no legitimate issue of public health and safety behind fur bans - simply a belief by some lawmakers that they don’t like fur, and therefore no one should be allowed to buy it."

SEE ALSO: 6 Reasons Why Banning Fur Sales Is a Very Bad Idea. Truth About Fur.

***

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

Last week in Cleveland, animal-rights activist Meredith Lowell, 35, stabbed another woman three times, allegedly for no other reason than that she was wearing fur boots. Mercifully the victim survived, while Lowell has been charged with attempted murder.

It's impossible to say at this point how Lowell justified this act of extreme aggression, but before I get accused of making excuses for her, let's get one thing straight: there can be no excuses. Unless, of course, she's found to be insane. The buck stops with her, and she must now face the consequences of her actions.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Police: Ohio woman stabbed another in belief she was wearing fur. Associated Press, Nov. 22, 2019.

That said, we all know that advocates for causes can commit extreme acts that they wouldn't even consider if there weren't others egging them on.

At one time, attacking abortion doctors was a trend in the US, and presumably each new attacker felt more emboldened knowing that others had gone before them. In the 1990s, when fear of secondhand smoke was bordering on hysterical, a Japanese youth shoved an old man under a train for smoking on a station platform, killing him. I'm sure there are many similar stories.

Obviously the kind of people who commit these acts feel very strongly, at least in the heat of the moment, that their aggression is justified. And perhaps they even developed their convictions independently of any outside influence. More often than not, though, they are inspired to act by the propaganda of lobby groups that fuels their nascent beliefs.

Which raises the question: is society doing enough to silence groups that incite others to violence? Yes and no. There is already a slew of legislation to combat hate crimes based on race, religion and sexual orientation. But other inciters of violence are slipping under the radar, including extreme animal rights groups. Nothing is being done to mute their often hateful rhetoric - rhetoric that may have turned Meredith Lowell into a would-be killer.

SEE ALSO: It's time to say "no" to anti-fur hate groups.

A Picture Paints a Thousand Words

The Internet is now awash with animal rights propaganda depicting animal users as evil incarnate. "Meat is murder!" they cry. But this picture above, from the 2003 PETA campaign "Your mommy kills animals!" says it all.

Aimed specifically at teenagers, what effect did PETA think this comic-book campaign would have? Could Meredith Lowell, who was then about 19, have seen it? If not, there were, and still are, plenty of other materials she probably saw.

The message, of course, is brutally clear. It tells children that if their mommy wears fur, she is a bloodthirsty psycho who derives pleasure from killing animals in the most gruesome manner possible. It then asks children to confront their mommies with their blood-curdling acts of barbarism.

For lucky parents, of course, this might turn into an important teaching moment - an opportunity to inform their children that groups like PETA are full of it and mommy knows best. Or it could go very badly.

It's certainly not hard to imagine that Meredith Lowell was exposed to this kind of vicious propaganda, and that this provided her feeble mind with justification for stabbing a woman three times for wearing fur.

Yes, it is Meredith Lowell who stands charged with attempted murder, and she alone must now face the music. But perhaps part of the blame also rests with the animal rights movement for making her think she did the right thing.

UPDATE: Woman found not guilty by reason of insanity in Cleveland Heights church stabbing over faux-fur boots. Cleveland.com, Feb. 25, 2020.

***

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

We are living in troubling times, my friends. Politicians want to tax farmers and ranchers for emissions and slap sin taxes on meat to encourage plant-based diets. Celebrities are spinning faux science into meatless propaganda in the name of compassion to animals and the planet.

SEE ALSO: On activists, cyber bullying and meatless propaganda. BEEF Daily.

Packers are investing in plant-based protein companies. Farm bankruptcies are on the rise. Animal agricultural organizations are getting into bed with animal rights and environmental activist groups.

From a beef producer’s perspective, I sometimes wonder what my future looks like in this business. From a consumer’s perspective, I wonder if meat will always be available to me, or if the opposing side will ultimately win.

SEE ALSO: Who’s winning? Us or the anti-beef activists? BEEF Daily.

Just the other day, I received a hateful email from someone who expressed great joy that my viewpoints about ruminant animals benefitting the planet were archaic. With glee, she compared me to a dinosaur and said she was hopeful that people like me would one day cease to exist.

This person was, of course, threatening my life and wishing for me to be wiped off the face of the earth because of her love and compassion for a beef cow. It’s highly ironic the hateful things one person can say to another in the name of saving the life of an animal.

