We are the people of the fur trade and we will be silent no longer! That is the new rallying cry of our proud and historic trade, and it's long overdue.

It is hard to believe that the debate about fur has been raging for a full half-century – and a bit troubling to realize that I witnessed it all!

And while it is great to see all the fur on fashion runways and in the streets this winter, we still have a way to go to repair the damage caused by 50 years of activist lies, to reassure consumers that fur is produced responsibly and ethically.

Spotlight on Sealing

It was in March 1964, that a film on Radio-Canada, the French-language network of Canada’s public broadcaster, rocketed the northwest Atlantic seal hunt into the media spotlight for the first time. No matter that the shocking scenes of a live seal being poked by a sealer’s knife (“skinned alive”) would later prove to have been staged for the camera. (1)

In the 50 years that followed, the modus operandi of a lucrative new protest industry was refined: shocking images of questionable origin, celebrities to attract media attention, and emotional fund-raising campaigns that generated piles of money to drive more campaigns.

Markets for sealskins were weakened (with a US import ban in 1972 and a partial European ban in 1983), but the newly formed International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was soon pulling in $6 million annually – more than 3,000 Canadian sealers made risking their lives on the ice floes each Spring. Greenpeace and other groups jumped onto the gravy train, with help from Brigitte Bardot. (2)

In the 1980s – with wild furs more popular than they had been since the Roaring Twenties – the protesters turned their newly-honed media, fund-raising and political skills against trapping (3), a campaign that resulted in the European Union banning jaw-type “leg-hold” traps, in 1997. No matter that traps used in Europe were untested or that other methods used there to control wildlife (e.g., poisoning muskrats in Belgium and the Netherlands) had far-reaching animal-welfare and environmental consequences. Canadian diplomats were told: “Don’t worry about your scientific studies, don’t you understand that this is about politics?”

While campaigns against sealing and trapping continue, the anti-fur focus has now shifted to calls for a ban on fur farming – but the tactics are the same.

Absent: Voice of the Fur Trade

Throughout this debate, one voice was conspicuously absent: the voice of the people whose livelihoods and reputations were being attacked. There are several reasons for this, including the imperatives of modern media, where confrontation is “news” and “celebrities” are irresistible. Hunters, trappers and farmers, moreover, do not live in cities where most journalists are based, so they are rarely heard.

The structure of the fur trade itself – small-scale, decentralized and artisanal – also made it difficult for the industry to muster an effective response. And it didn’t help that those closest to the media and consumers – retail furriers – have little knowledge of production issues. Asking a furrier about trapping standards makes about as much sense as asking a seafood chef to explain fisheries management policy.

All this is about to change. After 50 years of turning the other cheek, the fur trade is finally speaking out more effectively. Under the banner “Truth About Fur”, fur farmers, trappers, biologists and veterinarians are setting the record straight.

Animal Activists Scrambling

The reaction of animal activists is revealing. Used to having the soapbox to themselves, they are scrambling to block or discredit the industry’s voice. I have experienced this personally.

When we refute lies or misinformation on-line, it doesn’t take long before a cyber-bully tries to shut down discussion. Rather than risk having their dogmatic beliefs shaken by facts, they shoot the messenger. Typical attacks include: “He’s paid to write this, don’t listen to him!” “He’s a fur industry troll!” Recently I was called “a sock puppet”.

SEE ALSO: MINK LIBERATION : 5 FACTS THE ALF DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

I suppose it is better to be a sock puppet than a marionette, which would mean that someone was pulling my strings. But the bad news for these cyber-bullies is that we are not puppets. We are the people of the fur trade, and we will be silent no longer.

If the vicious lies and slanders leveled by activists against the fur trade for the past 50 years were directed at any other group in society, they would be denounced as hate crimes. It’s time that animal activists were exposed for what they are: intolerant bullies with little understanding of modern environmental thinking.

Aboriginal (or other) trappers do not need lessons about respecting nature from urban activists. Mink farmers do not need lessons about caring for animals from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). The fur trade is not a crime against nature; it is a prime example of “the responsible and sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, a principle supported by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and every other environmental authority. These are some of the facts that are documented by Truth About Fur.

It is encouraging that close to 500 international designers now include fur in their collections, compared with only about 40 in the early 1990s. And it is wonderful to see people of all ages with coyote and fox trim on their parkas this winter. But it is especially satisfying to know that, whatever people choose to wear, the fur trade’s story is finally being told by the people who live it.

* * *

1) Alan Herscovici, Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1985; Stoddart Publishing, 1991), p. 74.

2) Herscovici, p. 70.

3) Herscovici, pp. 117-162.

The TV news item was about the upcoming duck season, and the soundtrack in the background was a recording of somebody blowing a duck caller. The calling wasn’t bad, but what ruined it for me was the film clip they were running to illustrate duck hunting.

They were filming a flock of coots.

Unfortunately, that sort of stuff is pretty common on today’s television and movie programming. Pay attention, and you’ll see it all the time. I bet I’ve watched a dozen movies where they show a flock of cranes or ibises or some other species that flies in a V formation, accompanied by an overlaid soundtrack of - you guessed it - goose music.

Things like this are laughable, but they ought to also serve as warning flags. Every instance should remind us that not everyone is as knowledgeable about things outdoors as we are, and that simple but profound fact can (and often does) come back to bite us. In fact, the general lack of knowledge of the public about nature might well be the biggest problem we trappers, hunters and anglers face.

