Neal Jotham has played a central role in promoting animal welfare through Canada’s world-leading trap research and testing program for the past 50 years. From his first voluntary efforts with the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (1965-1977) and as executive director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (1977-1984), to chairing the scientific and technical sub-committee of the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping (1974-81) and ISO Technical Committee 191 (1987-1997), to serving as Coordinator, Humane Trapping Programs for Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service (1984-1998), and his continuing work as advisor to the Fur Institute of Canada, Neal has been a driving force. At times mistrusted by animal-welfare advocates and trappers alike, he always remained true to his original goal: to improve the animal-welfare aspects of trapping. Truth About Fur’s senior researcher Alan Herscovici asked Neal to tell us about his remarkable career as Canada’s most persistent humane-trapping proponent.

Truth About Fur: Tell us how you first got involved in working to improve the animal-welfare aspects of trapping.

Neal Jotham: It was 1965, the year the Artek film launched the seal hunt debate. I was concerned about what I saw and wrote a letter to the Fisheries Minister. A colleague – I was an architectural technologist – suggested that I send my letter to a group concerned about trapping methods, the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (CAHT). I was invited to one of their meetings and met some wonderful volunteers including the legendary Lloyd Cook, who was then president of the Ontario Trappers Association (OTA).

Lloyd was a kind and gentle man, mentoring boy scouts about survival in the woods and introducing the first trapper training programs in Ontario. Once he rescued two beaver kits from a forest fire and raised them in his bathtub until they were old enough to release into the wild. He invited the CAHT to set up an information booth at the OTA annual convention, and he took me onto his trap line, near Barrie, Ontario.

Lloyd and I discussed how great it would be to do some proper research about how to minimize stress and injury to trapped animals. I thought it would be quite a simple matter. Little did I know that it would occupy the better part of the next 50 years of my life.

TaF: So you got involved with the CAHT?

Jotham: I was asked to serve as voluntary vice-president of administration, in charge of publicity and communications. Our main priority was to make the governments, industry and the public aware of the need for animal welfare improvements in trapping, because very few people were even talking about trapping at the time.

TaF: How did you go about raising awareness?

Jotham: We produced brochures explaining the need for improvements. We never called for a ban on trapping – we recognised the cultural, economic and ecological importance – but we were honest about the suffering the old traps could cause and the need for change.

In 1968, because governments and industry were still not engaged, CAHT joined with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS) to establish the first multi-disciplinary trap-research program at McMaster University (to look at the engineering aspects of traps) and Guelph University (to investigate the biological factors).

In 1969, we were contacted by an Alberta trapper and wildlife photographer named Ed Cesar. He had ideas for new trap designs and also wanted to make a film about trapping that he hoped could be televised. CAHT asked if he could film animals being caught in traps, which he did.

CAHT purchased three minutes of this film and I showed it at a federal/provincial/territorial wildlife directors conference in Yellowknife, in July 1970. That resulted in an immediate $10,000 donation to the CFHS/CAHT pilot project from Mr. Charles Wilson, CEO of the Hudson’s Bay Company, then based in Winnipeg, and some smaller donations too.

TaF: But the governments still weren’t involved?

Jotham: No, so we went public. CAHT added narration and sound to the film, titled it They Take So Long to Die, and showed it on Take-30, a CBC current affairs show. That got attention, all right! In 1972, we were invited to a Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference where we were criticized for “hurting trappers”. We explained that we just wanted to make trapping more humane, we had only broadcast the film because government wasn’t listening.

TaF: How did trappers feel about your efforts?

Jotham: Many trappers understood what we were saying. In fact, Frank Conibear, a NWT trapper, had been working on new designs since the late 1920s, and by the 1950s produced a working model of the quick-killing trap that still carries his name. He got the idea from his wife’s egg-beater, the concept of “rotating frames”: if an animal walked into a big egg-beater and you turned the handle fast enough, it would be there to stay, he figured.

The Association for the Protection of Furbearing Animals (APFA) paid to make 50 prototypes of Conibear’s design and, in 1956, Eric Collier of the British Columbia Trappers Association supported field testing and promoted the new traps in Outdoor Life magazine. Lloyd Cook was another trapping leader who wrote positively about the new traps, and the CAHT offered to exchange old leg-hold traps for the new killing devices, for free.

In 1958, Frank Conibear gave his patent to the Animal Trap Company of America (later Woodstream Corporation), in Lititz, Pennsylvania – for royalties – and a light-weight, quick-killing trap became widely available for the first time. The Anti-Steel Trap League (that became Defenders of Wildlife in the 1950s) had been sounding the alarm about cruel traps since 1929, but it was trappers who did much of the earliest work.

TaF: So trappers associations supported efforts to improve traps?

Jotham: Several did. In the old days, trappers had been very jealous about guarding their secrets; you could only learn the tricks of the trade if you found an older trapper to take you under his wing. But with the emergence of associations, trappers began to share more information. They realized that everyone could benefit if trapping methods were improved. Effective quick-killing traps improved animal-welfare, of course, but they also prevented damage to the fur sometimes caused when animals struggled in holding traps. And trappers did not have to check their lines every day, like they did with live-holding (foothold) traps.

TaF: And you finally succeeded in getting the government involved?

Jotham: Yes, we did. In 1973 the creation of the ad-hoc “Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping” (FPCHT) was announced.

A five-year program was launched in 1974, with work to be done at McMaster University, in Hamilton, and at the University of Guelph, where our CFHS/CAHT pilot project had started.

I was asked to act as executive director and to chair the Scientific and Technical Sub-Committee, because we had already made some real progress in developing methodology and technology to evaluate how traps really work. For example, measuring velocities and clamping forces and other mechanical aspects of traps. In fact, at McMaster we made some important improvements to Frank Conibear’s rotating-jaw, quick-kill traps that are still used today.

TaF: And what happened to your film?

Jotham: When the government committed to funding the FPCHT we cancelled plans to distribute our film more widely. Meanwhile, we learned that Ed Caesar had staged some of the “trap line” scenes; he indicated in a letter that he had live-captured some of the animals and placed them into traps so he could film them.

Some people were disappointed that we had withdrawn our film, and the Association for the Protection of Furbearing Animals (APFA) decided to continue their campaign: they used Caesar’s staged images to make a new film, Canada’s Shame, narrated by TV celebrity Bruno Gerussi. The APFA (aka: FurBearer Defenders) has given up any pretense of working to improve trapping methods; they now oppose any use of fur. Their current position brings to mind the comment by American philosopher George Santayana: “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

TaF: So what did the FPCHT research program achieve?

Jotham: It was 1975 by the time it really got rolling, and the final report was made in June, 1981, in Charlottetown. Over that period, not only were existing traps evaluated, but a call went out to inventors to submit new trapping designs. 348 submissions were received, over 90 per cent of them from trappers! All these ideas were evaluated and 16 were retained as having real humane potential. But the FPCHT was still an ad hoc project; it was becoming clear that a more formal body would be needed to direct on-going trap research and development. So, in 1983, the federal and provincial governments agreed to create the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), with members from government, industry and animal-welfare groups.

TaF: How did you get involved with the new Fur Institute of Canada?

Jotham: In 1977, I had become the first full-time Executive Director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), where I had a wide range of responsibilities, but of course I remained very interested in trapping. So I was pleased to serve on the founding committee of the FIC, and then to be hired by the Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada) to manage the government’s funding contributions to the FIC’s newly established trap research and testing program. Initially, the Government of Canada committed $450,000 annually for three years to get things started, and this was matched by the London-based International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF).

TaF: What was new about the Fur Institute of Canada’s program?

Jotham: First, we established of the world’s first state-of-the-art trap-research facility in Vegreville, Alberta, which includes a testing compound in a natural setting. All our testing protocols were approved by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), the same group that approves animal research protocols in Canadian universities, hospitals and pharmaceutical laboratories.

In 1995, another dramatic breakthrough was made: the researchers had collected enough data to develop algorithms that allowed evaluation of the humane potential of traps without using animals at all; we can now analyse the trap’s mechanical properties with computer simulation models. This made it unnecessary to capture, transport and house thousands of wild animals – while saving millions of dollars.