But it doesn’t stop with just hateful words from trolls.

These days, our ability to utilize an animal from nose to tail is being taken away, inch by inch, in the form of new laws.

For example, California became the first state to ban fur. In October, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 44 into law, banning the sale of new clothing and accessories made of fur.

According to an article in the New York Times, “For the purpose of the law, fur is defined as ‘animal skin or part thereof with hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto.’ For the purposes of shoppers, that means mink, sable, chinchilla, lynx, fox, rabbit, beaver, coyote and other luxury furs.

“Exceptions have been made for cowhide, deerskin, sheepskin and goatskin. Which means that shearling is totally fine. Exceptions have also been made for religious observances (shtreimels, the fur hats often worn by Hasidic Jews, can continue to be sold) and other traditional or cultural purposes.

“Keith Kaplan, of the Fur Information Council of America, issued the following statement after the California news broke: ‘This issue is about much more than animal welfare in the fur industry. It is about the end of animal use of any kind. Fur today, leather tomorrow, your wool blankets and silk sheets – and meat after that'."

SEE ALSO: The California fur ban and what it means for you. New York Times.

In New York City, a ban on foie gras is currently being considered. If passed, more than 1,000 New York City dining establishments that serve foie gras will be impacted, in addition to the duck and geese farmers operating in the state of New York.

According to an article published in Eater, “For years, fur and foie gras have been among the most contentious issues in the animal welfare debate. Foie gras is far from the only cuisine subjected to bans – horse meat, shark fins, beluga caviar and unpasteurized milk are some of the foods barred in numerous states due to concerns over ethics, animal endangerment, or public health.

“But foie gras producers say they have been unfairly targeted. They argue that the foie gras sector is ‘low-hanging fruit’ because the industry is small, it is linked to the elite, and misinformation has skewed public perception of duck farms.”

These are just two examples of how activists are hoping to curtail and eliminate the use of animals in our everyday lives. More than just taking meat, dairy and eggs off the dinner table, this would mean no more by-products. Cattle, pigs and sheep provide hundreds of beneficial products that enrich our lives, ranging from makeup to crayons to soaps and even pharmaceuticals.

This is dangerous territory and a slippery slope, indeed. First they come for the horses, then the egg-laying chickens, then the gestating pigs, then the fur, then the foie gras ... what’s next? Veal? Pets? Leather? Pigs' life-saving heart valves? Meat altogether?

I may not eat foie gras, and I may not wear fur. But I do own animals – both livestock and pets – and these laws aim to erode the very foundation and principles upon which ownership of animals is based. Be leery of politicians who aim to take away your rights in the name of compassion to animals. I know I am!

***

This article was first published by BEEF Daily, Nov. 5, 2019, and is reproduced with permission. The opinions of the author are not necessarily those of beefmagazine.com or Farm Progress.

Differences of opinion, and the debates they spawn in search of amicable solutions, are crucial to the functioning and evolution of democratic society. But even the healthiest of democracies can't please all of the people all of the time, so we aspire to keep the majority as happy as possible while defending the rights of minorities to follow different paths. This approach breaks down, however, when a minority refuses to accept the will of the majority. Such is the quandary Western society faces today in dealing with animal rightists.

Though far fewer of us now work directly with animals than in the past, almost all of us still eat and wear animal products, and benefit from medicines and medical procedures tested on animals, to name just three of the most important ways in which animals benefit humans. But animal rightists want all of these banned, while some even oppose non-lethal uses, like pets and seeing-eye dogs. Can a path of peaceful coexistence be found? Or will we be forever locking horns?

Essential Freedoms

Two essential freedoms are at play here, freedom of speech and freedom of choice, with the latter being a manifestation of the former. Freedom of speech enables us to express our views, while freedom of choice enables us to act on them. The problem is that while the animal rights movement embraces its own right to freedom of speech, it rejects the right of others to freedom of choice.

In fact, animal rightists push their freedom of speech to the legal limit and beyond, denouncing animal users as "murderers" and "torturers". In so doing, they regularly make statements that any court would find slanderous or libelous if animal users had the time and money to file suit.

What they refuse to accept is the freedom of choice of others, a vital freedom in any functioning democracy that is easy to understand and should be easy to apply. In short, we are free to do whatever we want, provided it is legal. It doesn't mean we have to like the things some people do, just as they don't have to like the things we do.

