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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Don't Care How They Do It in California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong Info Creates Wrong Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Such Thing As Bad Publicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Fur Products Are Handmade by Skilled Artisans

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

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

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

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

2. Fur Is Produced on Small Family Farms

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

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

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

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

3. Trappers Maintain Land-Based Knowledge and Lifestyles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Fur Is Sustainable, Durable, Recyclable and Biodegradable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

(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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

********

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

Once you get past the odd title, you'll hopefully find it fitting for the parable that follows. At first glance, it may seem a strange salad, with not only oranges, but also pineapple, roast beaver and giant sequoias thrown into the mix. But if you bear with me, they all come together to confirm my belief that trapping for food and fur is a very sustainable and environmentally friendly way to live.

This story started a few years ago while I was on a trip to the Northwest Territories of Canada. I was up early one morning having breakfast at the Explorer Hotel in Yellowknife. It was around 7:30 a.m. and outside it was still pitch-black and a very frosty -40° Celsius. My journey had brought me north, in the middle of winter, to provide fur-handling workshops in different communities across the NWT for the next 10 days.

Breakfast for me is a pretty simple affair, porridge with a side order of toast, orange juice and coffee. That morning I remember sitting by myself, wondering how the next few days would unfold, as I waited for Francois to pick me up to drive to our first workshop in Fort Providence. And then it struck me: a piece of pineapple had arrived with my porridge as a garnish.

I enjoy pineapple but the thought occurred to me, what did it take to add a small piece of pineapple only a few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle? Pineapples grow in the tropics, with the biggest producers being Costa Rica, Brazil and the Philippines, where forests are cleared just to grow them. So for that piece of garnish to reach my plate fresh enough to eat, it had its share of air miles, and certainly a lot more than I had travelled from my home in North Bay.

In fact, the exotic pineapple was once highly prized in Europe and North America, where it symbolised not only affluence but also hospitality. Evidence of this can still be seen today in the pineapple motifs that architects, artisans and craftsmen incorporated into everything from gateposts, weather vanes and door lintels, to furniture and fabrics.

So I remember thinking this was a pretty extravagant luxury in such an extremely harsh reality. That thought planted the seed for this story.

Less Meat, More Orange Juice?

Fast forward to a recent conversation with my daughter Kasey, at the kitchen table one morning. As she enjoyed her fresh orange juice, she casually remarked to me that we should eat less red meat. Kasey is a very serious young lady who cares about the world she lives in, and she had just watched a documentary about the environmental impact of raising cattle for meat.

Deb and I have four kids and they are all responsible young adults making their way in today’s world. And none of them are vegan, so her statement caught me off guard.

One attribute I have tried hard to instill in my children is to question things and not get caught up in flavour-of-the-moment fads. Just because someone is promoting an agenda doesn’t mean that all their arguments can be proven, or are even true. Kasey is in her third year of nursing at the local university and had just completed a project on northern food security. So she is now well-versed in the problems and issues of supplying a balanced diet to remote communities.

In fact, I had shown her an educational poster that pictured a Cree hunter/trapper roasting a fresh beaver over a fire. The poster explains the importance of the beaver to Cree culture, and the value of the meat far outweighs the value of the fur. Beaver meat sustains a trapper's family in one of the harshest environments inhabited by man. In the same way, seals sustain other northern cultures.

Harvesting meat from seals and beaver is far less intrusive on the local environment than flying fresh meat in from the south. A bonus is the skins that are sold into the fur trade to give the local hunters and trappers income to further sustain a lifestyle that has very low impact on their lands.

Flying southern food into the north has also come at a truly staggering cost in terms of human health, with a rise in particular of obesity and diabetes.   

Humbled by Giants

Rewind again a few years and I am in Las Vegas visiting one of the largest outdoor trade shows, the SHOT Show. While on this trip, I booked a return flight with three extra days so I could take a side trip to Northern California to see the giant sequoia trees, something I had always dreamed about doing.

These massive trees have an estimated life span of between 1,800 and 2,700 years. Stop and think about that for a moment. That’s one heck of a long time compared to how long people live - 70 to 80 years on average!

I was extremely fortunate to be able to share this trip with my son Tyler. We rented a van in Vegas and drove the six hours to Visalia, California where we spent the night, and then drove up to the entrance to Sequoia National Park. On our trip we drove through the desert looking at cactus trees, and then into California where mile after mile of orange tree orchards grow. The journey in itself was a huge eye-opener for us.

As luck would have it, this was in January and Sequoia National Park had just been hit with 36 inches of fresh snow, and was now closed for the rest of the season. Undaunted, we were told that if we drove to Kings Canyon National Park, no matter what, we would be able to see a grove of the giant sequoias.

Back down the valley, another hour and a half drive from just about sea level to over 6,000 feet, we reached the entrance gate only to be told we had to have chains on our tires. Back down to the valley to buy a set of chains and we finally accomplished our mission.

Standing beside General Grant is a humbling experience. If you have the chance, I suggest you visit the parks. Just make sure they are not snowed in!

Mile After Mile of Orange Trees

Back to my story. Because we were not able to make it to one park and had to drive over to the next park across the valley floor, what I saw really opened my mind to what it takes to get that fresh glass of orange juice on your breakfast table.

Acres and acres, mile after mile of intensive agriculture, rows upon rows of orange trees, lemon trees and grapefruit trees, and in the valley floor it was harvest time. One sight that is still vivid in my mind was driving past a factory with at least 50 semi-loads of oranges waiting to be processed into juice.

What really struck me was the intensity of the farming. As a trapper I am always looking at the habitat. I can honestly tell you that between each tree in every orchard there was hardly a blade of grass, never mind any other type of vegetation. No room for anything else but fruit trees.