Sure, there are plenty of other things for us to worry about - loss of habitat to urban encroachment, shrinking access to public and private land, decreasing recruitment of young people into the outdoor lifestyle we know and love. But at the end of the day, none of those things will matter if our legal right to trap gets taken away at the ballot box.

And slowly but surely, that’s what’s happening. This year, for example, there was a petition drive in Montana to get an initiative on the November ballot prohibiting trapping on any public land in that state. (See Toby Walrath’s piece in the November 2013 issue of Trapper & Predator Caller for more on that.) They failed to get sufficient signatures this time, but if this thing passes in the future, more than a third of Montana would be closed to trapping.

Montana wouldn’t be the first state where it’s happened, either. It’s already against the law to trap on public land in Arizona and Colorado, and trappers have been so restricted and legislation-crippled in states like California, Florida, Massachusetts and New Jersey that I swear I can’t understand why any trapper would live there.

Coots Instead of Ducks, Cranes Instead of Geese

The reason this has happened, and the reason it continues to be a threat, goes right back to that coots instead of ducks, cranes instead of geese thing - a widespread lack of knowledge in the non-hunting, non-trapping public about all things wild. Most of these folks aren’t necessarily against hunting or trapping. They’re not anorexic, wild-eyed vegans. They eat meat just like we do. Nor are they stupid. They just have no interest in hunting or trapping. That’s all. And so they don’t bother to learn anything about it.

But they care about wildlife in an abstract, feel-good sort of way, and that’s why they’re susceptible to the exaggerations, half-truths and flat-out lies the zealots on the bunny-hugger side of the fence keep throwing at them. For example, it’s true what the anti’s say, that the lion does sometimes lay down with the lamb. But what the anti’s always forget to mention is that the reason the lion does so is so it can more comfortably eat the lamb.

It’s up to us to stop this brainwashing of the non-hunting, non-trapping public, and the most effective way to do it is personal communication. Every trapper has many friends and family members who don’t hunt or trap. These folks would be more inclined to believe us than they would be to believe some complete stranger telling them trapping and hunting are evil. However, they won’t get our side of the story unless we tell them.

Are you doing that with your friends and relatives? If so, thanks very much, and keep up the good work.

If you’re not, you’re part of the problem.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if animal activists got their wish to eliminate all animal products? And created their version of a "perfect world"?

What would that look like?

Check out this clever musical cartoon by Fur Europe … and pass it on!

When people voice their opinion against fur farming it is an often used argument that farmed fur animals are wild animals and thus not suited to farm life in a cage. The argument is intriguing – but it is not correct.

The first recorded history of fur farmed mink dates back to 1860s in North America and a fox farm from about 1908 on Prince Edward Island in Canada is generally recognized as the world’s first silver fox farm. The European herd is founded on import of these North American animals with the first fur farms emerging in Norway in 1914.

The anti-fur argument then normally goes, that other animal species have been domesticated for thousands of years, which is true. But the underlying assumption to this argument, namely that domestication of animals requires thousands of years, is not true at all.

The world’s most famous research project on domestication happened to be carried out with foxes by the Russian scientist Dimitri K. Belyaev. He believed that the patterns of change observed in animals domesticated over thousands of years resulted from genetic changes which occurred in the course of selection. In 1959, Belyaev set up a long-term experiment of domestication of wild foxes and in the course of 24 years Belyalev and his team bred foxes that behaved like dogs, and literally were dependent on human contact. From an animal agriculture perspective it would be fair to characterize such animals as over-domesticated, and my point here is simply that total domestication from wild to tame animal can be done in a relatively short period of time. With regards to the fur farmed animals in Europe, there is sufficient scientific evidence that they are indeed domesticated animals.

One of the most significant differences between wild and domesticated animals is the animal’s attitude towards humans. Though exceptions may be found, it is evident that mink and foxes on European fur farms are not afraid of human contact. Today’s fur animals are totally undisturbed (unless around feeding time) when humans enter the farm. Such indifference to human beings is unthinkable in the wild.

Farmed fur animals also possess many of the other traits which are scientifically recognized as signs of domestication: They are bigger than their wild counterparts, the colors pattern changes, the litter sizes are larger, the brains are smaller, the legs are shorter, tails are curled, and ears are floppy. The latter was already pointed out by Charles Darwin who, without having any knowledge of genetics, brilliantly pointed to selection as the reason for modification of character. Animal and plant domestication was of fundamental importance for the development of Darwin’s ideas about the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the first chapter of ‘The Origin of the Species’ from 1859 he wrote: “Not a single domestic animal can be named which has not in some country drooping ears.”

In the wild only elephants has this feature.

You can read more about both Charles Darwin and Dimitri K. Belyaev’s groundbreaking but somewhat forgotten fox experiment here and here.

In this age of “shock imagery” being used to promote political agendas, it’s easy to paint an entire industry by the actions of a single actor. As the fur farming industry well knows, a suspect undercover video produced in China almost 10 years ago, of an animal being horribly skinned alive, is still being used to paint the industry worldwide. Though the creators of that undercover video have refused to provide the un-cut footage, identify the perpetrators so they can be prosecuted (yes, it is a crime in China) or even reveal the location or time it was made, they still try to use it as “proof” that fur production should be outlawed.