Thus, for decades now, animal users have been saying to animal rightists: "If you choose not to eat meat, fine. If you choose not to wear leather or fur, fine. If you choose not to save your life' with medicines tested on animals, fine. But please respect our freedom to choose for ourselves."

But this simple and democratic way to avoid conflict is soundly rejected.

"Meat Is Murder"

So why is the animal rights movement so opposed to freedom of choice? In general terms, it's because the movement's moral code differs from that of most people. That's why it is often likened to a religion, since religions tend to have moral codes that are somewhat unique. It has also been likened to an intolerant religion, whose mission it is to convert non-believers.

More specifically, it's because the animal rights philosophy teaches that the intentional killing of an animal by a human is murder. Murder is a universal taboo (except for the obvious difference that most people think it refers only to humans killing humans), so we can all appreciate to some degree why animal rightists refuse to compromise on this one. Morally speaking, numbers are not the issue, since murdering one human (or animal) is no more defensible than murdering 1,000. And there are no half measures. You can't partially kill an animal, and even if you kill it humanely, it's still dead.

Activists for most other causes can be pragmatic, and are open to improvements wherever they can be found. For example, environmental activists don't demand that we quit driving, just that we drive less or switch to electric cars. They ask us to use less plastic, not stop using it altogether. And they don't ask us to sit in darkness, just to use more energy-efficient light bulbs.

But animal rights activists don't have this luxury. If Americans were to reduce the number of chickens they "murder" each year from 9 billion to just one, that would still be one too many.

Creating Conflict

Given that animal rightists see no room to negotiate with animal users, and outright reject their freedom of choice, they have opted instead to focus on creating conflict. For example, animal rights groups pioneered an anti-social tactic (now dubbed "naming and shaming") based on a simple formula: find someone doing something you don't like, take photos or video, then publicly shame the person into changing their ways.

This tactic is not intrinsically bad. Sometimes a situation may seem so desperate that naming and shaming can feel like the only course of action left. Witness the huge outpouring of support for Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager (born 2003) now blaming every adult on Earth for a climate crisis that her generation will pay for. You may not agree with her, but if you're worried about leaving the fate of the planet in the hands of politicians and big business, you understand why she's doing it.

But shaming people to bow to your will, or forcing them to do so by legal means, should only be encouraged as a last resort. Why? Because it creates ill will, even hatred, and irreparable divisions.

To cite one of countless examples, California lawmakers have just passed bans on all commercial and recreational trapping and the manufacturing and selling of fur products. It is no secret that they were driven to do so by the animal rights lobby, who shamelessly fed lawmakers every lie and half-truth they could dream up to win their case. But when the dust settles, things will not just return to normal, with everyone getting along in a spirit of civic harmony. Quite the opposite. While the victorious animal rights lobby steamrolls on to its next target, trappers, furriers, freedom-of-choice advocates, and a host of other sympathisers, will forever remember how livelihoods and traditions were destroyed to satisfy the demands of a few. The animal rights movement may have "saved" a few animals, but it has surely gained thousands of new enemies in the process.

Rise of Veganism

So what's to be done? Can animal rightists be persuaded to become "team players", working together with animal users in pursuit of a more harmonious society?

Right now, the answer is probably no. In North America at least, there are more supporters of animal rights now than ever before, though presumably few of the new converts signed up for a life on the road, donning balaclavas by night to steal farm animals or ransack research labs.

Most probably came to animal rights after adopting a vegan lifestyle for a variety of reasons, typically some vague notion of health benefits or saving the planet. They then learned along the way that the philosophy behind animal rights and veganism is essentially the same. Now that veganism is better understood, all new converts have probably at least questioned the morality of killing animals, while so-called "militant vegans" are synonymous with animal rights activists.

Whatever the case, organisations of any type - be they a business, a religion, or a knitting circle - are less open to change when the numbers are up.

But here's the rub. Although vegans are now a common sight in major cities and on college campuses, it seems highly unlikely they will ever constitute more than a small percentage of the overall population. It's not easy to gather reliable data on eating habits, but according to a recent assessment of multiple surveys, self-identifying vegans now account for between 1% and 2% of the US population. In other words, if they hope to convert us all to their way of life, they're facing an impossible task.

Animal rightists-cum-vegans thus face a choice. Will they settle for sowing conflict and division until the end of time? Or will they find a way to co-exist peacefully with others?