Now don’t read me wrong here, I am not against drinking orange juice or eating the odd grapefruit. What got me thinking was the fact that the average person has no clue what it takes to have fresh food on the table in front of them, for just about any meal they eat. Singling out beef farming as environmentally unfriendly while telling folks that we need to eat more fruits and vegetables is a tad bit hypocritical.

The challenge for all of us is to produce things in a sustainable manner, and look at the whole and not just a single part. We need beef just as we need orange juice.

In this day and age, it is so easy to be against something and jump on a bandwagon and shout out your superiority. I urge you to stop for a minute and gather all the facts, not just what someone spoon-feeds you.  Next time you are reading your news source, whether off the web or an old-fashioned newspaper, keep in mind you are reading someone else’s opinion of the facts and not necessarily the whole story.

The next time you sit down to drink a glass of orange juice or eat your morning grapefruit, keep in mind that they travelled thousands of miles, and were handled by a number of people, before they reached your breakfast table. Don’t be so judgemental of a trapper or hunter harvesting fur and food from a landscape that they didn't actually have to change in any way. They are harvesting in a sustainable manner that has gone on for as long as the giant sequoia trees have been growing.                

***

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

Consumers today have expectations about everything they buy, from electronics to clothing to furniture -- and manufacturers and retailers of these products are being held to ever higher standards. A big part of consumer confidence is the traceability of products they buy, and the good news for the North American fur trade is that we are well ahead of the curve.

If we order fish in a restaurant, we want to know that it's safe to eat. Hopefully, it also came from a sustainably harvested stock, and the people who processed it enjoy good working conditions. We want our meat to be free of harmful drugs, and to come from farms that observe high animal-welfare standards. Traceability becomes more complicated, of course, when raw materials come from several countries, the product is assembled in a different country, and sold in yet another.

While most industries are running just to keep up with emerging traceability requirements, the North American fur trade has a head start. After years of having every aspect of our operations closely scrutinized, today we are a world leader in the key standards of animal welfare and sustainability. We are also perfectly positioned to meet the standard of traceability now being demanded by consumers.

Development of FurMark

This was clearly revealed when the international fur trade began looking into the development of a new global program called FurMark. This promises to be "an independent, world-class comprehensive certification and traceability program that addresses and assures sustainability and animal welfare."

The impetus for FurMark began with fur farmers and the European fur trade wanting full traceability for their products, to satisfy the requirements of international fashion companies. The desire was for a mark or brand, backed up by a certification program that could assure everyone in the supply chain that the fur they were buying met prescribed standards of animal welfare and sustainability. That motivation has since spread globally, and a full roll-out of the program is now targeted for 2020.

While originally intended to provide reassurance about farmed fur, producers of wild fur inevitably also wanted to be part of this important new program. In response, experts in North America compiled a full list of requirements to assure standards of animal welfare, sustainability and traceability, from the trapline to the finished product. The initial goal was just to make a list and see where there might be any gaps, but then a funny thing happened. When everything was put on the table, it was discovered that there really weren’t any significant gaps beyond some proprietary technology issues (related to things like coding and tags).

In essence, standards and traceability for wild fur were already fully assured by way of a full suite of government, industry and independent requirements and documentation (including, but certainly not limited to, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, CITES, ISO standards, etc.). Those elements support the highest possible levels of regulation, science, permits, enforcement, traceability, animal welfare and sustainability. Everything that was needed was already there!

North American Wildlife Conservation

The fact that everything was already in place for an effective traceability program will not really surprise anyone who understands how North American wild fur is produced. Our wildlife conservation model is the best in the world, and the wild fur trade is a very important part of that model.

Just consider the basics of wild fur. Animals are taken only from abundant populations, with a focus on achieving balanced ecosystems with protections for threatened or endangered species. Trappers are trained in the use of traps that have been rigorously tested using the most advanced scientific methods to assure animal welfare. Trappers also function as providers of scientific data to professional wildlife managers. The pelts they harvest are then tracked all the way from the dealers who first purchase them, to the auction houses, and on to their final buyers. And at every stage there are strict government regulations and permitting and licensing systems, all backed up by science.

In short, the North American model not only works, it exceeds expectations. When our wild fur experts  finished studying how to be compliant with FurMark, they realised they had already put decades of work into an issue that many other industries are still struggling to catch up with.

Cloud-Based Blockchain

To ensure traceability, FurMark comes with a cloud-based blockchain system with a company called ChainPoint that will trace pelts from the auction houses through all the stages of manufacturing.

Fur farmers will attain FurMark certification by undergoing animal welfare and environmental audits by independent third parties.

Dressers and dyers will also be subjected to independent testing and certification. They must use only chemicals from an approved list; undergo government inspections of factory outputs; and agree to random spot-checks of dressed/dyed pelts to ensure compliance.

But it is not FurMark alone that will be providing assurances. Auction houses, manufacturers and retailers are developing their own programs to compliment and enhance the FurMark effort.

Animal welfare in the North American wild fur industry is supported through the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, ISO standards, Best Management Practices, and various Federal, State, Provincial and Territorial regulations that ensure traps and trapping meet the most stringent, scientifically proven humane harvesting standards.

Humane, Sustainable, Traceable

So what does all this mean?

If you are a North American producer of fur, be it a farmer or a trapper, it means you should be proud of all you have in place to ensure that your harvests are humane and sustainable, and that the end products will soon be more traceable than ever before.

For trappers, it means there are no further government or industry regulations needed to achieve traceability or consumer reassurance, because they already exist and are working extremely well. Canadian fur farmers have adopted codes of practice developed by veterinarians and animal scientists under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council, and are now putting into place a system for third-party audit and certification.

If you work in other sectors of the fur trade, from the auction house to the retailer, it means you are buying and selling a sustainable product that comes with all the standards and traceability that a modern industry should have.

And most importantly, if you are a consumer thinking about buying North American fur, it means you can do so with the utmost confidence that you are making a responsible choice.