TaF: Did this research help with the formulation of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS)?

Jotham: Canadian research was vital for the AIHTS. We had begun working on trapping standards as early as 1981, with the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), and by 1984 we had the first standard for killing traps. But with calls growing in Europe for a ban on leg-hold traps – and because virtually every country in the world uses trapping for various purposes – the CGSB suggested that there was a need for an international standard. To this end, ISO Technical Committee 191, of the International Organization for Standardization, was established in 1987, with yours truly as the first Chairman.

Our timing was good; by 1991, a EU Directive was being proposed that would not only ban the use of “leg-hold” traps in Europe, but would also block the import of most commercially-traded wild furs from any country that had not done the same. Because the stated goal of the legislation was to promote animal welfare – and because all EU member states permit the trapping of animals with methods basically the same as those used in Canada – Canadian diplomats succeeded in having the EU Directive amended to admit furs from countries using traps that “meet international humane trapping standards”.

The problem was that no such standards existed yet, and animal activists on ISO Technical Committee 191 refused to allow the word “humane” to be used in our documents. The deadlock was resolved by agreeing that ISO would develop only the trap-testing methodology, leaving it to individual governments to decide what animal-welfare thresholds they would require.

In 1995, the governments of the EU and the major wild-fur producing countries (Canada, the USA and Russia) developed the AIHTS, which was signed in 1997, and ratified by Canada in 1998. (For constitutional reasons, the US signed a similar but separate “Agreed Minute”.) The AIHTS explicitly requires that ISO trap-testing methodology must be used to test traps.

TaF: What are the main contributions of the AIHTS?

Jotham: The AIHTS is the world’s first international agreement on animal welfare, I think we can be very proud of that. Concerns about the humaneness of trapping that had been raised since the 1920s, are now being addressed seriously and responsibly. And, of course, the Agreement kept EU markets open for wild fur; Article 13 states that the parties will not use trade bans to resolve disputes, so long as the AIHTS is being applied. In other words, science and research, not trade bans, will be used to promote animal welfare. This is a very positive development.

TaF: And how do you feel about the Fur Institute of Canada introducing a new “Neal Jotham Award for the Advancement of Animal Welfare”, in 2015?

Jotham: It is wonderful that the trapping community has embraced animal-welfare so strongly. And the award is very gratifying personally, of course, especially when I remember how suspicious some trappers were when I first arrived at the FIC. They were convinced that I was an activist mole, while many of my old animal-welfare friends thought that I had “sold out” to the fur industry. But whether I was with the CAHT, the CFHS, the CWS or the FIC, I was always pursuing the same goal: to make trapping as humane as possible. It was a long road, but we succeeded in bringing all the stakeholders to the table to seriously address this important challenge. I think we can be very proud of what we have achieved together.

***

In 2016, Neal Jotham won a Nature Inspiration Award for Lifetime Achievement from Canada's Museum of Nature.

It is minus 23 degrees Celsius (-32C with the wind-chill) but I am snug as a bug in my Canada Goose parka as I walk Maggie, our 9-year-old Labrador Retriever.

It is so cold in Montreal this Valentine’s Day weekend that I cinch my parka hood completely closed, the soft coyote fur ruff forming a cozy, protective ring around my face. The goose down stuffing keeps the rest of me warm. I wonder how our animal activist friends are enjoying the bitterly cold weather, because this is the weekend they have chosen for their National Anti-Fur Day (“Have A Heart, Don’t Wear Fur”) protests in Montreal and other cities across North America.

As a sign of the times, Canada Goose parkas are the target of choice for this year’s anti-fur rituals. Why? Because even though fewer traditional full-fur coats are being worn these days, fur is now omnipresent in smaller items, accessories and trimmings. This has made fur much more affordable, and it is now being worn by more – and younger – people than we have seen in decades. It has been democratized.

SEE ALSO: Why fur trim keeps us warm.

In response, PETA has unleashed a new campaign “juxtaposing Canada Goose’s coyote-fur jackets with a disturbing video of a trapped coyote suffering after being shot.” The video is prefaced with a “warning” that it contains upsetting images, but this has apparently not discouraged many of PETA's fans because, it claims, the video “has received more than 16 million views.”

To drive home PETA's message, volunteers “wearing nothing but body paint and faux-fur ears and tails” would be posing “in bloody leg-hold traps” outside retailers selling Canada Goose parkas over the weekend. According to PETA Senior Vice President Lisa Lange, “Anyone who buys or sells one of Canada Goose’s fur-and-feather jackets is responsible for these animals’ terrifying and painful deaths.”

So has PETA’s “shocking” video convinced me to give up my Canada Goose? Not a chance, and here's why:

1. Video Shows Perfect Kill

The first problem is that PETA’s campaign video does not show a coyote “suffering after being shot”. Quite the contrary, we see the animal killed instantly with a direct shot to the head – exactly how it is supposed to be done. This is the most humane way to euthanize animals taken in restraining traps, as taught in trapper training manuals and mandated by the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS).

This is also the method proposed by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines.

”3. Physical Methods: These techniques, when properly applied, kill rapidly and cause minimal stress. They may offer a practical solution for field euthanasia of various sized animals and prevent pharmaceuticals from entering the food chain ...

... Gunshot: While a shot to the brain of an animal produces a quick and humane death (Longair et al., 1991), it is best attempted when the animal is immobilized by injury or physical restraint.”

In other words, despite PETA's sensationalist warning – intended to shock people who have never seen an animal killed – its own video confirms that approved and humane methods are being used to euthanize coyotes.

2. Coyote Mums Not "Desperate"

PETA claims that “trapped coyote mothers desperate to get back to their starving pups have been known to attempt to chew off their own limbs to escape.” While this may have happened very occasionally with some species (e.g., muskrats) with older trapping systems, it never happens with modern foot-hold traps.

Furthermore, the whole "starving pups" scenario never happens with fur trapping for one simple reason: like other furbearers, coyotes are hunted for their fur in the fall and winter because that's when their fur is prime. At this time of year, their young are no longer dependent on them.

3. Coyote Predator Problem

As important as the nonsense PETA does say is what it doesn't say: It omits to inform us that coyotes have expanded their range across North America and are now so abundant that they are the number one predator problem for ranchers, preying on new-born calves and lambs. It also fails to mention the increasingly frequent reports, from Toronto to Los Angeles, of coyotes carrying away pet dogs and cats.

Several states and provinces have even offered bounties to reduce over-populated coyotes.

SEE ALSO: Will urban coyotes change the animal rights debate?

Culling must be carried out both to protect livestock and pets, and also the health of coyote populations themselves. Given that coyote populations must be managed, it is surely more respectful, and responsible, to use their fur for clothing than to throw it away.

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

4. New Foot-Hold Traps Designed to Prevent Injuries

The foot-hold traps used to capture coyotes (as shown in PETA’s video) are not the diabolical, steel-toothed devices that activists love to hate. Their use was banned decades ago in North America.

The new live-holding (“restraining”) traps have rubber-laminated, “off-set” jaws that do not close completely. Springs and swivels on the anchoring chain and other features have also been added to prevent injuries. In fact, these new “soft-catch” traps are commonly used by wildlife biologists to capture wolves, lynx and other furbearers for radio collaring or relocation/release into areas where they were once extirpated. Clearly they could not be used in this way if they injured animals as activists claim.

SEE ALSO: Types of traps.

5. PETA Opposes All Animal Use

Most importantly, PETA’s claims about fur are not credible because PETA is not looking for more humane ways to capture or kill animals we use. PETA opposes any use of animals, even for food or vital medical research.

PETA would have us all wear synthetic materials, most of which are derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. This is fundamentally anti-ecological. The modern fur trade, by contrast, is an excellent example of the sustainable use of renewable (and biodegradable) natural resources, a key ecological principle that is now promoted by all serious conservation authorities.

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource.