Moving Forward

If I had the opportunity for a one-on-one with Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and grande dame of the animal rights movement, I would begin by stating the following truths. (i) Most people will never agree with PETA's views on animal use, so you are fighting a lost cause. (ii) PETA is all about being negative, insulting people at every turn and never saying anything nice. All stick and no carrot. (iii) While PETA is undeniably a master at grabbing headlines, most people are sick to death of reading them.

Given this negative scorecard, I would then suggest that the animal rights movement change tack. Here are some specific actions it could take today to help it become a useful participant in the democratic process.

• Above all, show integrity. Following are some examples of how.

• Don't tell lies, don't fabricate evidence, and if someone sends you alleged evidence of animal cruelty, ensure it is real before publishing it.

• If you find you have inadvertently published false information, don't pretend you don't know. Remove it immediately, and maybe even issue a public apology.

• If you obtain evidence of animal cruelty, don't sit on it waiting for the best time to use it for fundraising. Share it with authorities at once so they can investigate.

• When publishing video of animal cruelty, make unedited footage available as well, with audio, to allay suspicions that it has been edited to create a false impression, or even worse, has been staged.

• Don't engage in, or condone, illegal activities like releasing animals from farms or vandalism.

• Don't expose children to shocking images. The next time you hold a street demo, ditch the photos of animal cruelty and hand out samples of vegan cooking instead.

• If you must target stores, do so at a distance, and never harass customers, scrawl graffiti, scream abuse, superglue locks, or take your demo inside the store. In case you haven't realised it yet, everyone hates you when you take your demos indoors.

• Don't bombard people on social media with hateful messages, and never, ever send death threats.

• Put animal rights on the back burner, and pursue improvements in animal welfare instead. They may not be entirely on message for your group, but they're achievable, and if you're up front about your intentions, you'll have broad support. But don't be dishonest and push for higher animal welfare standards as a ruse to drive animal users out of business.

And if you're up for making these much-needed changes, try thinking outside the box to come up with campaigns that respect freedom of choice, and may even turn enemies into friends. Call me a hippy, but how about hosting vegan food-tasting events, and extending friendly invites to your local ranchers and hunters? Or go the whole hog and invite them to set up their BBQs too, then have a contest. Or organise vegan fashion shows but invite designers using real leather and fur too, then let the audience choose which they prefer.

Democracy is about building bridges, but all you're currently doing is burning them. Are you ready to change?

***

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

Recent proposals to ban the sale of fur in several US cities and states are based on a fiction – a dangerous fiction – the origins of which can be traced back more than 30,000 years. That’s when, as Yuval Noah Harari recounts in his popular book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, a remarkable mutation occurred in the brains of one of the six human-like species that then existed. That mutation, scientists speculate, allowed our ancestors to do something no animal had ever done: live in an imaginary world.

To understand the importance of this breakthrough, consider money, nations, and human rights, to name just a few vital elements of our civilization. Unlike rocks, trees and other things we see around us, these important concepts exist only because we believe in them and act accordingly.  Money, for example, has value only because we all agree that it does -- so people will give us stuff for it.

The ability to act as if such “fictions” really exist is central to what makes us human. It gives sense to our lives and allows us to work together in large groups for common purposes. But our fictions can also lead us seriously astray: think of Nazism or Communism. Both promised a better life but delivered only misery, not least because they were based on erroneous ideas about humanity: Aryans are not a superior race, and central planning is not efficient. A similar disconnect with reality lies at the heart of recent proposals to ban the sale of fur products in certain US cities and states. Let’s take a closer look.

Justifications for Banning Fur

There are only two possible justifications for banning fur. The first would be if fur were not produced responsibly. Most of us believe that it is morally acceptable to use animals for food and other purposes so long as species are not depleted (sustainability) and the animals are raised and killed with as little suffering as possible (animal welfare). As documented throughout the TruthAboutFur website, the modern fur trade satisfies these moral requirements: both wild and farmed furs are now produced at least as responsibly and sustainably as other animals we use for food,  leather and other purposes. *

But if fur is produced responsibly, the only remaining rationale for banning it would be to claim that any killing of animals is wrong. This idea has been elaborated over the past forty years by Peter Singer, Tom Regan and other “animal rights” philosophers. Simply put, they argue that the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of “non-human animals” deserve the same respect as those of humans. Just as discrimination against people of colour is now denounced as Racism, and discrimination against women is rejected as Sexism, Animal Rights philosophers propose that using animals for food, clothing or other purposes should be condemned as “Speciesism”. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk famously charged: “There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” **

At first glance, this proposal can seem compelling. Just as the idea of extending rights to all races, classes and genders (Human Rights) was once scoffed at, Animal Rights philosophers argue that it is time to extend our moral circle to include all animals. But all social and moral constructs are not created equal. Human Rights is a highly functional “fiction” because human society is clearly strengthened when each member feels that their personal rights and needs are secured. Animal Rights offers no such benefits.