Anti-fur protesters and animal rights activists are an elitist cult. Not only do they have opinions based solely on short-sighted emotion, and not on science, sustainability or ecology, but they also feel the need to seek out and harass people for not sharing those beliefs. That’s a special type of narcissism.

The word “cult” applies to a group with a set of ideologies that revolve around an excessive devotion toward a particular figure. For animal rights cultists this “God” figure is animals, and anyone who uses animals in any way is evil. Little do they know - or care to acknowledge - that in their quest to protect animals they are among the guiltiest of sinners, causing harm to the very critters they worship.

When anti-fur cultists are outside fur stores, attacking small businesses, spitting on Indigenous and Canadian heritage, and claiming to be animal saviours, they are dressed head to toe in synthetic clothing that will never biodegrade, and will pollute habitats and kill animals en masse for millennia. Do these activists care about the pollution caused in manufacturing their clothes then shipping them across the world? Or that their clothes are contributing to the dire situation with plastics in our oceans? Their choices suggest absolutely not.

SEE ALSO: "Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur", by Truth About Fur.

SEE ALSO: "It's time to say 'no' to anti-fur hate groups", by Alan Herscovici, senior researcher, Truth About Fur.

Environmental Impact of Fur Negligible

Fur is biodegradable, so when several generations of a family are finished using a garment, it can be composted.

Anti-fur protesters like to focus on the tanning agents used to preserve the fur as their argument against the environmental positives of fur, but the truth is that these agents are becoming increasingly environment-friendly, plus they are reused multiple times. The impact per garment is negligible and a moot point.

There is little to no long-term environmental impact from sustainably harvested fur, and in Canada the fur trade is tightly regulated to ensure that sustainability is achieved. Unfortunately when it comes to sustainability though, anti-fur protesters and animal rights activists have no foresight. Their thought processes seem incapable of grasping the real, long-term impacts of our clothing choices.

"Cruelty-Free" Has No Substance

Likewise, their thought processes don't consider a reality of nature, which is that wild animals don’t grow old and die peaceful, pain-free deaths.

Wild animals get eaten alive by other animals who have no regard for a humane kill. They lose their ability to hunt and die cruelly while they starve. They get overpopulated and die of disease and starvation. Anyone who would prefer that, over a quick and humane harvest where the animal gets put to good use in a way that is positive for the environment, can’t claim to be compassionate or care about animal welfare.

Animal rights cultists, who preach about being compassionate and “cruelty free”, are the same people who have threatened to dissolve my five-year-old daughter and I in acid. They have zero credibility.

“Cruelty-free” is now a popular buzz term that can pull on people's heart strings, but it has no substance. If we examine every stage in the production of “cruelty-free” clothing, from its inception to a thousand years after it has been discarded, the negative impact and scale of animal harm is staggering. These so-called "cruelty-free" clothes are usually made from oil or a plant material that requires thousands of hectares of land to be clear-cut. Both of these options contribute to animal harm.

Many “cruelty-free” clothing items are assembled by sweatshop workers, including children, in Third World countries. Then they are shipped across the world to consumers in far-away lands. Through this international shipping, animals like the endangered North Atlantic right whale are killed by ship strikes. Ships also emit an astonishing quantity of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, and we all know about the devastating impact of climate change on animals.

SEE ALSO: "Animal rights agenda anti-human, harms nature", by Larry Simpson, veteran of Canada's far north.

Once the clothing items are discarded, the “cruelty-free” vegan plastics permeate our landscapes and oceans and literally choke animals. These items will not decompose and they repeatedly victimize habitats and animals themselves.

The same principles apply to “cruelty-free” cosmetics. A makeup item may not have been derived from or tested on animals, but the ingredients have probably been tested on animals at some point. And what happens when the item is made overseas and then transported to consumers? Or when the plastic packaging is discarded? Or when the plastic mascara tube filled with “cruelty-free”/vegan product is thrown away after a few months of use?

Short-Sighted Choices Harm Animals

Wildlife is suffering planet-wide because misguided activists are using silly labels and short-sighted choices to make themselves feel better. It’s ironic that animal rights and anti-fur protesters who claim to speak for “voiceless animals” are actually physically preventing the animals from breathing because of their choices.

This is narcissism, hypocrisy and shortsightedness at its ugliest. Animal rights cultists put a tag line on their lifestyle to feel better about themselves, and it’s at the expense of our planet and all the creatures that inhabit it. These uninformed cultists cause more widespread harm to animal populations than any sustainable harvest or biodegradable products do.

When all the non-renewable resources are used up and the vast majority of animal habitats are clear-cut for farms, the San Franciscos and LAs of the world that want to ban fur sales will be kicking themselves for contributing to this destruction, as they shift back to relying on the abundant renewable resources and biodegradable clothes that they shuttered.

Meanwhile, those of us who understand the importance of using sustainable, renewable resources like fur are years ahead of the curve. We are already following a lifestyle that others will have no choice but to return to.

SEE ALSO: "Proposals to ban fur sales are anti-ecological", by Alan Herscovici, senior researcher, Truth About Fur.

In Canada we are fortunate to still have the connection to our lands and resources that Hollywood knows nothing about. Whether animal rights activists want to admit it or not, almost everything they do, in fact, negatively impacts animals. Their labels and misguided choices may help them sleep better at night, but that doesn’t translate into the same for the animals that are dying thanks to their ignorance.

Animal rights cultists live in glass houses and shouldn’t be throwing stones.

***

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

Robert Grandjambe Jr. takes a long, deep breath followed by a pensive sigh when he’s asked the question, even though he likely knew it was coming: “What is the key for the future of trapping and wild fur in Canada?”

It’s understandable he would have to pause to consider the question, given the deeply rooted connections he has to his indigenous ancestry, the north, trapping and living on the land. Trapping is not merely something he does; trapping is who he is.