Today we continue to find that animal-rights groups, in their efforts to ban animals from our diet, clothing, medical research and pet stores, are increasingly using undercover video as “whistleblower” evidence of cruelty or neglect.

No one, especially those of us whose livelihoods depend upon healthy, well-cared for animals, wants to see an animal injured or treated badly. U.S. mink farmers, and, indeed, all animal agriculture, not only view animal welfare as a moral obligation, but know that humane care is critical to producing the quality food and fiber that America is recognized for.

Fur Commission USA supports both “whistleblower” protection laws and farm protection statutes. While extremists, often through deceit and creative editing, continue to generate and distribute shock imagery that supports their world-view, it is important to farmers in the U.S. that credible evidence of actual abuse or neglect is identified in a timely manner, and reported to the proper government authorities for investigation so that any problems can be immediately corrected. It is, and should be, all about the well-being of the animals.

Too often we see these anti-animal use groups hold back their “evidence” in order to receive maximum media coverage. They don’t want pesky issues like war, disease or human suffering to take attention away from their agenda.

Does this help the animals? No. In fact, between the time an undercover video may actually have been taken, edited and broadcast, months may have gone by. In that time, if the video is a true depiction, how much animal suffering could have been prevented?

Regrettably, it is painfully obvious that often these organizations appear to care less about the animals than they do about maximizing publicity, self-promotion and fund raising – and that should be the real crime.

Two years ago I went to NAFFEM, a large fur trade show in Montreal. I was invited as a blogger, to check out the beautiful pieces and choose some of my favourite items for sale at the show. I am a huge supporter of the Canadian fur industry (read about my reasons here) but I’ve been less vocal about the seal hunt, primarily because I didn’t have enough information to make an informed opinion about it. Well, now I do, and I would like to share it with you because I think it is important.

1. Seals are a sustainable resource and are in abundance. We live in a world where resources have become an issue, and many of us are choosing to consume products that come from renewable resources. Seal is a great example of this – there are tons of them in Canada and they are not at all at threat of becoming endangered.

Speaking of sustainability, seals are part of the reason why fish stocks are very low (although overfishing is also a big issue) and the seal hunt not only provides jobs and resources for the hunters, but also allows the fish populations to regenerate (a bit.) All major conservation groups will agree that a responsible use of resources (like hunting seals for food and clothing) is a good thing, and is often the central principle of modern conservation.

2. Seals are local. The green topic is a big one right now, and part of the green movement focuses on buying local.

Canada has a lot of great resources, but when it comes to fashion, few are 100% Canadian. Nearly all of our fashion products are in some way sourced from overseas (whether it be raw materials or construction) but seal skin and wild fur are 100% free range, local products.

3. The seal hunt supports Canadian communities. There are two major seal hunts in Canada, one in the Arctic sea (seals hunted by Inuit people) and one on the East Coast (a commercial seal hunt.) Both provide jobs and resources for those people. The meat is eaten, the fat is used for a variety of products, and the skin is sold so that these people can support themselves.

Food, as you may know, is extremely expensive in the Arctic, and there are limited jobs in that area, or in the Maritimes. The seal hunt is a very important Canadian industry for the people who depend on it.

4. The seal hunt is not inhumane. The animal rights activists will have you believe that the seal hunt is inhumane, but this is not the case.

First of all, most seals are killed with rifles (not clubbed to death.)

Secondly, there have been numerous studies done on the seal hunt, and biologists and veterinarians have all agreed that the seal hunt is no less humane than any other hunt.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, UNDEMOCRATIC

5. The media paints an unfair picture. My question, after having learnt all the above, was why does the seal hunt have such a bad reputation? There are two answers to this.

First of all, seals are cute, and people are more likely to be protective of cute animals. If we were all truly concerned about cruelty and sustainability, why aren’t we doing more to save fish? Many species of fish are far more at risk than seals, yet their not-so-cute appearance doesn’t exactly inspire people to campaign for them. (Notice how we care more that our tuna is “dolphin safe” but not so much if that particular tuna is endangered.)

Secondly, the seal hunt is much more visible than other hunts, and the access to it allows for more imagery. The seal hunt happens in certain places at very specific times, and so it is very easy for activists to turn up and take photos of blood on the ice. Those same activists aren’t invited into abattoirs, and therefore we don’t have the same images in our head of cows or sheep. The fact that seals are cute, and that we have access to photos of them being killed, means the seal hunt has been very unfairly portrayed by the media and activist groups.

Many of us are so far removed from nature, farming, and hunting, and it is so easy to forget that our food comes from the land. While I will admit I don’t like seeing photos of any dead animals, I do appreciate the process and am under no illusions about the realities of eating meat and wearing animal products.

For those of us who do choose to consume animals, the best we can do is consume sustainable resources that are treated humanely – and the seal hunt is just that.

Wildlife experts say there are 20 times more raccoons sharing human habitation space in North America than 70 years ago. In Toronto, where I live, this urban pest reportedly numbers up to 150 per square kilometre, mostly in residential neighbourhoods, not parks and ravines.

I haven’t counted for myself, but these numbers seem credible. As a resident of the “raccoon capital of the world”, I live in close quarters with these pesky masked bandits.