Animal Rights is, in fact, completely out of synch with how the natural world really works. Like it or not, life eats life. Animals only survive by eating other living organisms, plants or other animals. But animals do not usually eat members of their own species. Contrary to the claims of animal rightists, there’s nothing arbitrary or hypocritical about humans eating other animals but not (usually) each other.

The evolutionary logic for not killing members of your own species is evident, especially for humans. If you kill me, my kids come for you, then your kids come for my family, and on it goes – not very conducive to social cooperation or stability. Killing and eating other species provokes no such complications.

Problems with Animal Rights Logic

Most worrisome, the logic of Animal Rights may actually threaten human (and animal) welfare. Activists argue that no one needs real fur anymore because fake fur provides a “cruelty-free” alternative. But fake furs (and most other synthetics) are made from petrochemicals that are not renewable or biodegradable. New research reveals that these materials also leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways and marine life each time they are washed. Cruelty-free indeed!

By contrast, using fur in a well-regulated fashion is fully compatible with an ecological (i.e., ethical) relationship with nature. Farmed fur animals are fed left-overs from our own food production, the parts of pigs, chickens and fish that we don’t eat and would otherwise clog landfills. Fur farm wastes – manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses – are composted to produce organic fertilizers, renewing the fertility of the soil and completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. There is no natural farming system that does not include animals.

The production of wild furs is also based on ecological principles: most wildlife species produce more young each year than their habitat can support to adulthood. The sustainable use of this natural surplus is promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other conservation authorities.  In fact, many wildlife populations would have to be culled even if we didn’t use fur, e.g., to prevent damage to property (flooding caused by beaver dams), to protect livestock (coyote predation), and to control the spread of dangerous diseases (rabies in overpopulated raccoons).

Living Outside Natural Reality

All this was clear so long as most North Americans still had family on the land who understood the realities of nature. But now, for the first time in human history, most people live in cities. When your food comes from supermarkets, while animals dance and sing on your TV screen, and the live animals you know are surrogate children that sleep in your bed, it is easy to believe the killing of animals is as morally reprehensible as abusing human rights.

Due to our highly developed brains, we all live to a certain extent outside the biological-natural reality. All legislation is a human construct, and different societal “fictions” constantly compete for public acceptance. Animal Rights activists have been very adept at using sensationalist tactics to convey their stories through both traditional and powerful new social media. As PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk says: “We’re complete media sluts; we didn’t invent the game but we learned to play it!” But stories that win mass appeal do not always end well if they are not grounded in reality.

Animal Rights seems to some to represent a more gentle relationship with nature at a time when pollution and the spectre of global warming are exposing the dangers of rampant consumerism. But as this brief analysis suggests, basing public policy on the ideas promoted by Animal Rights advocates can have unexpected consequences. The Nazis’ fascination with Animal Rights will be the subject of a future essay. For now, suffice to say that encouraging the use of petroleum-based synthetics is not the way to protect our planet for future generations. Using natural, renewable, long-lasting and biodegradable materials like fur makes environmental sense. Politicians take note.

FOOTNOTES:

* In addition to sustainability and animal welfare, two further requirements for ethical animal use could be proposed: animals should not be killed for frivolous purposes, and most of the animal should be used (no waste). For a fuller discussion, see The Ethics of Fur, TruthAboutFur.

** While the Animal Rights philosophy opposes any use of animals, fur is often seen as an easy target; no city or state is proposing to ban the sale of meat or dairy products. Note, however, that Peter Singer, the intellectual godfather of the Animal Rights movement, wrote in his 1975 landmark book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, that it is hypocritical to criticize fur-wearing while most people are still eating meat, which requires the killing of far greater numbers of animals.