“I think people need to better understand the importance of what trappers do, because I don’t think they get it,” Grandjambe says after a few moments of consideration. “We must educate people to understand that everything the trapper does contributes to a natural and sustainable way of life and the environment, and is crucial for the culture and health of our communities.”

Woodland Cree

Grandjambe is the subject of the 2018 CBC documentary Fox Chaser: A Winter on the Trapline (currently only available online in Canada). At just 34 years old, he is a young man, yet he comes across as having seen and experienced more than most people twice his age.

A resident of Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, he is a Woodland Cree whose roots go back to Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, where generations of his family trapped to survive.

Time was, the land in that area sustainably produced upwards of 100,000 muskrats per season for hundreds of trappers that called it home. But then, in a familiar refrain, the area’s bounty vanished, not because of over-trapping but because a new dam caused the fertile river delta, which the muskrats called home, to dry up.

Ever resourceful, the trappers diversified to other species. But then, as prices for each one fell with the continued onslaught of misleading animal rights campaigns, those opportunities too fell by the wayside, leaving little in their wake. Despite what animal rights groups say, indigenous people do need to be able to sell product as part of their lifestyle beyond just subsistence.

It’s a lifestyle Grandjambe knows well. He started learning the ways of the trapper and the trapline with his father at age six. The education has proven invaluable, especially considering how complicated trapping can be where he is. He traps near his hometown of Fort Smith, straddling the border between the Northwest Territories and Alberta, and within the confines of Wood Buffalo National Park, which means lots of layers of management and rules and regulations to know and deal with. But if it means better outcomes for trappers and trapping, it’s a complication he can deal with.

Despite what animal rights groups say, indigenous people do need to be able to sell product as part of their lifestyle beyond just subsistence.

“Trappers always want to do the right things,” Grandjambe explains. “Sometimes the many systems we have to deal with make it very difficult, but we do it. Really, trapping is a universal thing for both the trappers and the animals.

“I’ve always done it (trapping), no matter what else I was doing - it provides such freedom, it is a gift to be a trapper out on the land.”

Leaving a Legacy

The education Grandjambe has had is one he is now determined to pass on. Out of trapping season, when he's  not working as a contractor, he spends a lot of time doing presentations about trapping for young people. He goes into schools and teaches students about culture, trapping, craft-making, hunting and gathering.

But he admits he may have another, more selfish reason for being so focused on youth: his two-year-old daughter. And as you might expect, she is already getting her first taste of the wild fur trade.

“As a father you want to leave a legacy. I want to give her all my knowledge and experience from the trapline, and from there she can choose her own path,” he says. “So I will continue to bring her into this world, so she can understand and know it well.”

It’s not just the youth, and his own daughter, that drive Grandjambe though. It's the whole community, including the elders. He works to provide food for as many people as he can from his time on the land, whether it’s moose, ducks, bison, bear, geese or any of the other wild bounty that comes from his choice of lifestyle. He views food as “the thing that brings us all together at the same table and sustains us, no matter who we are or where we come from.”

Conibear Connection

Grandjambe also has one more interesting connection to trapping, to Frank Conibear, one of the founders of the humane trapping movement. Grandjambe’s great-great-grandfather trapped mink in the early 1900s alongside Conibear, near Taltson River, NWT.

Working alongside indigenous people, Conibear grew his appreciation for exercising respect for animals, and he started noticing the equipment he was using wasn’t always conducive to good animal welfare. He was inspired to construct the original body-gripper trap, a more humane device that would later become Conibear’s legacy and form the foundation of humane trapping.

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

Grandjambe says animal welfare has always has been important to trappers, from the time of his great-great-grandfather and Conibear up to the present day. "We always ask ourselves, how can we do it better when it comes to animal treatment?” he says. “The standards have improved dramatically over the years and we still strive to keep improving. As trappers, we always focus on only taking what we need, and making sure we respect the animals and the environment.”

And despite the many challenges facing trappers, Grandjambe has a positive outlook for wild fur. He may not have all the answers as to how to set the future stage for wild fur, but he’s confident the pieces are all there to make it happen.

He points out the great success that the Genuine McKenzie Valley Fur Program has had “restoring pride and interest” in wild fur by providing trappers with access to new markets internationally. The result is trappers back on the trapline, doing the work they have always done - work that Grandjambe says remains as important today as it was in the time of his forefathers.

“I truly believe trappers and wild fur will always have a place in this world,” he says. “We needed it once just to survive, but today it is about much more than that: It’s about social and cultural values, family values, our health and well-being, and protecting nature, ecosystems and the environment.

“There is a lot of pride in being a trapper. Trapping is beautiful.”

***

Though rarely seen these days, moleskin deserves a special mention in the history of the fur trade. This unique fur was once favoured by British high society, and at the height of its popularity gave value to a pest that was being trapped anyway, thereby satisfying a fundamental requirement of the ethical use of animals: minimisation of waste.

First some clarification: Moleskin, or mole skin, or mole fur, or simply mole, is the fur of moles, and where the fur trade is concerned, specifically the European mole (Talpia europaea). This may sound obvious, but a completely different fabric made of cotton is also called "moleskin", and is far more common these days.

Moles have never been a great fit for the fur trade because they're so small – an adult measures only 4.3 to 6.3 inches long. The tiny pelts are cut into rectangles and sewn together into plates which are almost always dyed because natural colours are so variable, making it difficult to find a large number of matching pelts. The most common colour is dark grey or "taupe" (French for mole), but light grey, tan, black and even white have all been observed.

These plates are - or at least were - then made into coats or trousers requiring 500 pelts or more, the lining of winter gloves (fur side in), and a very soft felt for premium top hats. (Cheaper hats used rabbit while everyday hats used American beaver.) Above all, though, moleskin has always been associated with the fronts of waistcoats.