I have been cleaning up the aftermath of garbage bin raids since childhood. On more than one occasion I’ve had to shoo a well-fed raccoon away from the pet dish and out of my house! Battling and fixing their destruction of home and garden has cost me more time and money than I care to remember. And I learned long ago that raccoons cannot be toilet trained, so I have grown accustomed to scooping the poop left on my deck most summer mornings.

Toronto's raccoon policy, like that of the state of Ontario, is live-and-let-live. The city suggests that homeowners discourage nocturnal visits by keeping trash locked up and “raccoon proofing” fruit and vegetable gardens, which I do. But when I discovered last spring that my eaves were being used for a maternity den, it was time to seek professional advice – so I tracked down a licenced trapper.

Trappers Understand Urban Pests

Of course, there is no shortage of “pest control” companies in the raccoon capital of the world. Their services invariably involve setting cage traps to capture, move and release problem animals. Unlike licenced trappers, however, people working for these companies do not require training in the use of humane-certified traps. Yes, even cage traps can be cruel when misused.

Over the years, I have heard some real horror stories about these services. One particularly gruesome tale involved bear spray (pepper spray to most of us) that nearly blinded the unfortunate raccoon.

I am not saying that all these companies follow bad practices, but I prefer to get my advice from the best experts available. So that’s where I went.

All I wanted was the name of a reputable nuisance-wildlife control company. What the trapper provided instead was a relatively easy solution that involved no traps at all. No raccoons were stressed in the process – although my acrophobic husband was required to climb a ladder several times.

The consultation began with a lesson in “Raccoon Behaviour 101”. The trapper explained that a mother raccoon will usually have 2-3 den sites. Persuading unwanted tenants to leave is much easier when they have somewhere else to go!

He also explained that, once the cubs are a few weeks old, the whole family will leave their den as a group to get water every day. So, following the trapper’s instructions, we covered the entry hole under our roof with a piece of loose cardboard. When the cardboard was moved, we’d know they had all left to get a drink. Then – using screws, not nails that raccoons can pry out – we boarded up the hole before they returned. It worked like a charm. My unwanted house guests simply moved (hopefully not to someone else’s house) and my problem was solved.

Anti-trapping activists often complain that trappers are only interested in using lethal methods to control urban wildlife. My own experience shows that nothing could be further from the truth.

FROM OUR WEBSITE: FUR PRODUCTION: TRAPPING

It's no secret that fur was one of the hottest trends of the season with a presence in most major runway shows. But fur is more than just fashionable, it is also one of the most sustainably-produced natural resources on the planet. Furs such as coyote, fox, beaver and muskrat have been used for centuries to provide warmth and incredible versatility. And when these furs are used responsibly, it's not just the fashion industry that thrives, our natural environment benefits too!

Why trapping?

Nature, like most things, requires balance. This balance today includes the coexistence of humans and animals, and the modern fur trade plays a role in helping to maintain this relationship. Without regulated trapping and hunting to manage the size of wildlife populations, many ecosystems would be drastically affected. Regulated trapping is also often necessary to protect property and natural habitat, and to protect both humans and wildlife from disease. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

Leave it to Beaver!

The historical fur trade that led to the foundation of many of our towns and cities was fueled, above all, by the beaver. After more than 400 years of commercial fur trading in North America, biologists tell us that beavers are as abundant as they were when Europeans first arrived here – thanks to modern trapping regulations. However, too many beaver can be as much a problem as too few beavers. Left unmanaged, beaver populations will keep increasing until they eat themselves out of house and home.

Once vegetation is destroyed, it will take many years before beavers can return to the region. With regulated trapping, beaver populations are maintained in balance with available habitat – they are more stable and healthier. Furthermore, overabundant beavers can flood homes, roads, fields and forest habitat. Much better that we use some of what nature provides!

One of the first furs to be used for clothing by First Nations people, beaver is still widely used today by some of the top designers. Specifically, on the runway this year, Givenchy has used beaver to create a sleek bomber jacket, Haider Ackermann showed a monochrome coat while Chloé featured a spectacular beaver vest.

Coyotes get wild!

Coyotes are highly abundant across North America. They adapt well to human proximity and have profited from wolves being pushed out of much of their traditional range. Coyotes, however, can become dangerous when they are overpopulated and lose their fear of humans. In California, where I live, coyotes have been taking pet dogs and cats from backyards! They can also cause serious problems for cattle ranchers and sheep farmers when they prey on young calves and lambs. And overpopulated coyotes are more likely to spread diseases including rabies, tularemia, and hepatitis which can be transmitted to both animals and humans. Regulated trapping seasons help decrease the negative interactions between humans and wildlife – so why not make use of this remarkable natural resource?

Coyote fur, warm and dense, is great for making rugged men's jackets. It's beautiful, natural hue has also been popping up in women's accessories and shoes. And, of course, it is the favorite choice for trimming the hoods of down-filled parkas. (Fur trim on your parka hood protects your face from the cold winds of winter like nothing else!)

Think about it!

So here’s the real question: since wild furbearer populations are abundant and, in many cases, must be managed to maintain a balance with available habitat, should we kill these animals and throw them away? Or is it more respectful to use this beautiful natural material?

What do you think?

“…Father believed that there was an animal even more dangerous than [humans], and one that was extremely common too: the redoubtable species Animalus anthropomorphicus, the animal as seen through human eyes. We’ve all met one, perhaps even owned one. It is an animal that is ‘cute’, ‘friendly’, ‘loving’, devoted’, ‘merry’, ‘understanding’….In [all these] cases, we look at an animal and see a mirror.”  Life of Pi, Yann Martel.