***

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

On a recent Saturday night, there was a vigil outside the Hollywood home of Ed Buck commemorating the second anniversary of the death of Gemmel Moore, a young black man who was found dead in Mr. Buck’s apartment of a drug overdose. It is one of two similar deaths of African American men in Mr. Buck’s apartment involving methamphetamine. In the case of Mr. Moore, his own journal entries in the weeks leading up to his death called out how Mr. Buck had introduced him to the drug, and injected him with it. And a report from the police investigation of the scene noted that more than 20 syringes were found in Buck’s apartment along with a cabinet full of illegal drugs and paraphernalia.

Buck, a wealthy white political donor, is an animal rights activist who began the campaign to ban fur in California, pushing through a ban on fur sales in West Hollywood by gathering volunteers and funding from the animal rights community to support John D’Amico’s first run for city council. Mr. D’Amico in turn introduced the West Hollywood ordinance. During the fur ban debate, a witness quoted Mr. Buck as saying we can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals. What does Mr. Buck’s treatment of people say about him?

If you run the rolls of political donations over the past decade, in order to further his agenda Mr. Buck has donated to the campaigns of numerous California Democrats in West Hollywood, Los Angeles and at the state level, many of whom are still in office. He has been one of the largest donors to Animal PAC/Social Compassion in Legislation for Animals. Among the beneficiaries of this PAC are Henry Stern for State Senate ($4,200), John Perez for Assembly ($3,900), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacy. (The latter two have returned their contributions.)

Other Celebrated Activists

Mr. Buck’s legacy leads one to think about some of the other celebrated animal activists here in California. Among them are Nasim Aghdam, the animal rights activist and vegan athlete who shot a man and two women with a handgun after storming YouTube’s headquarters in San Bruno in April 2018. How about Joseph Buddenberg and Nicole Kissane, prosecuted for their acts of vandalism and terror against Kim Graf, owner of Graf Furs in San Diego, and her elderly parents? This dynamic duo spread flesh-eating acids on the doors and windows of their cars, their homes, their store and the parents' RV.

And then there’s the very disturbing news about PETA: They kill animals! The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) tracks the number of cats and dogs taken in by shelters in the state of Virginia each year, how many were reclaimed by their owners, adopted out, transferred to other agencies or euthanized.

Between 1998 and 2018 VDACS reported 47,316 animals taken in by PETA and 39,961 euthanized. That’s 84.46%! Why? According to Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of PETA, pet ownership is “an abysmal situation.” She further elaborated on her goal for destroying the human-pet bond: “If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind. In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”

Just this month Wayne Hsiung, the co-founder and lead organizer of Direct Action Everywhere, announced he was stepping down in advance of multiple criminal trials. Direct Action Everywhere is a co-sponsor of Assembly Bill 44, and to date Mr. Hsiung has been present at nearly all of the committee hearings on the bill.

(Not to be outdone, in 2000, animal activist Marc Ching, founder of Animal Hope and Wellness who has testified in support of AB 44, was sentenced to prison for kidnapping.)

Lawmakers in Bed with Lawbreakers

AB 44 would ban Californians from the choice of buying natural fur clothing. But it won’t stop there. The bill’s backers want to ban Californians from buying leather, wool, burgers, and other animal products.

They say that politics makes strange bedfellows. But it appears that Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, the author of AB 44, has lost her ability to discriminate.

These are the people behind Friedman’s campaign to ban fur. They would close legitimate, taxpaying businesses, putting thousands of people up and down the state out of jobs, and forcing their personal agenda on consumers.

Are we in a new era where lawmakers carry the torch for lawbreakers? Is this the proper role for our legislature?

Hopefully not. But only if regular Californians make their voices heard.

***

This article first appeared at medium.com, and is reproduced with the author's permission.

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

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

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

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

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

Opponents Line Up in Senate

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

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

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

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

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

Retailers Fear Disruptions - or Worse

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

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

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

Pushing for Compromise

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

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

Problematic Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road to Shancun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Rag-bag Package of Lies"

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

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

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

Sick, But Not the First Time

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HSUS Does Not Run Animal Shelters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETA Wants "Total Animal Liberation"

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

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

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

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

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

Peddling Half Truths and Lies

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

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

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

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

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

Browbeating Brands

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

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

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

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

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Complex Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustenance Through Wildlife, Not Livestock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Family Businesses, a NYC Heritage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:

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

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

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

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

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