If you're undaunted by the labour involved in working with such small pelts, the result is unlike any other fur. The hairs are very short and dense, encouraging comparisons to velvet, while the leather, though quite delicate, is extremely soft and supple. But what makes moleskin truly special is the nap. The hair of other furbearers grows pointing towards the tail, hence the expression "to rub someone the wrong way." Moleskin, however, reacts the same whichever way you rub it, an adaptation believed to facilitate reversing in tunnels.

Royal Connections

Historically, moleskin had a following wherever moles were hunted as pests, and particularly in the UK. From at least as early as the 18th century, every parish in England employed a molecatcher who supplemented his income by selling the pelts. (There was no money in the meat, however. Theologian William Buckland [1784 - 1856], who famously claimed to have eaten his way through the animal kingdom, described mole meat as "vile", rivalled only by bluebottle flies.)

The moleskin waistcoat was ubiquitous, and a tragic event reminds us that even moles were said to wear them! In 1702, King William III, better known as William of Orange, was out riding when his horse, Sorrel, tripped on a molehill and threw him. He broke his collarbone, developed pneumonia and died, prompting his Jacobite enemies in Scotland to toast “the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat."

But the most interesting period in the history of moleskin was in the early 20th century, and centred on another British royal, Queen Alexandra, wife of King Edward VII. Queen Alexandra was a fashion icon with enormous reach who set several trends among society ladies, like choker necklaces, high necklines, and "summer muffs". So great was her influence that some ladies even copied her "Alexandra limp", caused by a bout with rheumatic fever, by wearing shoes with different-sized heels.

Details are sketchy but the story goes that in 1901, as moles were creating havoc on Scottish farms, Queen Alexandra ordered a moleskin wrap. Whether the Queen simply fancied a bit of moleskin or was an enlightened wildlife manager depends on who's telling the story, but the result was a huge boon. Demand for moleskin went through the roof, and Scotland's pest problem was turned into a lucrative industry. During the period 1900 - 1913, the average annual supply of European and Asian moleskins was estimated at 1 million, and it increased thereafter. At the peak of moleskin's popularity, the US was importing over 4 million pelts a year from the UK.

Rise and Fall of Strychnine

After World War II the popularity of moleskin declined, perhaps in part because pelts were in short supply. Traditional molecatchers were being displaced by industrial pesticides, notably strychnine, which was first synthesised in 1954. But this poison was soon raising animal-welfare concerns and in 1963 it was banned in the UK for wildlife management. Moles, however, were exempted, and until recently dipping worms in strychnine was still the main method of managing moles on British farms. And because strychnine kills moles underground and unseen, supplies of pelts inevitably fell.

But now the tables have turned and traditional molecatchers are making a comeback.

At the dawn of the millennium strychnine was already in short supply, and in 2001 the UK suffered an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. In a bid to stop the disease spreading, public rights of way across land were closed and molecatchers were banned from entering farms. Within a short time there was a mole population explosion to an estimated 40 million. Then in 2006, the European Union ruled that strychnine could no longer be used as a mole poison and the stage was set for the return of traditional molecatchers.

In short order, three organisations sprung up claiming memberships in the hundreds - the British Traditional Molecatchers Register, the Guild of British Molecatchers, and the Association of Professional Mole Catchers. (It's another story for another day, but all three are now engaged in a bitter turf war - pun intended - in the guise of arguing how to kill moles humanely.)

Moleskin Revival?

The UK has always been the spiritual home of moleskin fashion, a position cemented by its most illustrious endorser, Queen Alexandra. Two factors are against it making a comeback anytime soon though: animal rights activism (for which the UK is also the spiritual home), and the cost of labour involved in working with such small pelts.

That said, if another royal influencer could be persuaded to don a new moleskin cap, who knows where it might lead? If I represented an organisation with a high-fallutin' name like the British Guild of Honourable Molecatchers, I'd get one off to Kate Middleton right away. Not only does she wear fur, but  she's also a strong bet to be a future queen.

***

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

In a world of smartphones, games and constant connectivity, the ability to unplug and learn about nature, in nature, is becoming elusive for more and more people. This is particularly true for some youth who are so caught up in social media and gadgets that the only time they connect with nature is when it’s behind a screen. Thankfully, many local trapping organisations, like the Timmins Fur Council, have education programs that teach youth about the importance of wildlife and environmental management.

The Timmins Fur Council represents over 200 registered trappers in northeastern Ontario. Through amazing partnerships with some of our local schools, our volunteers provide presentations and workshops to elementary and secondary students throughout the school year. Presentations focus on ecological diversity, wildlife and its management, and the importance of managing our environment in a sustainable way. Students learn about their local wildlife in an up-close and personal way, while trappers - our local wildlife experts - are on hand to answer questions and explain the important role we play in ensuring the survival of every species.

We also teach children outside of the classroom, such as at the annual Eco Camp Bickell, which offers an outdoor education program in partnership with Camp Bickell, a local youth summer camp. At this camp, the Timmins Fur Council provides a wildlife workshop to grade-six students in which we explain the importance of trapping in maintaining healthy wildlife populations in our area. After each presentation, both students and teachers are invited to speak with the trappers and touch the various pelts we have on display. Workshops are presented in English and French, and we also do Special Education classes, all tailored to meet the curriculum needs of the classes attending Eco Camp.

Alphabet Blocks

A major misconception among the public that we often encounter is that trappers only harvest animals for the money, and youth education is one of ways we use to set this straight. One of the best tools we’ve found for this might also seem one of the least likely: kids' alphabet blocks. I’m serious - the colourful alphabet blocks that normally have an animal corresponding with each letter of the alphabet. Stick with me.