A sixth, “bonus” point is a bit more philosophical. No one is obliged to wear fur (or leather or silk or down), but many of us appreciate the warmth and beauty of high-quality natural materials. The coyote fur and goose down in my Canada Goose coat also remind me that everything we depend upon for our survival still comes, ultimately, from nature. Thus the importance of protecting natural ecosystems for future generations.

***

UPDATE: Animal activists lodged a complaint with the Competition Bureau (the Canadian federal regulator) accusing Canada Goose of “false advertising” for claiming on its website that its furs are collected by licensed trappers using humane methods. We are pleased to report that this complaint was rejected by the Competition Bureau. See: Competition Bureau drops inquiry into false advertising claim against Canada Goose, by Christina Stevens, Global News, Mar. 10, 2016.

COMMENTS: Comments are now closed for this post.

If there's a beaver dam in your neighbourhood, or your septic field really don't look good, who you gonna call? A wildlife control expert or trapper? Or is the only difference in the length of his beard?

"This is my friend Ross and he's a trapper."

This is my introduction to the lady standing in front of me. As I watch her eyes, I realize she is floating between her polite manners and her abhorrence of my title, not yet decided whether she will shake my hand. She takes a step back. After all, "He's a trapper!"

My mind smiles as I recall, not three days past, being introduced by a friend from the University of Alberta to someone else. Only in this case I was introduced with the title of “wildlife control expert”. In that case, the lady was smiling and taking a step forward with out-stretched hand, saying, “Well hello Ross, what a pleasure it is to meet you. What an interesting profession. I would love to learn more about what you do and how you deal with wildlife.”

I consider myself very fortunate to have spent most of my life with wildlife. As a matter of fact, it’s been even better than I could have imagined. I could never have planned a life quite like this, but it sure has been a great time of learning.

Wearing two hats, out of the same office so to speak, has given me a chance to see such contrasting experiences. I reflect back upon one of those that stayed etched in my memory.

Several years back, I received a call from a farmer who had been given my number by Fish and Wildlife. He needed help with a beaver problem so we set up a time and I drove out to visit. I could see from the roadway that the beaver had already dammed up the creek and the water had backed up causing flooding and erosion. As we walked he told me how, four years prior, his family had been so excited when they had first spotted beaver swimming in their creek. His children could watch from their tree fort in the fall as the beaver cut down the trees and pulled them along as they swam.

That first year, he went on to share, he was quite pleased to see that as the beaver dammed up the small creek, it held back enough water to make it easier for his cattle to drink. He felt he had a couple of water managers working with him on the farm.

Plugged-Up Crossing, Washed-Out Road

As we walked up to where the creek separated a hay field, I could now see that the beaver had plugged up the crossing. The roadway was completely washed out. The trees along this “now pond” were laying all criss-crossed throughout the banks, with not much chance of anything getting down to the water without climbing over stumps and de-barked dead aspen. As I stood there, looking over this mess, he told me that two of his cows had broken their legs after falling through the banks, and as I climbed down I could see the bank had caved in from where the beaver had undermined it.

We made our way back over the fields talking about the over-population of the beaver, and I explained that if we could wait a couple more months it would be winter and we could trap them and the pelts would not be wasted. If we took the beaver now, the pelts would have no market value and be wasted. He understood and agreed, knowing it made sense to wait. Removing them at the opportune time would allow the land to recover and the pelts would be utilized.

He suggested I take a trip down the road and view another beaver lodge he had seen and inquired if I believed those beaver might also over-populate and end up migrating over to his area. I assured him that this is the usual course of action when it comes to beaver in this situation. I agreed to go visit the site and assess it for activity. He did not know the landowners there, as they were new to the area from the city. I obtained the directions and off I went, assuring him I would return in a couple of months to begin.

Look of Horror

Upon traveling down another gravel road, I arrived on the doorstep of the neighbours. The door opened and a couple inquired what I wanted. I told them I was a trapper and that their neighbour down the road was having issues with beaver causing flooding and damming. I asked if they might like to me to deal with their beaver colony, as in a short time these also would cause flooding and damming on their property.

The response was a look of horror and a quick explanation about their reasons of refusal. They had recently bought the land to enjoy nature in all its forms and there would be absolutely no trapping on their land as long as they were the owners. I quickly apologized, said I could see that I had upset them, and left. As I gazed across the land, I could see a current beaver lodge on the far side of their creek bank and already they had felled some aspen trees that were lying down.

Driving away, I had a strange feeling while I gazed at my reflection in the mirror. Somehow my mind wandered to a decision I’d made that year to grow a beard. I even decided that I most likely looked a little rough, maybe along the lines of a mountain man, deciding that this presentation had not helped my acceptance during the discussion with this couple who had shut the door firmly in my face.

Onward I went, fulfilling the request of the farmer and eliminating the problem beaver on his land. There was no waste as I prepared all the pelts I’d taken for market.

We Are Desperate!

Forward two years, it's spring-time and my phone rings. The woman on the other end of the line was sounding quite desperate. She told me she had obtained my number from Fish and Wildlife, who had informed her I was a Wildlife Damage Control expert. She quickly brought me up to speed on the dire situation out at their acreage. They had been flooded out by some beaver and needed my help as soon as possible! I regretfully advised her that the timing wasn’t good as I was extremely busy working on a wolf predation issue with Fish and Wildlife and could I contact her as soon as I had some free time? It was then she begged me, pleading with me to come at least just to look. “We are desperate for help!” she exclaimed.

So off I went next morning, following the directions she’d provided, and as I reviewed my county map I had a sense I’d visited that area before. And then I realized where I was going. I turned down the gravel road and drove up to the exact same house I had visited a couple years earlier. I could readily see the mess the beaver had made from the road. A huge pond was now located where a field had been before, and the water level was above the fence posts. The pond was so large it was not far from the yard.

I thought, “Well this should be interesting.” I parked and made my way to the house, and as I approached the man came out and thanked me for coming on such short notice, all the while shaking my hand. His wife followed and as she also began thanking me, I wondered if they would say something about the last time I was here. I then realized, “They don’t recognize me!”

So I stood there feeling awkward and decided it just wasn’t worth bringing up at this point. I figured, maybe because now I was clean-shaven and didn’t have my old hat on, they didn’t make the link. He said he would show me where the beaver lodge was. I told him I could see it from there and asked if they had thought about how they wanted to control them. He looked at me with a puzzled expression and asked, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, they are good little water managers and have just overpopulated, but, properly managed, they could be good to have around.”

His wife responded with a resounding, “No, I want them out of here. We had no idea they would do this! We can't even flush our toilet! They have flooded the whole place and the water has backed up the septic field.”

I Was Scruffy-Looking, A Trapper

As I stood there listening, something snapped in the back of my head and I let it go. “You folks don’t remember me, do you?” I said. His reply: "Should we?” I said, “Yes, I was here a couple of years back, a scruffy-looking fellow with a beard and cowboy hat. A trapper?”

They gazed at each other while I continued. “I came here to talk to you in the fall about managing the beaver, and you wanted nothing to do with me, shutting the door in my face. Now that your toilet won’t flush, you don’t care about nature any longer! You are asking me to go in now, in the spring, while the young are still nursing, and remove them. The young will starve to death in the lodge without their mother’s milk, and all because your toilet won't flush!”

ALSO BY ROSS HINTER: SHOULD WE BE TRAPPING WOLVES IN CANADA?

I told them that, as a trapper, I understood there was a season to manage animals and that I would not trap them in the spring. They would have to find another trapper or wait until the fall before I would return and trap the beaver humanely.

This time, I drove away from them, leaving once again two upset and angry landowners, but this time because I wouldn’t trap for them! I felt somewhat guilty about not helping them in their hour of need, but strong in my conviction. I did feel some triumph, I have to admit, but as the day moved on and I reached my next appointment, I reflected on the level of ignorance in the world, about how nature really works, feeling a tweak of sadness, but also one of hope, that one day, I might be able to help, in my own way, to show my world to those who would listen.

We as humans are part of nature. It isn’t something separate from us. We are part of it, and it is part of us. The more we learn about it and remove the ignorance, the better for us all!