Two recent news stories cast a revealing spotlight on our muddled thinking about animals.

First, in Sochi, president Vladimir Putin was photographed caressing a young Persian leopard cub at a newly-constructed breeding and rehabilitation center.

“The restoration of this endangered species will be part of the heritage of these games; the natural environment is much improved thanks to the Olympics,” said Mr. Putin.

Take that, environmental activists with all your whining about the construction of Olympic installations in a pristine wilderness!

One local activist was just sent to prison for three years for painting protest graffiti on the wall of a construction site. But there’s nothing to soften a tough politician’s image like cuddling a baby animal…especially a “charismatic” leopard or other big cat.

Next stop, Denmark, where the Copenhagen Zoo sparked animal activist ire – and an international media feeding frenzy – for euthanizing an 18-month-old giraffe named Marius.

As part of the European breeding program, the zoo must maintain genetic diversity in its limited space, so Marius was redundant.

The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) fully supported the Copenhagen Zoo’s decision. But many were horrified when Marius was lured to lower his graceful 2-meter-long neck with a piece of rye bread – his favorite snack – and then shot through the brain with a captive-bolt pistol.

Even more shocking to many was the zoo’s decision to chop dead Marius into large pieces in front of visiting children and their parents, before feeding him to the lions.

Bengt Holst, scientific director of the Copenhagen Zoo was admirably calm and intelligent as he cut through the media sensationalism with plain talk.

“I know the giraffe is a nice-looking animal, but I don’t think there would be such outrage if it had been an antelope, and I don’t think anyone would have lifted an eyebrow if it was a pig,” said Holst.

“There are 600 deer culled every year in a nature park north of Copenhagen, and no one gets upset.  Humans have changed nature and we have a responsibility to maintain a balance.

“Humans kill and eat more than 50 billion animals a year. We have killed 5 giraffes since EAZA’s record-keeping began in 1828.  Inbreeding can increase a population’s susceptibility to disease and other chronic conditions that can threaten the future survival of species under our care,” he explained patiently.

Nor did the zoo make any apologies for cutting Marius apart in front of children.

“It is not cruel, it is natural.  Carnivores eat meat.  If it was not the giraffe, it would have been a cow – what is the difference?

“Nature is not Disneyland where animals are only born but never die.  In nature, animals must also die.  Lions eat giraffes in nature. Why ‘protect’ children from reality?

“These children had the opportunity to see the wonder of the giraffe: for example, the huge heart that is needed to pump blood two metres up to their brain. They learned something in a way they would never learn from a book,” said Holst.

All very logical and scientific.  But did he really like these animals, asked a journalist?  “Of course I like these animals, that is why we are working so hard to protect their future. Sometimes you have to do things that are not so pleasant, but it is important to be intelligent about such things,” said Holst.

Not least interesting in this story, of course, is our own conflicting feelings about “charismatic animals”.  Like it or not, Putin’s leopards (or, in this case, Danish lions) eat giraffes like Marius.

This reminds me of one of the most impressive scenes in the 2005 film The March of the Penguins when, after enduring incredible hardships, our heroes finally make it to the sea, only to be torn to bits by leopard seals.

For some reason, anti-seal-hunt activists never feature this footage on their protest websites?!

But let’s be honest: none of us are totally free of anthropomorphism. It takes a pretty cold-hearted person not to feel some sympathy for long-lashed, dewy-eyed Marius. Or for fluffy “baby” seals. Or for almost any animal staring wistfully into a camera lens. Especially when most of us now live in cities and rarely see a wild animal.

When overpopulated beavers flood our roads or raccoons move into our attics, however, it is remarkable how fast perceptions can change!

In their attempt to discredit the environmental credentials of the fur trade, activists often cite a “life cycle assessment" (LCA) produced by CE Delft, a Dutch research consultancy (see: NOTES, below). This study (The environmental impact of mink fur production, Delft, January 2011) found that: “Compared with textiles (including polyester, cotton, wool, and polyacrylic ‘fake furs’), fur has a higher impact on 17 of the 18 environmental themes, including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions.”

Because these claims, if true, would contradict our belief that fur is an environmentally responsible choice, we decided to take a closer look. It is lucky that we did!  

Stated simply, we found that CE Delft’s negative assessment of fur results from several methodological assumptions or questionable statistics.

Among the most important concerns:

CE Delft used a significantly inflated figure (almost double our findings!) for the amount of feed required to produce farmed fur.

• They ignored the fact that, because this feed is composed mostly of wastes from our food-production system, it could be considered an environmental benefit rather than a cost.
• Mink manure made from soiled straw bedding and carcasses could also be assigned environmental credits rather than costs – for replacing synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuels.
• Not least important, CE Delft discounts the environmental benefits of real fur apparel lasting much longer than fake furs or other textiles, i.e., if a real mink last five time longer than a fake fur coat, its environmental impact should be compared with that of five fakes, not one!

Let’s look at this CE Delft report in more detail ...

1. CE Delft (“Committed to the Environment”) describes itself as an "independent research and consultancy organization specialized in developing structural and innovative solutions to environmental problems. CE Delft’s solutions are characterized in being politically feasible, technologically sound, economically prudent and socially equitable.”  [Socially equitable?  Except for mink farmers, it would seem!]
2. This study, was commissioned by three European “animal-rights” groups that strongly oppose the use of fur: the Dutch Bont voor Dieren, the Belgian GAIA (Global Action in the Interest of Animals) and the Italian Lega Antivivisezione LAV). (No comment!)
3. Turning to the substance of this study:  the feed used to produce mink is identified as one of two elements that account for most of the environmental costs of fur.  This claim, however, is based on several assumptions:

-          CE Delft sets out to compare 1 kilogram (kg) of mink fur with 1 kilogram of fake fur and other textiles.  To this end, they propose that 11.4 mink pelts are needed to produce 1 kg of fur, and that each animal consumes close to 50 kg of feed (including a share for the mother). From these assumptions, CE Delft concludes that 563 kilograms of feed  are required to produce one kilogram of fur (49.4 kg of feed x 11.4 pelts/kg of fur.), and this is the figure on which they base all their subsequent calculations of environmental impacts. [p.6]

-          Our own survey of North American and European farmers – including statistics published by the Danish Faculty of Agricultural Science, Aarhus University (2010) -- suggests that it actually requires from 38-45 kg – or an average of about 41.5 kg of feed to produce a mink pelt.  CE Delft’s figure for how many pelts are required to supply a kilogram of fur is also higher than what we found -- perhaps because their calculation was apparently based on two sample pelts provided by the Dutch activist group Bont voor Dieren, which may not represent a true average size?  Using the same methodology as CE Delft but with a large data set provided by European fur auctions, we find that 1 kg of fur represents about 7.75 pelts – not 11.4, as CE Delft proposes.  If an average of 41.5 kg of feed is required to produce one mink pelt, multiplying this by 7.75 pelts indicates that 322 kg of feed would be required to produce 1 kg of fur – i.e., a little more than half (57%) the amount of feed used by CE Delft in their calculations.   This discrepancy alone explains much of the higher environmental impact they attribute to real fur.

 -          CE Delft also assumes that mink food is comprised of 70% chicken waste and 30% fish offal.  But feed composition varies according to local availability. Thus, in Denmark (which produces three times more mink than Holland, where CE Delft is based) feed is more commonly composed of 80% fish offal and 20% chicken waste.    But the environmental cost of fish offal is much lower than that of chicken wastes. In fact, in a 2013 follow-up study, CE Delft acknowledged that a mink diet based on fish rather than chicken would lower environmental impacts by 30%. [See, #6, below.]

-          Most important of all:  other uses would have to be found for this meat and fish waste  -- or it would go into landfills or be incinerated -- if mink weren’t eating it.  It could therefore be argued that an environmental CREDIT should be applied to mink food production, since the environmental costs of disposing of these meat and fish wastes are avoided. 

In summary:  Since mink feed is the predominant factor in 14 of the 18 environmental impacts that CE Delft considered, their assumptions raise serious questions about the credibility of their findings.

4. The second major source of environmental impacts identified by CE Delft is emissions associated with mink manure and other farm wastes.

Here again, CE Delft  ignored the subsequent use of this manure and the environmental CREDITS that could be associated with reducing the need for artificial fertilizers when mink manure and other wastes (soiled straw bedding) are properly managed and applied to local agricultural lands.  Mink carcasses and wastes are now also used to produce biofuels, thereby reducing the need for fossil fuels.

 5. Finally, the way in which CE Delft framed the scope of its study has skewed its findings:  

CE Delft did not do a complete, “cradle-to-grave” Life Cycle Assessment in its 2011 study. Instead, it did a partial (“cradle-to-gate”) analysis which included the environmental costs of raising of the mink on the farm, pelting, transportation, auction sale, and processing (dressing) – but stopped at the point when the fur would be made into a garment.  CE Delft therefore completely ignored one of the most important environmental attributes of fur apparel, i.e., that it is much longer-lasting than most other clothing materials. Clearly, it matters whether the environmental costs of production are amortized over 5-10 years (fake fur coats) or 40, 50 or more years (real fur coats)!

 6. To address this blatant methodological flaw, CE Delft published a follow-up study in June 2013 (“Natural mink fur and faux fur products, an environmental comparison”).  This study completed the “life cycle” by assessing the manufacture, use/maintenance and ultimate disposal of real and fake (polyacrylic) furs – but again concluded that real fur apparel has a greater environmental cost than fakes.  Here’s why:

-          The new study used the same assumptions and calculations about mink feed production and manure/waste management that were presented in the first study – and these two elements still accounted for most of the environmental impacts.

-          Furthermore, to blur the environmental advantages of fur apparel lasting much longer than fakes, CE Delft proposed several “scenarios”.  It acknowledges that real fur may last as much as five times longer than fake, e.g., 30 years vs 6, as proposed in an LCA prepared for the International Fur Federation [DSS, 2011).  But then it backtracks, suggesting that “it is conceivable that the lifespan is determined by the change in fashion; in this case the lifespan of a natural fur coat and a faux fur coat could be equal.” (p.5)  This statement reveals ignorance or deviousness:it doesn’t seem to know (or doesn’t want its readers to know?) that fur apparel can be taken apart and completely reassembled (“remodeled”) as fashions change.  This is one of fur’s important environmental attributes; no one throws away a fur coat because styles change. In fact, with the current revival of fur in fashion, retailers are busy remodeling coats their customers bought during the last fur boom, in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e. coats that are already 30–40 years old!

 -          CE Delft also claims that the longevity of real fur coats may be off-set by the environmental costs of cold storage during the off-season.  They suggest that 30 years of seasonal cold storage would have more impact on climate change, for example, than the entire process of raising the mink, processing the pelts and producing the coat! (Figure 7, p. 34.)  The energy costs of fur storage as estimated by CE Delft, however, are considerably higher than figures collected from real fur storage facilities. More to the point, most fur coats are simply not kept in special cold-storage vaults, especially now that many homes are air-conditioned through the summer months. Furthermore, off-season storage of furs has always been less common in Europe than in North America, and is almost non-existent in Russia and the booming new markets of Asia.

-          More fundamentally: we could question CE Delft’s core contention that real and fake fur coats can be compared at all. The fact that people are prepared to pay considerably more money for real fur coats than for fakes would seem to confirm that they have different qualities and “value”.

-          Finally, we note that neither CE Delft study appears to have been submitted for peer review.

In conclusion, CE Delft’s often-quoted claim that “fur has a higher environmental cost than fakes” appears to be based on a series of questionable assumptions and calculations.  CE Delft is cautious in how it presents its findings, especially in its 2013 study where it provides a number of different “scenarios” to account for the uncertainties it acknowledges. Activists, however, show no such caution when they cite these findings.

The biggest threat to climate change, in fact, may be activist “hot air”!

Related Reading:

• Take the cotton out of your ears, please by Mick Madsen, Fur for Thought, 21 August 2013.
•  
• **************************

NOTES:

Here are a few examples where the “CE Delft” study is cited in an attempt to discredit the environmental credentials of the fur trade:

1. “A study by consultancy firm CE Delft in 2011 found that the impact of fur production on 17 out of 18 environmental issues – such as climate change, ozone pollution and soil acidification – was found to be more harmful than when compared to common textiles.” From Cruel or cool? Worldwide sales of fur top £10 billion by Hayley Leaver, Metro.co.uk, 22 May 2013.

2. “PETA points to a 2011 study by a Netherlands consultancy firm CE Delft which compared the impact of fur production with common textiles on 18 different environmental issues such as climate change, ozone pollution, soil acidification and water and land use. ‘For 17 of the 18 issues, fur was found to be much more harmful than common textiles,’ says Ben Williamson, a spokesperson for PETA.” From Is the fur trade sustainable? By Tansy Hoskins, The Guardian, 29 October 2013.

3. “A 2011 study by Dutch independent researchers CE Delft calls fur production worse than textile production, in terms of environmental degradation. Carcinogens like chromium and formaldehyde, employed in dressing and dyeing processes, compromise fur’s biodegradability, not to mention ecological stability.” From Fur is Green. True or Faux? By Jody McCutcheon, Eluxe Magazine, 22 February 2013.

In our last post, we exposed how activists lie when they claim that the World Bank condemned fur dressing as “highly polluting”.

Today we turn our “Truth-About-Fur-Detector” to another oft-repeated but equally fraudulent claim.

Activists often insist that “a coat made from wild-caught fur requires 3.5 times more energy than a synthetic coat, while a farmed-fur coat requires 15 times more energy.”  (see: NOTES, below)

These “facts” are attributed to “a study by the University of Michigan” or sometimes the “Scientific Research Laboratory at Ford Motor Company”.  Wow, pretty credible sources, right?  Except that a quick search reveals that neither institution ever published such a study! 

This report does indeed exist, although it is very old – it was published in 1979. The author, one Gregory H. Smith, is identified as an engineering graduate of Michigan U., who worked for Ford.  But he prepared his report at the request of The Fund for Animals (a Michigan-based animal-rights group), “to augment its arguments for abolishing the cruelties to animals resulting from the procurement of natural animals furs for human adornment.”

The methodology of this report is equally suspect.

According to Smith, more than 90 per cent of the energy attributed to the production of a farmed mink coat is accounted for by a single item: the feed used to produce the mink pelts. Smith claims that mink feed represents 7.7 million of the 8.5 million British Thermal Units (BTUs) he calculates is required to make a fur coat. But BTUs, scientific as they may sound, don’t tell the whole story.  Like the mink themselves, mink feed is organic material. Specifically, mink eat the parts of chickens, cattle, fish and other foodstuffs that we don’t eat. Mink feed, in the language of ecology, is “a renewable resource". The petroleum used to produce poly-acrylic fake fur, by contrast, is a non-renewable resource. Comparing the energy used to produce natural mink and fake fur is comparing apples and oranges. (Or, more accurately: apples and the plastic bag you carry them home in!)

Furthermore, much of this abattoir and fish-packing waste would end up clogging land-fills if mink were not consuming it.  Far from being an environmental “cost”, this recycling of wastes from our own food-production system can be seen as an environmental “credit”.   (Mink also help to keep down the cost of human food, since food processors would have to pay to dispose of these wastes if mink farmers weren’t using them.)

Smith also misses the point in his analysis of wild-captured furs.

He guesstimates the amount of gasoline trappers might use touring their trap lines, heating their cabins  – and even the energy required to make steel for traps that may be lost or require replacement.  His numbers are arbitrary and questionable, to say the least. But, more to the point: he ignores the fact that furbearer populations would often have to be managed even if we did not use the fur – e.g., to protect property, control diseases and protect endangered species.  Overpopulated beavers can flood roads, farmland, and forest habitat. Coyotes and foxes prey on livestock or the eggs (or chicks) of nesting birds; without predator control, it would be difficult to protect endangered whooping cranes or sea turtles.  Raccoons and skunks spread rabies, and on it goes. Without fur sales, wildlife population control work would still have to be done, but trappers would be paid by the taxpayers – as they are in many European countries. (E.g., muskrat control in Belgium and Holland.)  Again: the conservation work done by trappers can be seen as an environmental credit, rather than a cost!

Bottom line: the real wasteful BTUs expended here would seem to be in quoting this poorly researched and misleading “study”.  We can only hope that Mr. Smith kept his day-job at Ford!

**************************

NOTES:

Here are a few examples where the "University of Michigan / Ford Motor Company" report is cited to claim that fur requires more energy to produce than fakes:

1. “One article commonly cited by anti-fur groups is a study by the Ford Motor Company comparing the energy requirements of fur production. The study concluded that a fur coat made from wild trapped animals required 3.5 times the energy input compared to a synthetic fur coat." From Fur is Mean by Eric Simpson, The Queens Journal, 8 November 2013.
2. “According to a study at the University of Michigan, the energy needed to produce a fur coat from farmed animals is 15 times greater than that required for a fake one." From Is ‘ethical fur’ the fashion industry’s most cynical con yet? By Danny Penman, The Daily Mail, 17 March 2011.
3. "According to a study by the University of Michigan, the energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is 20 times that required for a fake product." From Fur - the fake debate, The Independent, 23 November 2004.

The Fur Council of Canada’s Fur is Green campaign clearly caught animal activists by surprise. In their scramble for a rebuttal, they have resorted to fabricating “evidence” about fur's environmental impact that sounds credible – at least until you check their sources!

One of the most commonly-repeated activist claims is that “a World Bank Report has shown that fur dressing is the third worst polluting industry, following pesticides and fertilizers, synthetic resins and plastics.” (see: NOTES, below)

If true, this would be a serious charge, so I hunted down the original study.  The report in question is The Industrial Pollution Projection System, produced by the World Bank Policy Research Department (Policy research working paper #1431, by Hemamala Hettige et al.) This study was drafted in March 1995, based on 1987 (27-year-old!) US statistics.

Reading through this highly technical econometric study we learn that “Conclusions are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank”.  Interesting. Also that “Sectorial pollution is thought to be quite responsive to effective environmental regulation in many cases…” (p.9, E-4) Encouraging, because environmental protection regulations have certainly improved considerably over the past 26 years. But let’s read on ...

Ah, finally, there it is:  a table listing the most polluting sectors. And what do we find? The sector listed in third place for environmental pollution is clearly identified as “Leather tanning and finishing” (ISIC Code # 3231, Table 4.1, p.23) – NOT “fur dressing and dyeing” (ISIC Code #3232). Fur dressing is a completely different process using much more benign chemicals, because fur dressers must protect the fur and hair follicles. (Leather tanners have no such concerns: they want to remove the fur.) In fact, fur dressing is not even listed in the top 75 polluting industry sectors by the World Bank report! (pg. 23)

Digging further into this study, we find a more extensive list of industry sectors, summarizing their “toxic pollution intensity” (pounds of pollutants per million $ of output.)  Here we find confirmation of what common sense would dictate: fur dressing produced only 15% of the air pollutants, 9% of the water pollutants, and barely 7% of the land pollutants compared with leather tanning. (Pg 47.)

In conclusion:  it is completely false to claim that the World Bank identified fur dressing as a highly polluting industrial sector. This study showed no such thing. The activists who first quoted this report either don’t understand the important difference between fur dressing and leather tanning, or intentionally misrepresented the findings.

In my next posts we will take a closer look at two other “studies” that are repeated referenced by activists to challenge the fur trade’s environmental credentials.

**************************

NOTES:

Here are a few recent examples of activists (falsely) claiming that the World Bank report cited fur dressing as one of the most polluting industrial sectors:

1. “Fur dressing has been ranked as one of the world's five worst industries for toxic-metal pollution – not by animal rights protesters, but the World Bank. If fur is green, then the term 'green' is meaningless.” From  "Fur is not back in style – Britain won't stand for it", by Tansley Hoskins, The Guardian, 29 October 2013.
2. “The Fur Council of Canada argues that their product is green because real fur is a 'natural fiber'. But after an animal is killed and the fur is removed, it must be heavily processed using carcinogenic chemicals to prevent it from biodegrading. In 1995 the World Bank, in their report entitled The Industrial Pollution Projection System, ranked fur processing (and in particular the tanning process) as number three in their list of toxic industrial processes.” From "Fur is Mean", by Eric Simpson, The Queens Journal, 8 November 2013.
3. "In fact, the World Bank ranks fur processing as the world’s fifth biggest toxic metal polluter. And ironically, given fur’s allure as a sexy material, tanning relies on chemicals such as toluene and lead. Both reduce human fertility." From "Is 'ethical fur' the fashion industry's most cynical con yet?", by Danny Penman, The Daily Mail, 17 March 2011.

***

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