Two students volunteer for this presentation. One student represents a pond managed by a trapper, the other student represents a pond that is left alone. Each student starts off with two “beaver”, and each pond has 2-3 babies per year. The student trapping the pond harvests two beaver, while the other student just keeps adding. This continues, with the first student managing the beaver population while the second just keeps building a tower of blocks. Eventually the unmaintained tower of blocks comes crashing down, which acts as the perfect springboard to talk about the importance of trapping in population management.

Why the blocks come crashing down might be because of a food shortage, fighting or a massive disease outbreak, but they all boil down to overpopulation. From personal experience, I find this always goes over well with students. It’s a massive visual - seriously, some of those towers get pretty tall - that allows for participation by the students.

Families at Heart

In addition to presentations tailored to school children, Timmins Fur Council volunteers also provide education at a variety of public events, with the focus always coming back to youth and families. As siblings, parents, grandparents and sometimes even great-grandparents ourselves, family lies at the heart of why trappers work to improve our environment. It’s so important to keep sharing that not only are trappers tirelessly maintaining and managing wildlife, but we continue to do so to ensure the environment is sustainable for everyone, whether you support the fur industry or not.

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource.

So why are offering these opportunities so important for us?

Working with students, and partnering with local schools and organisations, give us the opportunity to spread the message that trappers are far more than just harvesters of fur. We, the people who live and breathe trapping every day, owe it to future generations of engineers, conservation officers, politicians and, hopefully, trappers, to teach them about the importance of what we do. Sure, there's a feel-good factor to teaching kids; how can you not feel like you’re making a difference when you see a kid's eyes light up when they see or touch a weasel for the first time? But more than that, education connects us. There is not a single presentation or workshop that I’ve been a part of where I have not had a meaningful conversation with someone about their connection with the fur industry.

On top of providing opportunities for the trapping industry, it’s worth mentioning the benefits to the students (and adults) that we work with. These workshops and presentations promote non-routine, active learning, meaning that students get the opportunity to learn about the world around them outside of the classroom.

Positive Relationship with Nature

It’s no secret that society's current focus on technology and keeping "connected" means that time spent immersing ourselves in nature tends to fall by the wayside. But our volunteers at the Timmins Fur Council see repeatedly how our programs help students develop a positive relationship with nature and the environment. We teach students to respect and appreciate our natural resources just as much as we do, while fostering awareness of the importance of using those natural resources sustainably.

Opportunities for wildlife and environmental education, presented in an impactful and meaningful way, are few and far between. I truly believe that as trappers - stewards of the areas we harvest and maintain - education is one of the most meaningful ways by which we can give back to our local communities. So please, make partnerships with your local schools. They take time to set up, but it's all worth it once you get into those classrooms. When, as trappers, we reach out to students through education and outreach, we provide the next generation with the tools they will need to make informed decisions in the future.

***

NOTE:

If your association needs help setting up an educational program for schools, there are many resources online. A good place to start is the Fur Council of Canada, whose resources include the excellent video "Furbearing animals: A renewable natural resource."

Part of modern life in Western societies involves dealing with a handful of people who believe they can tell the rest of us how to live. They call themselves “advocates” if they man a desk or "activists" if they like shouting at people, while the rest of us call them "bullies" or worse. They are more influential now than ever before, empowered by the reach of social media and unprecedented access to spineless politicians and lazy journalists. Against this backdrop, the state of siege by animal rights advocates against the fur trade has reached a critical point.

So how does the future of fur look? Following are some of my personal musings, but we'd be interested in hearing what your crystal ball shows.

Fur Farming Bans

Let’s start with an overview of some frustrating setbacks the fur trade has suffered in recent years, and as we do so, picture a bunch of rolling snowballs that start small and just grow and grow.

The first snowball was fur farming bans. It started rolling in 2000 when fur farming was banned in England and Wales. Since then, other European countries have followed suit, or will phase in bans in the near future.

These bans have harmed the fur trade not because they've disrupted production (no major producer has yet stopped fur farming), but because they've provided support for activist claims and fuelled the public perception that something about fur must be bad. Generally speaking, only bad things are banned, right? And this lays the groundwork for future attacks on the trade.

Paradoxically, while this was going on, the fur trade was actually bouncing back from a slump in the 1990s. Pelt production and prices were up, and exciting new design techniques were reflected in fur’s growing catwalk presence and rising retail sales.

Fur-Free Brands

Then in about 2015, a second snowball started gathering speed. After years of trying, with minimal success, to bully designer brands into dropping fur, animal rights advocates at last saw their efforts paying off. One by one, brands caved in, and when Gucci announced in 2017 its plan to drop fur, the media circus that followed ramped up the pressure even more on the holdouts. For the last year, barely a month has gone by without another brand going fur-free.

Ironically, Gucci’s high-profile flight from fur presented the fur trade with a golden opportunity to talk about its sustainability credentials. As part of their rationale for dropping fur, brands invariably cite advances made in fake fur, while failing to mention that it’s made from petroleum-based plastic – a non-renewable and unsustainable resource that pollutes and doesn’t biodegrade.

Fortuitously, at exactly the same time as Gucci announced its plan to drop fur, the hottest environmental news story was about our need to reduce our use of plastics, with a particular emphasis on micro-fibres used in clothing like fake fur. This played right into the wheelhouse of real fur which is sustainable, has a negligible environmental footprint during its production and lifetime, and after decades of use can be added to the garden compost pile to biodegrade.

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

In response, animal rights advocates and some clothing companies are already proposing a way around this dilemma: If we can’t use real fur or plastic fur, the obvious solution is to make fur-like fabrics from organic materials. Right now research labs are feverishly trying to make “fur” out of such things as bark and mushrooms, and since "leather" made from pineapple leaves is already on the market, you can bet they'll succeed sooner or later.

Retail Bans

Now a third snowball is gathering momentum: retail bans. Unsurprisingly, it started in California, first in West Hollywood in 2013, then Berkeley, and then San Francisco. Now Los Angeles is drafting legislation for its own ban, while euphoric animal rights advocates say New York and Chicago are in their cross-hairs.