***

Recommended YouTube viewing from Ross Hinter's Bushcrafting - Learning How:

Beaver Trapping - Why Do It?
Trapping, Conservation & Animal Habitat with Ross Hinter

It’s durable, warm, glamorous and striking. And it comes from an animal that is abundant in the wild, easy to trap, and easy to farm. In short, all the right boxes are checked for a great fur. It was also once the height of fashion. Yet today it's rarely seen in stores, and a pelt sells for the price of a coffee.

This is the conundrum that is skunk fur. Are the fur trade and consumers turning their noses up for no good reason?

Tale of the Tape

Let’s start with the end product.

Skunk fur is durable - less durable than beaver, but ahead of the pack and on a par with mink.

Skunk fur is warm. It's no caribou, but unless you live in the Arctic, it'll work fine.

Skunk fur is glamorous and striking. The guard hairs are long (1-2") with a glossy lustre, and are held erect by thick underfur. And the colouration is unmistakeable: deep brown or black, usually with white striping and cream patterns.

The most prized pelts have solid black backs with a blue sheen, and come from colder regions where pelts are thicker, hairs are finer, and the black is blackest. (No fur is blacker than northern skunk.) If there is one white stripe, and it's long and wide (hooded skunk), this may be retained in a garment, while pelts with two stripes (striped skunk) are normally dyed a uniform black.

So what’s the downside? Not much.

The guard hairs are slightly coarser than fox, the most luxurious long-haired fur.

The black guard hairs, if not dyed, fade to a dull reddish-brown if exposed to sunlight for too long a time. (Just store your fur in a closet.)

Skunk fur is reputed to have an odour, especially when wet, but this should not be a problem today. Using proper trapping techniques, it is rare that an animal sprays. And even if there is a slight vestigial smell, a skilled fur dresser can remove it.

And last, but perhaps not least, it’s called “skunk”.

Skunk Fur Production

So how easy is it to produce skunk pelts? Pretty easy. Let’s start with trapping.

First, skunks are abundant. The striped skunk, the most commonly traded species, has a conservation status of “Least concern” with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. It ranges from southern Canada to northern Mexico, co-exists with humans, and in many parts of its range is growing in numbers.

Second, skunks lack caution and cunning. A box trap works great for nuisance skunks, but is too costly and bulky for fur trapping. Foothold (restraining) traps or bodygrip traps are better.

Farming skunk is also easy. Indeed, skunk farms were once seen as a stepping stone for beginners looking to graduate to more challenging and valuable furbearers.

Reasons why farming is easy include: Skunk are easily tamed, and at feeding time just come running. They’re poor climbers and have few natural predators, so pens are open-topped. They’ll eat just about anything - table scraps are fine. And selective breeding produces all-black skunk in just three or four generations.

Curious History

So why aren’t we all dressed from head to toe in skunk fur? Its curious history may shed some light.

For the longest time North Americans had no interest in skunk fur, but it wasn't a case of singling it out. They weren't crazy about fox either. And even when skunk was “discovered” in the mid-1800s, demand was not at home but from Europe.

Skunk quickly became America's second most valuable fur harvest after muskrat, with almost all pelts being traded in London and Leipzig. To meet demand, the first farms emerged in the 1880s, but unreliable pelt prices forced most pioneers to close. Then the farms sprung up again at the turn of the century as European demand surged. In 1911, pelt sales in London peaked at just over 2 million.

And that's how things stayed right up to World War I. The domestic market remained tiny, a fact historians attribute to a lack of Europe's deodorising skills. Or perhaps it was that American dressers had to work with pelts so pungent, European brokers wouldn't take them.

Whatever the case, World War I changed everything, not just for skunk but the entire fur trade. With shipments to Europe disrupted, the age of major American auction houses began, first in St. Louis in 1915, then in New York in 1916.

Demand for skunk in North America finally took off, and when the European market came back on stream in 1918, the golden age of skunk had arrived.

Seeing the potential, the US Department of Agriculture published the Economic Value of North American Skunks, in 1914 and again in 1923. “Skunk fur is intrinsically of high value,” it stated unequivocally. “The propagation of skunks for their fur promises to develop into an important industry.”

Skunk trapping also helped countless rural families weather the Great Depression, mailing their pelts to Sears, Roebuck in return for a check or store credit. Through its annual newsletters and radio shows, Sears (aka "Johnny Muskrat") created a whole new generation of trappers, and became one of the largest fur buyers in the US.

All in the Name?

And then the age of skunk was over. World War II ended and fur fashion shifted dramatically. Long hair was out and short hair was in. Skunk pelts were almost worthless, red fox pelts were "unsaleable", and even silver fox was scorned. Mink was the new king, a position it has not relinquished to this day.

SEE ALSO: Why is American mink the world's favourite fur?

But a change in fashion was not the whole story. If it had been, skunk would have rebounded along with fox, which still has a loyal following today.

Some observers blame skunk's demise on stricter labelling laws. In the 1930s, the fur trade often took considerable liberties when it came to labelling. Women of all social classes wanted fur, but with the Depression raging, few husbands could afford the premium stuff. What they could afford was humble rabbit, but that didn't sound very glamorous. Enter creative marketing.

“Minkony” was rabbit dyed to look like mink. “Ermiline” was white rabbit, sometimes with black spots for that authentic ermine look. Then there were totally fictitious species like “Baltic black fox”, “Belgian beaver”, “French sable” and “Roman seal” - all rabbit!

Other furs got the creative treatment too. “Hudson seal” was one of the most popular sellers, though it was actually sheared and dyed muskrat. And no fur, of course, needed a new name more than skunk. Why tell Ma’am she was swathed in the skins of foul-smelling critters when you could sell her “American sable”, “Alaskan sable” or “black marten”?

Finally the US Federal Trade Commission cried foul. From 1938 on, the true identity of the furbearer had to be given, though the name of the animal being imitated could stay. Goodbye “American sable", hello "sable-dyed skunk".

In 1952 it went further with the Fur Products Labeling Act. Explaining the need for the new law, the Chicago Tribune wrote, “Mrs. Eskimo, who cures the pelt brought to her by husband, has no trouble telling a mink from a muskrat. But Mrs. Housewife, shopping for a fur coat, finds herself in a quandary. There are so many furs and so many names!”

Henceforth, only “the true English names for the animals in question" should appear, "or in the absence of a true English name for an animal, the name by which such animal can be properly identified in the United States.”

The trade resisted, and some unusual new names were approved. "Rock sable", for example, became "bassarisk", even though most people called them ring-tailed cats. But it spelled the end for furs like “China mink” and “Japanese mink” (both weasel).

As for skunk, in a few short years it had gone from being "American sable" to “sable-dyed skunk”, to plain ol' "skunk". Was it too much for consumers? Are we really that shallow? Apparently yes. A rose by any other name does not smell as sweet!

Skunk Fur Today

The last skunk fur farms closed decades ago, and offerings of pelts at auction today are small. Prices, meanwhile, seem frozen in time.

The largest seller today of skunk fur is North American Fur Auctions, in Toronto. At its wild fur sale last June-July, 2,332 pelts were offered (compared with 310,667 muskrat), of which 70% sold. Average price was $5.97.

In February 1920 in St. Louis – that’s almost a century ago - skunk pelts brought an average of $5.14. In today's money that's $61!

From time to time, skunk has made small comebacks. In the early 1970s, in particular, it was considered quirky and cool, but it soon went the same way of Afros and bell bottoms.

Popular designers and fashion houses are still willing to give skunk a try. Just recently, America’s darling of the gossip columns, Kim Kardashian, caused a stir when she stepped out in a fabulous skunk coat from Lanvin.

Can Kim bring skunk in from the fashion cold? Or will it remain forever sealed in a 1930s time capsule?

Could a kick-start campaign bring this remarkable, but under-appreciated, fur back into the limelight? What do you think?

The number one threat to all wildlife in North America is loss of habitat. Let me explain why I feel it necessary to stand on this statement, in the context of trapping wolves in Canada.

Habitat and carrying capacity - these are unavoidable issues that need to be addressed by all those involved in this controversy, from industry to agriculture to municipalities, conservationists, wildlife protectors, and everyone in between.

Wolves are at the top of the food chain in many of our forested regions in this country. The regions that they are utilizing as habitat are sometimes unable to sustain the population as wolves continue to produce offspring.

My heart lies in addressing what I believe is the real issue. In discussing wolves, I’d like to begin with population dynamics.

Habitat and Population Dynamics

Using the example of a pack of seven wolves, the adult females could birth seven pups in the spring. The mother cares for the pups during their early weeks of life, and the male goes out to hunt and returns with food, so she can concentrate on raising the pups. The entire pack is involved with the raising of the young. The mortality rate is lower than other wildlife because of this.

The habitat they are ranging in could be from 100 to 250 square miles depending on the available food in that habitat.

If all seven pups survive and are healthy, they will reach the size of their mother by the end of the fall season and coming of winter.

That means that the winter that follows the spring birthing, there will now be 14 wolves in that pack. The need for food for this pack will have doubled in less than a year.

So now we have seven pups that will be trained how to kill in order to survive and be an integral part of the pack. This is in one year and the math shows the results after five years is enormous for the same habitat and food source. Some may break away, some will die, but this is the top of the food chain with no predators that are preying on the wolf.

I want to be clear on this point: letting nature take care of itself by allowing it to sort itself out, like nature used to do in generations past, is no longer a viable and responsible option. It is imperative for us to take responsibility to manage the over-population of the wolves.

Nature will cull the numbers through disease, starvation, etc., but as one who has spent the better part of my life involved in wildlife control, it is not a humane thing to witness. If any animal is going to die then it has been my job to see that it is done humanely and as quickly as it can be done.

It then becomes quite obvious that the numbers of wolves in excess of the carrying capacity of the habitat, these animals will need to be removed.

Public Perception

There is a void in the public perception, and an idolizing of wolves that is not helping to protect, but instead is a hindrance!

The simple fact remains contrary to many people’s understanding, we have wiped out so much habitat throughout North America, that this type of population growth will have an astounding effect on the prey species. I’ve seen the results upon horses, lambs, elk calves, moose, deer, caribou, bison and domestic pets.

Where suitable habitat exists, wolves have lived in close proximity to livestock for several years, with little predation issues. But, how long in any area before the growth number of the wolf packs exceeds the available habitat and food source causing livestock and predation problems?

It’s an obvious fact something must be done to control population levels. The most important thing for us to consider is this! There is a need to work together to ensure that if there is a culling process taking place, it should happen in the most humane and effective method available.

Trapping – Viable Option?

Trapping is often viewed as a hated solution to population controls, but under the humane trapping standards, utilizing modern equipment, it still remains as one of the best options. Performed in the winter months, when the young are not being nursed, the pack numbers have peaked since the summer and the carrying capacity will now have more pressure on it. The fur will not be wasted and can be a resource to be utilized.

It is an industry that, through provincial wildlife laws, takes the approach of removing the surplus of furbearers, many of which will not find enough suitable habitat in the winter months to survive. This is a simple fact and has enough data and documentation to show a very successful program that continues to be a key element in the health and survival of these animals.

I believe that is something to be proud of as wise use of management!

I can think of no country in the world that does not trap. They may have stopped fur trapping but it still continues and is then called "wildlife control" or "animal damage control" which must be done, to control over-population of species as they continue to produce more offspring than the habitat can sustain. These animals are not used for anything and are treated as vermin and are incinerated or treated as trash. This is not true wildlife management. We are better than this. The carcass of that animal is used by trappers and taken back out to the land to feed other carnivores. The fur is prepared and shipped and sold to be tanned and used.

There is no “nice part” of the dying of any living thing and nothing works perfectly, but we have come a long way and Canada continues to be the world leader on humane trapping standards. There are many pictures circulated throughout public media showing the mistakes made by untrained individuals and just plain carelessness causing suffering and pain, but as a professional I can assure you this is not the norm.

Carrying Capacity

Human encroachment into wolves' habitat results in conflict that is unavoidable. So, we have created the problem, and we need to take responsibility to manage it. Wolves are predators, and whether we want to view the destruction or turn away from it, will not make it go away.

It is sometimes difficult for some to consider their lifestyle in relation to loss of habitat for wildlife. We are all consumers by the way we live. We may not eat meat but if we use toilet paper, magazines, books or newspapers, or if we buy lumber to build a bird house or picnic table, we are supporting a lumber industry, which is taking out habitat.

If we use oil, gasoline, plastic etc., we are supporting an oil industry that is wiping out habitat. The point being here that we are all in this together. Nature is not something separate from us and it never will be. We can’t survive without it.

There is a direct link between our choices to buy more and more stuff, traveling less distances to get it, and habitat that is being lost at an alarming rate. Less destruction of habitat is an absolute if you are going to preserve the current wolf population dynamics.

ALSO BY ROSS HINTER: WILDLIFE CONTROL EXPERT OR TRAPPER? WHO YOU GONNA CALL?

Final Thoughts

As always, knowledge and understanding are powerful tools. In such an emotionally charged time in human history and love of wildlife, those that hate the wolves and those that love the wolves will need to find a balance of true and clear knowledge of what is really taking place.

This includes a full understanding of loss of habitat. Instead of wasting so much time and money arguing about who is responsible, we would better serve the preservation of the species by collaborating together to find viable solutions that work long term. The money in this effort would then be well spent.

We have taken the habitat and continue to do so, therefore we are responsible to manage the population in the most humane and ethical manner available to us.

This is the sensible approach to a very heated conflict and one that is going to continue to make headlines.

My life as a professional trapper has proven to me what an important resource Canadian trappers are, both to the academic and scientific community, along with both provincial and federal government departments and conservationists at all levels.

Ethical trappers are the front line of conservation and will continue to be a valuable tool and play a key role in the welfare of our furbearing wildlife.

FOLLOW ROSS HINTER'S "BUSHCRAFT - LEARNING HOW" ON:

Hair density has always fascinated the fur trade because the densest furs are also the softest and most luxurious. Before the advent of modern conservationism, this meant that the densest furs were prone to over-harvesting. Today, we have learned from past mistakes. Trade in the densest fur of all is still restricted, but the animal's recovery is considered a great conservation success. And due to a remarkable story in the history of farming, the second-densest is abundant and readily available.

To appreciate what makes fur dense, let’s set a baseline: human hair. And because human hair varies depending on ethnicity and hair colour, we’ll choose the densest of all, a pale blond(e).

A blonde’s fine hairs average about 190 per cm2, varying depending on the part of the scalp. That's almost double Afro-textured hair, the least dense.

Now step aside blondie, and make way for that benchmark of luxury, mink.

A mink’s hair density varies by season and body part. Also, farmed mink is denser than wild, and a dressed pelt is denser than a live animal. But as a guide, a dressed, farmed pelt has about 24,000 hairs per cm2. That’s 126 times denser than the thickest human pelage!

Impressed? Well hold on. Prepare for furs so dense and soft that words to describe them are hard to find. Like talcum powder, perhaps?

SEE ALSO: WHY IS AMERICAN MINK THE WORLD'S FAVOURITE FUR?

Chinchilla

Animals with the densest furs live where climates are cold, humid and windy. Size also matters; because small mammals are more vulnerable to heat loss, they generally have denser fur.

And so we find ourselves in the high Andes, home of the long-tailed Chinchilla lanigera and short-tailed Chinchilla chinchilla. Being small and nocturnal makes them elusive. They're also very rare. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies both as "critically endangered".

We can blame the “tragedy of the commons” for that. Though the term was coined for what happens when no one owns common grazing land, it also played a role in the historic fur trade.

Spanish explorers first sent chinchilla pelts home in the 16^th century, but it wasn’t until the late 19^th century that Europeans developed an insatiable appetite for them. Populations collapsed, prices soared, and by the early 20th century a peasant trapper could feed his family for a month with just one pelt - if he could find one!

Only late in the day, in 1910, did the range states of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru unite to ban the trade, but effective enforcement was still decades away. Extinction seemed inevitable.

Farmers to the Rescue!

And then the cavalry arrived, in the unlikely form of fur farmers.

It all began with Californian miner Mathias Chapman who, in 1923, was allowed by Chile to take 11 live chinchilla home for breeding. (It took him three years to trap them!) Ten survived the trip and one gave birth en route.

Chapman originally planned to breed pets, but he switched to fur farming. Today, chinchilla farms are found from Canada to Argentina, and in many European countries, and almost all their stock are believed to descend from Chapman's original 10.

Farming of animals can help conserve their wild cousins. By meeting demand, it reduces pressure on wild populations, as in the case of mink and fox. But it can also encourage illegal hunting and provide a cover for smuggling - the fear with tiger farming.

In the case of chinchilla, farming didn't just help protect wild populations, it probably saved them. And even if most chinchilla now live in pens and eat hay and pellets, there is absolutely no chance of them going extinct!

Dense Is Desirable

So what is all the fuss about with chinchilla fur? Hair density. No other terrestrial mammal comes close.

Hairs grow from organs called follicles which, in humans, are densest on the forehead – about 290 per cm2. Chinchilla have as many as 1,000.

Then there's the number of hairs per follicle. Hairs grow in tufts, with 1-3 (rarely 4) sprouting from each human head follicle. But a regular chinchilla has about 50 hairs per follicle, while a show “chin” (as pet owners call them) may have 100.

That means a regular chin has 50,000 per cm2 - double a farmed, dressed mink pelt, and 263 times more than our human blonde. So dense is a chin's fur that it's said fleas and ticks can’t penetrate it, and if they could, they'd suffocate!

"Soft Gold"

Amazingly, there is fur even denser than chinchilla - so dense it drove men to endure the harshest conditions nature could throw at them, far from home, for more than 100 years. This was the Great Hunt!

In the early 18th century, Russian fur traders found themselves on the Pacific shores of Siberia. Drawn by a cornucopia of desirable furs, notably sable, they had spent 150 years opening up Russia's vast eastern territory.

Now they took to their boats in pursuit of fur so dense, and so valuable, it was known as "soft gold": sea otter.

SEE ALSO: AMAZING FACTS ABOUT FUR: DRESSING FOR THE ARCTIC

Starting from the Kuril Islands, the traders island-hopped across the North Pacific, harvesting one otter population after another, plus highly profitable hair seals they found along the way. The otter trade in Alaska boomed, and then the traders headed south. There they were joined by adventurers from all over North America and Europe in the great California Fur Rush.

The moniker "soft gold" was deserved. In 1775 otter pelts sold in the Russian port of Okhotsk at up to 30 times the price of sable. In the 1880s, a pelt brought $165 in London, but by 1903, as supplies dried up, made a staggering $1,125.

Thankfully the ground-breaking North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911 put an end to seal otter fever by imposing a moratorium on the hunt. But was it too late? Perhaps fewer than 2,000 otters remained. Could they ever recover?

Yes they could! Sea otters have rebounded in two-thirds of their historic range, and are today cited as a great success story in the annals of marine conservation. As a precaution given the lesson of history, IUCN still classifies them as endangered, but Alaskan fishermen are now complaining the population is growing so fast, they've become a pest!

Exempted from the hunting ban, Alaskan coastal communities are also building a highly regulated trade in sea otter handicrafts and garments.

So what is it about sea otter fur that's so alluring? You know the answer already: density. Not even chinchilla compares.

Sea otters need superb insulation because, unlike other marine mammals, they have no blubber. And unlike that other four-legged marine mammal, the polar bear, they don't leave the water unless they absolutely have to. Imagine, swimming in the North Pacific, 24/7, in winter. Unless you have inches of blubber, or are a halibut, it's almost inconceivable.

And that's why sea otters have the greatest follicle density of any mammal, and hair density that ranges from 100,000 per cm2 on the legs and chest up to 400,000 on the sides and rump.

At its upper range, that’s four times denser than the finest show chin, 16 times denser than a farmed mink, and 2,105 times denser than our human blonde. That is dense fur!

***

FURTHER READING

Alaskan native Peter Paul Kawagaelg Williams, founder of Shaman Furs, is in a special position to bring sea otter to the international fashion scene. By Vanessa Friedman, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2016.

Ask most people what fur is good for and they’ll say it keeps the wearer – animal or human - warm. True enough, but some types of fur are so much warmer than others, and the reasons why may surprise you. In this first of a series to introduce some of the amazing facts about fur, we’ve planned a hunting and fishing trip and now it's time to plan our wardrobe. We’re headed to the Canadian territory of Nunavut, and we need to dress for the occasion!

Nunavut is actually the size of Western Europe, so even though almost the whole territory is classed as having a polar climate, there are considerable differences in weather and hours of sunlight. Time of year also makes a big difference. So let’s narrow it down and say we’re headed for the capital of Iqaluit at 63°N, in late March.

We’ll have about 6 hours of sunlight a day, enough for some good hunting or fishing close to home. But with average temperatures for March at -28°C, and a record low of -44°C, we can forget our birdspotter’s anorak. Heck, with wind chill factored in, the mercury once hit -62°C, so you might be tempted to leave your entire wardrobe at home, but don't. Jeans and sneakers will get a lot of use when we're not actually out on the land or ice.

It’s time to plan our new wardrobe and then figure out how to get it, because it's not going to be from your typical downtown furrier. Mink, fox or chinchilla are not up to the job, plus we'd prefer not to run up a huge cleaning bill on our return.

What we’re after is fur that’s full of holes.

Hollow Hairs Please

One of the key functions of fur in nature is thermoregulation: helping furbearers stay cool in hot weather and, more importantly, warm when it’s freezing. This is achieved primarily by means of insulation, and one of the greatest insulators is air. Or, to be more precise, trapped air.

Heat travels more slowly through air than through solids or liquids, (For comparison, water is 24 times more effective at conducting heat than air.) Furbearers take advantage of this by trapping air between the dense hairs of their underfur, then sealing it in with their long guard hairs. For us humans, it's a case of dressing in layers: two thin sweaters, with a layer of air between, keep us warmer than one thick one.

But some furbearers, mostly species of deer, have taken it to the next level. Not only do their guard hairs help trap air in the underfur, but those guard hairs also have air trapped permanently inside each one! Commonly known as “hollow” hairs, think more in terms of a honeycomb center, with countless tiny pockets of air. (Click here for an example of a scanning electron micrograph of red deer hairs.)

So we’re going to go with a local favourite in Nunavut, caribou fur.

Caribou must endure bitter cold for months at a time, and they don’t even shiver. How do they do it? It's not all in the fur; a highly efficient means of minimising heat loss known as countercurrent heat exchange functions in their legs and nasal passages. But the key is their winter coats, three inches thick and covering them from nose to hooves, all topped off with those hollow hairs. (Interestingly, it is also these hollow hairs that cause caribou to swim so high out of the water, further conserving heat.)

So we’ll start with a couple of knee-length parkas, not for alternate days but to wear as a pair if needed. The outer parka, worn on its own with the fur on the outside, will be for less cold weather or trips close to home when a sudden change in the weather just means a sprint home. The inner parka will be added, with the fur facing our body (yes, we'll need a shirt or other kind of lining!), when the mercury plummets or we're traveling farther afield.

Since we're not dressing to impress but looking for utilitarian wear, we'll go with plain parkas, not the decorated versions commonly associated with Inuit culture. Caribou hair sheds easily and the hollow shafts are constantly breaking, so decorated parkas are for special occasions only (and for sale to tourists).

And since it's not mid-winter, we'll go with summer caribou skins, which are also those generally used for garments. The hair is shorter than winter skins so they're not as warm, but this also makes them less prone to shedding. Summer skins are also easier to dress than winter skins, and while dressing is said to reduce warmth, it does make them more durable.

And if you're ready to go totally native, caribou pants and socks come next, both with the fur on the inside, then caribou mittens and kamik (traditional footwear) to round off your ensemble.

A word of caution though. Unless you're actually out on the land or ice, dressing head to toe in caribou will make you stand out from the crowd. Plus, propping up the bar in Iqaluit will very quickly cause you to overheat! That's where the jeans and sneakers come in.

Hydrophobic Hood

Before you shell out for your parkas, though, pay particular attention to their most important feature: the hood lining. It must be hydrophobic.

OK, we don’t literally want it to be “hydrophobic” or it would be scared of water. What we want is a strong “hydrophobic effect”, meaning it appears to repel water. (There is no actual repulsion involved, just an absence of attraction.)

The hydrophobic effect can be found everywhere and is essential to life on Earth. Observe a droplet of dew on a leaf. The water and the leaf want nothing to do with each other, to the point where the dew forms a sphere. The hydrophobic effect is also seen in all fur, but some types are more hydrophobic than others.

And why is a hydrophobic hood lining so important? Well, here’s what happens if you don’t have one. You’re out one day when a blizzard blows in and the temperature suddenly drops to -30°C. You pull up your hood with its big, fluffy synthetic lining and laugh at Mother Nature. Next thing you know, your breath is freezing on the lining which then freezes to your face. Lesson learned. You’ll never wear a synthetic hood lining again, at least not in the Arctic.

Better to do it right the first time and go with the ultimate in hydrophobic hood lining, wolverine fur. Since that is not always available, northern grey wolf makes an excellent second choice.

Nature’s Raincoat

But we also need a second outfit, still for time on the land, but for days when caribou will make us feel like a baked potato. The sky is clear and the forecast is for temperatures around freezing. There's a chance of rain and slush underfoot, so being waterproof is paramount. It's time for Nature’s raincoat, sealskin.

People from down south often assume sealskin must be the ultimate in cold-weather clothing, but it’s not the case, and that’s because the species used – mainly ringed seals, as in Nunavut, and harp seals – have no underfur. Sometimes known as "hair seals", their pelts are composed entirely of short, shiny guard hairs.

The "flat" fur that comes from hair seals is not as warm as "true" fur (with underfur), like caribou, but it has some real pluses. Because there is no underfur, sealskin is light. It is also incredibly durable, more so than any other flat fur like calf or antelope (which is why it's used to make rope). Its structure resists wind, its oil content repels rain, and its porosity allows it to breathe (which is why it also makes great tents).

And oh yes, it's virtually waterproof, which is why it's used to skin kayaks.

Sealskins, then, are the Arctic's warm, wet-weather clothing, "warm", of course, being a relative term. Mittens, a lighter parka, and most definitely sealskin boots therefore make it on to our shopping list.

Shopping Time

And now comes the hard part. It's so hard, in fact, that if you're planning a quick in-and-out visit to Nunavut, you're not going to be wearing caribou or ringed seal anyway, so just pack the best of the rest. Unfortunately, buying an outfit of traditional Nunavut clothing is, like hollow hairs and hydrophobia, amazing - amazingly hard!

Forget about buying outfits off the peg, in Iqaluit or anywhere else. It's not going to happen, though not for want of trying. Efforts have been made in Nunavut over the years to establish a garment industry with ensured availability from suppliers and standardised sizes and prices, but all to no end. The workforce with the necessary skills - older women, with kids to care for, working from home - have not taken to the idea of a production line.

So what to do? You can sign up for an expensive sport-hunting package and get the clothing, including a decorated parka made of dressed skins, thrown in. Finding someone to make it then becomes your tour operator's headache.

Or you turn up in Iqaluit, ask around, negotiate hard, and be prepared to pay $1,500+ for a plain caribou parka, pants, kamik and mittens - and that's summer skins, probably not dressed. If you're staying a month, it should be ready by the time you're heading home.

The good news is that Canadian harp seal garments can be bought on-line (here or here, for example), provided you don't live in a country that denies you the freedom to import them. Which brings us to the last amazing fact about seal fur.

Nonsensical Bans

Almost all sealskin garments come from healthy populations of either harp seals or ringed seals. So healthy are these populations that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies both harp and ringed seals as "Least Concern".

And yet two of the biggest potential markets for seal products, the US and the EU, are closed for no good reason.

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

The US has banned imports of all seal products since 1972 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, legislation that is fiercely defended by the nation's animal activist community.

In the EU, the ban went into effect in 2009, since when the European Commission has made a pig's ear of justifying it because it can't. Everyone knows the ban was passed not for any rational reason, or even to satisfy popular demand, but because it was bought and paid for by lobbyists in Brussels working for animal rights groups.

Now, true to their reputation for feeble-minded solutions (like the bendy banana law), Brussels' finest have sought to placate Canada's angry Inuit by exempting them from the ban. Not surprisingly, many Inuit representatives have called the gesture colonialistic and racist, so we'll see how that works out!

Truly, the politics of fur are no less amazing than the science and cultural traditions of this beautiful, warm and sustainable natural resource. Send us a postcard from Iqaluit!

The European Union recently announced that products made from seals hunted by Inuit people can continue to be sold in the EU despite the 2009 ban that prevents the importation or sale of all other seal products. It is impossible to imagine a sealing policy that would be more hypocritical and anti-democratic.

Canadian sealing is a sustainable use of a natural resource carried out by licensed, well-trained sealers under the rules and regulations of the government of Canada, which have been developed based upon both population science and humane killing techniques. In 1971 a quota management program was established for the Northwest Atlantic harp seal stock, and the population is estimated to have grown since then from 1.8 million to the 5.9 million, according to the IUCN. World-wide the population is close to 8 million, with "All known stocks ... increasing in number".

Despite the comments of the animal rights groups, the world-wide markets for seal products (food, Omega-3 fatty acids, oil, fur, leather) continue to exist. They exist but are inaccessible because the decades-old animal rights propaganda campaigns have co-opted (bought?) politicians in the EU, the USA, and other countries to deny their citizens their democratic right to choose to buy seal products.

Even in its stronghold of North America, surveys suggest the animal rights philosophy (i.e., no animal use) is adhered to by less than 3 percent of people. And because of this lack of popular support, animal rights groups can only further their agenda by using their multi-million-dollar war chests to lobby politicians to pass laws denying citizens their right of choice: anti-democratic to say the least. Like autocrats throughout history, it seems that these wealthy activist groups don't trust individual citizens to do "the right thing".

Hypocrisy Everywhere

The World Trade Organisation enquiry found that the “seal ban” was against its rules, but in the interest of protecting the “morals” of EU citizens the ban would stand: thus buying into the animal rights propaganda that killing seals is immoral. An interesting decision given that many countries within the EU continue to kill seals legally in the Baltic and North seas.

The USA continues to allow harvesting of northern fur seals in the Pribilof Islands, creating an exemption to its own Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), despite the fact that the IUCN lists the species as "vulnerable" and cautions that the Pribilof stock "has experienced a significant, steep decline in recent years." Yet it bans the importation of Canadian seal products under the same MMPA, despite the fact that the harp seals killed have never, ever been on any reputable list (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, for example) of endangered or threatened species. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.

SEE ALSO: 5 REASONS WHY I SUPPORT THE CANADIAN SEAL HUNT

Inuit "Exemption" Almost Racist

Animal rights groups constantly make pious, politically correct statements that they are not against Inuit sealing. For decades, Inuit organisations (including the Inuit Circumpolar Council, or ICC, which represents Northern Aboriginal communities around the world) has rejected this “exemption” as being meaningless, based in a colonialist mentality, and little short of racism.

Thousands of rural Canadian citizens are directly and indirectly employed in the sealing industry earning a living for their families. Sealing is part of an annual mosaic of income for rural Canadians whose money is derived from a number of individual activities that in total provide a livelihood that enables them to live in their communities. The same thing applies to Canadian farmers, ranchers, trappers, hunters, and so on: the only difference is the species killed. Few rural Canadians have the luxury of a guaranteed annual salary.

SEE ALSO: AMAZING FACTS ABOUT FUR: DRESSING FOR THE ARCTIC

Animal rights groups keep on about a “buyout” for those in the sealing industry. A one-year buyout? A two-year buyout? Or an annual buyout till all those involved have died? For whom? For sealers, plant workers, truckers, diesel suppliers, insurance agents, garment manufacturers, artists, artisans, grocery suppliers, gun and ammunition stores, vehicle sales people? For all or only some of them? Will they pay the many millions involved? No. These American-headquartered multi-million-dollar groups want the Canadian tax payer to subsidize their ridiculous views.

Resource Use Is Not Disneyland

"Baby seals"? The use of the word "baby" is simply an anthropomorphism, the Bambi syndrome, designed to influence and upset urban people who have a total disconnect with the sources of their food, clothing, medicines and other objects of daily use. The seals killed are fully weaned, are independent of their dames, and are on their own to survive or not: this is nature, not Bambi in Disneyland.

Death by gunshot or hakapik is instantaneous as found by innumerable studies by independent vets from Canada, the USA and the EU. The only negative studies have been bought and paid for by animal rights groups. The reality is that no animal-killing is pretty: it is by nature ugly. But pretty and ugly are not synonyms for right and wrong or good and bad. Sealing is simply an outdoor abattoir without the offal problems of land-based abattoirs (dumping it in landfills) because what we cannot use we leave on the ice to return to the eco-system as food for birds, marine mammals, fish and crustaceans: ecologically correct and green.

Travesty of Fiction Over Fact

The reality of the 50 years of animal rights propaganda has been the diminution of the incomes of thousands of Canadian citizens while these American-headquartered groups have collected hundreds of millions of dollars from people who think they are supporting animal care and conservation. One group alone generates contributions close to $100 million annually.

To adapt Winston Churchill's famous turn of phrase, never have so many been so misled by so few for such nefarious reasons. For decades these groups have said nothing new, yet their comments are deemed “newsworthy”. They and their celebrity friends utter ridiculous comments and no journalists challenge them. It's a circus, a travesty of fiction over fact, and proof that hypocrisy reigns supreme. It is media manipulation of the highest order.

Propaganda is an insidious thing and unless countered by a free press prepared to ask the hard questions it will continue ad infinitum. It is time for individuals, politicians and media to remember the immortal line of Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

The anti-sealing story is the second greatest propaganda campaign of the last 85 years. Democracy is about the right of citizens to choose. History has shown us that when propaganda triumphs, democracy loses.

Nobody in the Canadian sealing industry wants people to buy their products if they do not wish to. Canadian sealers only want all citizens to have their democratic right to choose for themselves to use or not use seal products.

Animal rights is not animal conservation or animal welfare. The goal of animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the US (and its extension, Humane Society International) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to name but two, is not to end sealing but rather to end man’s use - not just killing, but any use - of all animals for any reason. Read their mission statements. Seals are the tactic not the goal.

Anti-sealing is the epitome of George Orwell’s position in Animal Farm: all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

The animal rights anti-sealing movement may have won some battles but not the war. If it wins the war you will have to look around to see whom among you will be the next victim. The beef, pork, chicken or lamb producers? The trappers, hunters or fur farmers? The clothes manufacturer, shoemaker, auto manufacturer or furniture manufacturer? Anyone who uses animals for any purpose at all? You?

Ontario trappers have launched an exciting new campaign to inform the public about how they protect people and property by responsibly managing wildlife populations.

“We are trying to reach that 80% of the population that simply does not know what we do or why and how we do it,” says Robin Horwath, General Manager of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation (OFMF).

OFMF’s posters carry a bold headline stating that, "Trappers Manage Wildlife While Protecting People!" This message is accompanied by three large photos of forest land under water and a road closed by beaver flooding.

For more information, the posters direct people to the Ontario Fur Managers’ website at www.Furmanagers.com.

Street-Level Ads

The campaign over Christmas featured large posters in two major Ontario malls, one in Ottawa’s Bayshore mall and one in Toronto’s The Path mall. In March, the campaign will shift to street-level advertising in Toronto and ads on six Ottawa buses.

“Last year, I saw some street-level info ads about the oil sands and I thought: that’s what we’ve got to do; we’ve got to get out there and tell our own story!”

“People are intelligent, but they can’t make the right decisions if we don’t give them the facts,” says Horwath.

Of course, a few posters will not change the world on their own, at least not immediately. But imagine if trappers’ councils across North America did the same thing!

Does trapping of wildlife endanger species? Truth About Fur asked Ryan and Minette Kole, certified nurses and trappers from British Columbia, Canada:

"That’s pretty well impossible with today’s strict, government-regulated trapping seasons and other rules.

"As trappers, our goal is to maintain stable and healthy wildlife populations; we don’t want to deplete our own resource - that would put us out of business!

"The real threat to wildlife today is not regulated hunting or trapping, it is the destruction of the wilderness areas by industrial activity - and trappers are the ones who are out there monitoring what's really happening out in the bush, sounding the alarm and working with logging companies and government to protect that natural habitat."

Read an in-depth interview with Ryan and Minette on the Truth About Fur website, plus many more questions and answers about the North American fur trade, including:

• What types of fur are used in the fur trade?
• Is it morally wrong to raise animals just for their fur?
• What happens to the rest of a trapped animal when the fur is taken?
• Why is a fur coat expensive?
• How are farmed mink killed?
• How can we be sure that farmed mink are treated humanely in the United States?
• Why do we need foothold traps?
• How do we know only targeted animals are captured?
• Are the chemicals used for fur processing bad for the environment?
• ... and many more.

When I started trapping in 1959, it was a lot easier than it is now. Oh, sure, there’s more information and better equipment available these days, but it’s a lot more difficult to actually start trapping today than it was a half century ago.

Urbanization is one reason. The population of the United States has shifted from predominantly rural to predominantly urban, and fewer kids (adults, too, for that matter) live close enough to trapping country to make it work. I was a town kid too, but it was a small town, and my bike could get me beyond the city limits in five minutes. That’s often not the case today, and even where it is, today’s world isn’t the one I grew up in. Turning a kid loose on a bicycle before daylight isn’t such a wise idea in many areas.

Also, there’s the change in public attitude about hunting, fishing and trapping in general. According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, in my home state of Arkansas, which is less urban than many, only 301,000 residents hunted that year. That’s about 12 percent of the population. Trapping is included with hunting, and I’d be very surprised if 5 percent of those 301,000 folks trapped, but for argument’s sake, let’s say they did. That gives us a total of 15,050 trappers in my state, at most. There’s probably considerably less.

The situation is much the same elsewhere. When the percentage of active trappers is that low, it’s hard for somebody who wants to learn more about trapping to find anyone with similar interests. And when you can’t find anyone who shares your interest in something, guess what usually happens? Yep, your interest wanes, too, because it’s not much fun unless you can share it with someone.

Some Are Rookies, Some Trapped When Younger

That’s where us gray-whiskered veterans come in. Thirty years ago, I didn’t really have time to take someone under my wing on the trapline. I was pedal to the metal from Day 1 to Day Last, catching as many animals as I possibly could, because I had a houseful of kids and a dollar bill looked as big as a saddle blanket. Simply put, I couldn’t afford to take the time to help a rookie get started.

But now that’s not the case. I’m far from rich, but the crushing financial pressure is gone, and for Bill and me, the trapline is a more leisurely thing. Don’t misunderstand though. We still work hard, and we put up decent numbers for a couple of geezers, but neither of us is out there because our kids need shoes. And so we take interested folks on our line from time to time. Some are rookies just getting started, some are middle-aged guys who trapped when they were younger, and some are men and women who’ve never held a trap in their hands but want to see what it’s all about.

SEE ALSO: ONTARIO TRAPPERS PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY

The days when we have guests on the line are among the most enjoyable of the season. We usually don’t get as much done, because we’re answering questions and showing our guests what we’re doing and why. It slows us down, but we both enjoy it and are more than glad to do it. We’ve never discussed it much, but I think the reason Bill and I both enjoy having guests is that we’re helping promote trapping to non-trappers, either by helping a newbie get started or by showing a non-trapper first-hand that we’re not the bloody-handed barbarians the PETA folks make us out to be.

If you’ve never taken a kid, a beginning trapper or an interested non-trapper on your line, I recommend it. Not only will you enjoy it, but you’ll also be helping the cause.

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.