Many factors influence whether a particular clothing choice may be considered to be ethically or morally acceptable.  They include: the environmental impact of producing the raw materials, manufacturing, and eventual disposal of the product; the working conditions of people involved in all phases of production; and the distribution of benefits (e.g., “Fair Trade”). In the case of fur and other animal-derived products, there are additional considerations.  While public opinion research has repeatedly confirmed that about 80% of North Americans believe that wearing fur is “a matter of personal choice”, research has also shown that for the killing of any animal to be considered as ethical or morally acceptable, the following four criteria must be satisfied:

• Sustainable Use: The survival of the species should not be threatened;
• Animal Welfare: No unnecessary pain or cruelty should be inflicted;
• Important Use: Animals should not be killed for frivolous purposes;
• Minimal Waste: As much of the animal as possible should be used.

For a full discussion of how the North American fur trade satisfies all four of the criteria required for the ethical use of animals, please visit our blog post: Why fur is the ethical clothing choice

Answer by :

  Absolutely not. The only “evidence” for this often repeated claim is a horrific video on the internet. Produced by European activist groups, it shows a Chinese villager cruelly beating and skinning an Asiatic raccoon that is clearly alive. There are several indications that this shocking scene was intentionally staged. Apart from the obvious cruelty, it is much safer and easier to euthanize an animal before skinning it. So why would anyone do this? It is also odd that this video – and only this video – has been shown repeatedly since it was first released by Swiss Animal Protection (SAP) in 2005; if this were really common practice, we would expect to see many other examples. In fact, when this video first appeared, the International Fur Federation requested the full, uncut film – and information about when and where the incident occurred – in order to conduct a full investigation. These requests went unanswered, a strange reaction from groups claiming to be concerned about animal welfare. Unless, of course, someone was paid to do these horrible acts for the camera and the real objective was to drive animal-rights campaigning ... and fund-raising? UPDATE: "Film denouncing fur deemed 'staged' by IFF investigators". Women's Wear Daily, March 5, 2019. *** Condensed from: 5 Reasons Why It Is Ridiculous to Claim Animals Are Skinned Alive, TAF - The Blog, Jan. 20, 2016. 1. It would be completely inhumane Contrary to what activists would have us believe, most farmers take great pride in what they do; they take good care of their animals and treat them with respect. After all, their livelihoods depend on these animals, and the only way to produce the high quality of mink and fox for which North America is known is by providing them with excellent nutrition and care. When you work hard to care for animals – seven days a week, 52 weeks a year – you certainly don’t want to see them suffer. It is therefore completely ignorant (and insulting) to claim that farmers would treat their animals with cruelty. They certainly would never skin an animal alive! 2. It would be dangerous for the operator If respect for the animals and normal compassion were not enough to ensure that animals are not skinned alive, the farmer’s self-interest would be. A live and conscious animal will move, putting the farmer at risk of being bitten or scratched or cut with his own knife – creating a real risk of infection or disease transmission. Why would anyone expose themselves to such risks by skinning a live animal? The answer, of course, is that they don’t! 3. It would take longer and be less efficient We’ve already explained the dangers of skinning a live animal – only common sense when you think about it – but let’s also take a moment to consider how difficult it would be. Farming is a business and, like in most businesses, it is important to be efficient. Clearly it must be faster to skin an animal after it’s been euthanized. It is also important to understand that the skinning of a mink or other fur animal must be done very carefully, to avoid nicks and other damage that would lower the value of the fur. So, again, why would anyone skin a live animal? Quite apart from the cruelty, it would make no business sense whatsoever. 4. It would spoil the fur While activists like to accuse farmers of being greedy (“killing animals for profit!”), they don’t seem to understand that skinning animals alive would work against the farmer’s financial interest. Today’s international markets are very competitive. The amount you earn for your fur is determined by a number of factors including pelt size, fur quality, colour … and damage. But the heart of a live animal would be beating and pumping blood; attempting to skin a live animal would therefore unnecessarily stain the fur. Furthermore, after euthanasia, fur animals should be cooled thoroughly before pelting. Otherwise the fur can be damaged and the hair is prone to shed after tanning. Yet another reason why animals are not skinned alive. 5. It’s illegal In North America, Europe, and most other regions it is illegal to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. Skinning an animal alive is therefore not only inhumane and immoral – it’s clearly illegal. Yet another reason why animals are not skinned alive.

Answer by :

  Ryan & Minette Kole, trappers (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 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. Regulated hunting/trapping is a solution, not a threat. Truth About Fur: Historically, there were few regulations governing hunting and trapping, and some species were indeed seriously reduced, including some local beaver populations. Starting in the early 20^th century, a body of regulations began to be built, to control harvests at the state and provincial level, and internationally to ensure that wildlife species were not endangered by trade. Today, fur trapping regulations are designed to ensure the sustainable use of this valuable, renewable natural resource. Meanwhile, the growth of fur farming (in particular of mink) functions as a safety valve, reducing pressure on wild populations when demand increases. Thanks to modern fur-management practices and regulations, all the fur used today is taken from abundant populations. Beavers have made a spectacular recovery from historical over-harvesting, and are now abundant across North America. Raccoons, coyotes and foxes are more abundant than they have ever been.

Answer by :

Two main types of trapping system are used in North America: quick-killing traps and restraining traps (live-capture). Quick-killing systems: From a humane perspective it is usually preferable for an animal to be killed at the time of capture, because wild animals do not want to be restrained, no matter how gently.  The most common quick-kill devices work like large mousetraps (e.g., conibear traps, named after Canadian trapper Frank Conibear, who developed the first prototypes in the 1950s). Once the animal trips the trigger-pan, the metal striking bar hits a vital spot with great speed and mechanical force, causing unconsciousness and death in a matter of seconds. Restraining traps can also be used in submersion “sets” as a quick-killing system for semi-aquatic species, e.g., muskrats.

  Restraining systems: Live-holding traps are needed for larger predators because these animals (e.g., wolf, coyote, lynx, bobcat) are too cautious and strong to be taken in quick-killing sets. Modern foothold traps are designed to hold the animal with little or no injuries until the trapper arrives to dispatch it.  In fact, these traps are commonly used by wildlife biologists to capture and release predators unharmed after radio-collaring or relocation.

More than 58 million USD has been invested over the past 20 years (by state and federal governments and by the International Fur Federation) to develop and test innovative humane trapping systems. This research, coordinated primarily by the Fur Institute of Canada and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), has guided the introduction of modern state and provincial trapping regulations and trapper training courses. It also provided the scientific basis for the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS), which was signed in 1997 by the European Union and two of the main wild-fur-producing countries: Russia and Canada. The USA signed a similar agreement.

Answer by :

  Traditional steel-jawed foothold or leghold traps with jagged metal “teeth” have not been used in North America for many years; their use has been banned for almost fifty years. The only place you will see them today is in the museum – or in animal activist publications. Modern foothold (or “restraining”) traps are very different from the original versions. They have no sharp “teeth” and the holding bars on “soft-catch” traps are coated with rubberized cushioning and the jaws may be “off-set” (i.e., the metal jaws do not close completely. The chain that anchors the trap includes shock-absorbing springs and swivels that prevents injuries to the captured animal.  

Answer by :

  While quick-killing traps are still usually preferable, from a humane perspective (because no wild animal wants to be restrained), live-holding systems are still required for some larger predators (that are too strong or cautious to be taken in killing sets), or when conservation authorities need to radio-collar or relocate animals. The fact that modern foothold traps are used by wildlife biologists to capture and release coyotes, wolves, lynx and other animals unharmed, is the clearest indication that these traps are not the diabolical devices that activists would have us believe.

Answer by :

Historically, leg-holding devices were used to trap animals and many were not considered humane; steel leghold traps were known to cause injuries to animals. Thanks to research done by the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures, there are now devices (padded traps with rubber jaws) that don’t cause injuries to animals. Trap research has meant that there are traps available that can live capture an animal in one location, to relocate to another area, and that animal would not have any injuries from the time it is captured to the time it is relocated.    

Answer by :

  Most wild furbearers – over 90 per cent, in Canada – are now killed virtually instantly in quick-killing traps. Only a small proportion (about 15%) of furbearers – i.e., wolves, coyotes, lynx and foxes – are still taken in live-holding devices.  In Canada, these are the only four species (of 22 species of furbearers) for which the use of live-holding traps is still legal. Once captured in live-holding traps (which must be monitored very frequently) these large predators are euthanized with a small-caliber shot to the brain; this is the only method recommended in trapper-instruction manuals and by veterinary associations in North America. In some regions, licensed trappers can have a permit to carry small-caliber handguns for this purpose, since it is not always practical to snowshoe through the bush with a rifle and all our other equipment.

Answer by :

  Modern trappers have a range of techniques to ensure that only the furbearing animals they are targeting will be taken in their traps. For example, marten traps are set on tree limbs in special boxes to protect them from dogs and even birds. The location, timing and the way in which traps are set, the lures and baits used – these are all elements taught in trapper training courses to ensure that only targeted species are taken.

Answer by :

  For aboriginal and other trappers living far from urban centers, beaver and other wild furbearers provide food as well as fur, income and other resources. Whatever is not eaten by trappers and their families is returned to the forest to feed other wildlife through the winter.

Answer by :

  I can understand why some people might think that, especially if they are not aware of how profoundly we have transformed and encroached on the landscape across this country. This is no longer a “natural” environment and we cannot dodge our responsibilities to restore some sort of balance to a system that has been radically disrupted. Biologists often talk about the “carrying capacity” of a natural habitat. But today we also have to think about the “societal carrying capacity” – in other words, how many animals and what types of animals are we ready to tolerate in close proximity? Coyotes and foxes are snatching pet dogs and cats from people’s backyards in many towns and cities. Moose and deer are colliding with cars, causing serious injuries. Beaver flood forests and roads, fields and property; raccoons and other species carry dangerous diseases and parasites, including rabies and intestinal roundworm. We co-exist in close proximity with wildlife in much of our country and we must maintain some sort of balance. In this context, trapping is an essential conservation tool to help maintain stable and healthy wildlife populations in a responsible way.

Answer by :

  Trapping would be important even if no one wanted fur; regulated trapping is now an essential element of responsible wildlife management in the USA. Many people don’t know that modern traps are used to capture animals, unharmed, to apply radio collars for research, or to reintroduce species (wolves and river otters) into regions where they were previously eradicated. Trapping is also essential to protect some thirty endangered species of plants and animals. Whooping cranes, for example, would almost certainly be extinct in the USA within two years if we didn’t aggressively trap predators like coyotes and foxes in their nesting areas. Endangered sea turtles are also protected by trapping raccoons and foxes that seek to dig up their eggs. Wolves must be managed to protect livestock, while beavers can cause millions of dollars of damage to forest habitat, water supplies, agricultural land, roads and other property by flooding. Skunks and raccoons in cities carry lethal diseases (rabies) and dangerous parasites, such as intestinal roundworms.

Answer by :