Meanwhile, in the UK, a campaign is in full swing to ban all fur imports to an entire nation, and their demand is bolstered by a simple piece of logic. Remember how I said fur farming bans lay the groundwork for future attacks? Now supporters of an import ban are arguing that it is illogical that the UK bans fur farming but still allows the sale of furs produced in other countries. The current Conservative government has shown no interest in taking such action, but the main opposition party, Labour, has vowed to introduce a ban if it's voted into power. When the next general election (scheduled for 2022) comes around, a fur ban may well be high on the agenda.

SEE ALSO: Proposals to ban fur sales are anti-ecological.

Why Fur Will Survive

While these snowballs now barrelling down on the fur trade may seem unstoppable, there are at least two major obstacles in their way.

In the mid-term at least, the fur trade will continue to be able to count on major markets such as China, Korea, Russia and other former Soviet Republics where the voices of Western animal rights advocates are largely ignored. That's not to say that animal welfare is not being discussed in these countries. But the activist message that will not easily translate is that animals have rights and should not be used by humans for any purpose. In time, animal welfare standards in non-Western countries may catch up with those of the West, but the prospect of these countries embracing animal rights is remote indeed. Even in North America and Europe, the signals are more complex than activists would like us to think. The trend of using fur for smaller accessories and trim has made fur more accessible; in fact, fur is now being worn by more young people than ever before.

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

In the long term, the fur trade will not die because common sense will prevail. This will be rooted in a common understanding of three things: (a) that our future will depend on using renewable natural resources sustainably, (b) that there is a need to manage the natural environment, including wildlife, and (c) that sustainable use includes minimising waste.

Even now, many animal-loving city-dwellers who rarely have contact with wildlife are rethinking their views on what, for them, may be tough questions. For example, in a North American context, when an “urban coyote” attacks a child, should it be euthanised? What about beavers that flood roads and houses? Or raccoons that carry rabies into our cities? And if we agree that these animals should be culled, is it ethical to throw the fur away or should it be used? In the future, as our understanding of these issues continues to grow, more and more people will agree that using the fur is the ethical choice.

SEE ALSO: Is it ethical to produce, buy or wear fur?

Some Predictions

So how will the fur trade look in, say, the year 2100? Here are my predictions.

• The future of fur will be inextricably linked to that of fake fur, so let’s deal with that first. Fake fur made from plastic will no longer exist, maybe even 20 years from now. Instead, it will be made from organic materials, either agricultural waste or synthesised in labs. If you don’t think it will ever approach the qualities of real fur, I disagree. Scientists can be very creative given enough industry support, so expect to be wearing “furs” made from turnip heads or fungus by the end of the century. This will present stiff competition for real fur, just as plastic fur does today, but likewise it will sustain interest in fur's unique look while providing cover for real fur lovers from harassment by animal rights activists.

• Fur farming bans will remain in western Europe. It won’t matter whether acceptance of fur as a sustainable resource becomes more widespread. Bans tend to stay in place for the simple reason that they are much harder to lift than they are to impose, especially when lobby groups threaten to raise a ruckus. (For example, it's been largely accepted by wildlife managers that the US Marine Mammal Protection Act will never be amended to allow commercial harvesting of seals or other marine mammals, no matter how abundant or destructive they become.)

Elsewhere, the future of fur farming will depend on the industry's success in meeting new challenges. Animal rights terrorists will continue to try to drive fur farmers to financial ruin, and this in turn will negatively impact the recruitment of new farmers. But if farmers can weather this storm, another challenge will come from the rise of organic fake fur. As the performance of this new material improves, the viability of fur farming will depend on being able to produce pelts of a quality and type that fake fur makers cannot or choose not to imitate. (This is not exclusively a fur problem: producers of meat and other animal products will face similar challenges, and some already do. Butter competes with margarine, real milk with soy milk, and a variety of animal-free organic leathers are now available.) Fur farmers and their associations should begin thinking about their own "unique selling proposition", as marketers call it.

• As for the future of retail bans, my crystal ball is very cloudy. When West Hollywood banned fur sales, it was easy to dismiss this as the foible of a quirky little town, but San Francisco, Los Angeles, and perhaps the entire UK, cannot be so easily dismissed.. That said, the bans so far are largely symbolic because people can just buy fur elsewhere. Also, the courts have ruled that wild furs cannot be banned by municipalities in California since wildlife management is under state jurisdiction. It's also noteworthy that sheep fur is exempted from the ban proposed for San Francisco, perhaps because Californians love their Uggs so.

SEE ALSO: Sheep fur: Pamela Anderson hates it, Ralph Lauren loves it.

If I have to make a prediction, it's that in 2100 there may still be retail bans in some Californian cities and the UK, and perhaps a few other locations where no one wears fur anyway, but that will be it. But if animal rights advocates succeed in forcing bans in New York and Chicago, the future will be more difficult to predict.

• On a positive note, increased public understanding of sustainability issues may herald a new Golden Age for fur. Wildlife will always have to be managed, and no matter how good organic fake fur becomes, there will always be demand for “the real thing”.

Plus we're now seeing that design innovation and effective marketing can turn prices around. Prices for most wild furs have been depressed since the early 1990s, yet coyote prices are now at record levels thanks to the popularity of fur-trimmed parkas sparked by Canada Goose and its imitators. Perhaps in the future, with inspired design innovation and marketing, fur producers, designers and artisans will once again be properly rewarded for their efforts.

• Last and least, what does the future hold for all those animal rights advocates so bent on taking down the fur trade and any others that use animals? My tongue-in-cheek prediction is that they will all move to California, pass legislation making the entire state vegan, and leave everyone else alone. More seriously, I believe they will be shunned as social pariahs, and their days of leading politicians and designer brands by the nose will be over.

The game they are playing now is a double-edged sword. Their bullying tactics are currently quite effective in bringing about change, but as they expand their net to include everything from marine parks to fish burgers, and pets to carriage horses – which they are doing right now – they will make more and more enemies. By 2100, and probably long before, society at large will say, “Enough is enough!”

***

Responsible fashion, informed consumer choice, and the sustainability of fur are front-and-centre in two new fashion campaigns for Fall/Winter 2018-2019 from the International Fur Federation. In preparation for the global launch on September 3, TruthAboutFur’s senior researcher Alan Herscovici spoke with the IFF’s director of fashion, Jean-Pierre Rouphael, about these exciting new campaigns.

TaF:  The IFF’s new consumer campaigns take a very innovative approach, combining beautiful fashion photography with a strong environmental sustainability message. Can you tell us about this?

Jean-Pierre Rouphael: At the IFF’s annual meeting last Fall, in Barcelona, the board decided it was time to promote the modern fur trade’s unique sustainability credentials. The anti-plastic movement was dominating mainstream media and people were talking about the environmental damage caused by plastic – which of course includes fake fur. It was the perfect opportunity to emphasize our "natural" story – the sustainability of fur.

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource.

Young people, especially, are increasingly concerned about how our lifestyles and consumer choices will affect the planet, so the timing is good. The challenge was how to tell this story in a fashion context. The solution we found is a two-pronged approach. One is a beautiful fashion campaign in Vogue magazine that incorporates our environmental message in the text. We call this campaign "Natural Wonder". And then we have a new digital campaign, called “Fur Now”, which centres on creative young people explaining in their own words why they love working with fur, and part of the conversation is about fur's sustainability.

NATURAL WONDER Campaign

TaF: Let's talk about the "Natural Wonder" campaign in Vogue first.

J-P Rouphael: "Natural Wonder" is a three-month exclusive campaign in Vogue, in six major markets – Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Russia and the USA – plus limited usage in China and Korea.

This campaign has been launched in Vogue's September issue, and will be followed by ads in the October and November issues, as well as on Vogue’s digital and social media platforms. The photography shows new fur creations by top designer brands, including Roberto Cavalli, Carolina Herrera, Oscar de la Renta, Fendi and others.

TaF: We notice that the fabulous photography is shot outdoors, not in a studio.

J-P Rouphael: Yes, the shoot was produced by the Vogue team, and we chose Dario Catellani to do our photography because he loves working outdoors, with landscapes and natural light. We felt that was important to reflect our message that fur is a natural product and a responsible choice.

TaF: And the message is clear, right from the bold headline: “Natural Wonder – Sustainable and beautiful, ethical and exquisite, the magic of fur is irresistible.”

J-P Rouphael: Yes, and the text that follows is also very direct. We explain that growing concerns about pollution caused by the production and disposal of plastics – like fake furs and other petroleum-based synthetics – make long-wearing and biodegradable natural materials, like fur, a better choice than ever. As we say in the text, “A fur coat is the ultimate refutation of the buy-it-and-toss-it ethos of environmentally destructive fast-fashion.”

FUR NOW Campaign

TaF: Now tell us about your second campaign, "Fur Now".

J-P Rouphael: The Vogue ads will be supported and complemented by a brand new "Fur Now" campaign that we are especially excited about this year. We have created eight fast-paced video stories featuring creative young people who are actively involved in the fashion industry. We will be featuring one of these video profiles each month, from September through December, and another four from February through May. But you can see all eight of these wonderful young creators on the IFF website now or right here on TruthAboutFur (see below).

TaF: It’s a very modern and engaging approach.

J-P Rouphael: Yes it is. These are real people and they express themselves in their own words. We intentionally did not script them; we just turned on the cameras and asked why they love working with fur, and that’s why the videos are so wonderfully sincere and authentic.

TaF: You have chosen young designers, artisans, and businesspeople working in different markets, in Europe, Asia and North America.

J-P Rouphael: Yes, some are new to the industry, and some are bringing new energy and ideas to multi-generational family businesses, like the charming 21-year-old Romanian woman whose grandmother started their store in Bucharest. There is also a British fashion blogger, someone who doesn’t work in the fur industry, but is nonetheless very interested in the environmental advantages of using natural materials like fur. These are authentic young voices that clearly demonstrate the dynamic creativity of our industry. And the fast-paced editing is also designed to speak directly to Millennials and Generation Z.

TaF: How will these "Fur Now" video stories be promoted?

J-P Rouphael: The campaign will be launched on Elle.com and HarpersBazaar.com through September and October. We will also have more than 40 print insertions in Elle, Harper’s, Cosmopolitan, and Grazia in the EU. There will also be a mailer to the Elle and Harper’s subscription lists. In all, this campaign will reach more than 100 million target consumers, compared to about 86 million reached by last year’s campaign.

TaF: An exciting campaign, indeed! Before we go, tell us a bit about yourself and what these campaigns mean for you personally.

J-P Rouphael: I have worked in fashion communications for the past 14 years, mostly with luxury fashion. I was born in Lebanon and worked for much of my career in Dubai, with clients including Valentino and Ralph Lauren. I moved to London a few years ago, and I am especially happy to be working with the IFF because I love fashion and fashion marketing.

Although I am experienced in promoting luxury, working on last year's "Fur Now" campaign was brand new to me. But touching and feeling fur, shooting it, and seeing how it uplifts any outfit and look, it became organic and easy for me to advocate and sell it through imagery and communication as a timeless beauty while still a modern-day luxury.

And, of course, we have an important story to tell about fur being the responsible choice for our eco-conscious times, especially as we become more aware of the environmental problems associated with fake fur. We believe that we have an extraordinary opportunity now to spread this very positive message about fur. That's why the slogan appearing on all our communications is: “Natural Fur – The Responsible Choice”.

FUR NOW Campaign Videos: