The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use,… Read More
The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, fur biodegrades. In contrast, when fake fur made from petrochemicals reaches the end of its typically very short life, it goes to sit in a landfill until the end of time. Or does it? In pursuit of the truth, we decided to do a little experiment: the Great Fur Burial.
One year ago, we kicked off our Great Fur Burial to see how real fur biodegrades compared with fake fur. Here's what we buried: mink on the left, fake fur on the right. How do they look now?
On May 14, 2016, we took a mink stole and a fake fur vest, cut them into equal-sized pieces, and buried them. Above is how the pieces looked on burial day. The plan was that after three months, six months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth one piece each of the mink and fake fur to compare degradation rates. This experiment is hardly scientific, but it only has to show one thing: do they rot, or not?
One Year Later ...
Last week we unearthed one of each fur sample, now one year old. Here is the burial site prior to exhumation.
From our last dig, we had a good idea what to expect. The synthetic fur was easy to find, whereas the real fur, once located, called for delicate work with a wooden spoon and fingers to ensure it didn't turn to dust.
The fake fur was quick to find, but the real fur required sharp eyes.
Here are the two samples once they were dug up, fake on the left and real on the right. The fake fur appears to be in good condition, while the real fur is seriously degraded, to say the least!
The fake fur (left) and real fur (right) as soon as they were taken out of the ground.
We gently shook off the dust and dirt from the samples, so we could get a better look.
The fake fur (left) and real fur (right) after the dirt was gently shaken off.
A closeup of the front of the fake fur shows that the "hair" is still in very good condition, aside from the fact that there are roots growing through it. With a bit of shampoo, it might almost be ready to wear!
Fake fur sample, after being buried for one year.
A closeup of the backing of the fake fur also shows it to be in good shape.
Fake fur backing closeup, after being buried in the ground for one year.
In contrast to the fake fur, the real fur is degraded to the point of being unrecognisable, and only has any integrity at all because of some binding and thread. When you look at the sample close up you can see a few hairs of fur left and some remnants of the leather, but the bulk of the sample consists of thread (cotton), the binding (either silk or synthetic) and roots. This is a very strong indicator that real fur biodegrades much faster than fake.
A closeup of the remains of the real fur sample, after it was buried for one year.
Summary
Equal-sized pieces of real and fake fur were buried side by side to test the common claim that real fur biodegrades while fake fur does not. After one year, the real fur is in an advanced state of degradation, with the hairs reduced to a few fine wisps, and a few shreds of leather held together by thread and backing. The fake fur, however, shows very little evidence of degradation, biological or otherwise. In fact, it is nearly intact.
As far as the real fur is concerned, we consider this experiment to be conclusive already, and a year from now, when next we exhume our samples, we fully expect to need a magnifying glass and tweezers to find any. But as far as the fake fur goes, the experiment has only just begun. Will it degrade at all, and if so, will it take five years, or until the end of time?
Read the first three installments of this experiment:
The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In… Read More
Six months ago, we kicked off our Great Fur Burial to compare degradation rates of real and fake fur. Here's what we buried: mink on the left, fake fur on the right. How do they look now?
The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In contrast, when fake fur made from petrochemicals reaches the end of its useful, and typically very short, life, it goes in a landfill where it will sit until the end of time. Or will it? In pursuit of knowledge and truth, we decided to do a little experiment: the Great Fur Burial.
On May 14, we took a mink stole and a fake fur vest, cut them into equal-sized pieces, and buried them. Above is how the pieces looked on burial day. The plan was that after 3 months, 6 months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth two pieces of the mink and fake fur to compare degradation rates. This experiment is hardly scientific, but it only has to show one thing: do they rot, or not?
Six Months Later ...
Two weeks ago we unearthed another set of fur pieces. Our burial spot is marked by red sticks.
The synthetic fur was easy to find (left), whereas we had to be a lot more careful unearthing the real fur (right) as the pieces appeared to be much more delicate.
Once the fur pieces were out of the ground, they were placed, as is, on a tray. The real fur piece is on the left and the fake fur is on the right. As you can see, the real fur sample is much smaller than the fake sample, and not because of degradation. It seems the real fur sample must have been made of two pieces sewn together. The stitching rotted, and we ended up exhuming only one half.
We gently shook some dirt off each piece but as the mud was really encrusted in the fur, we decided to let the samples dry for two weeks so we could clean them without causing damage.
Two weeks later the dirt was dry and we gently shook off as much of it as possible, without having to rub the samples too much. It is quite obvious, looking at the photo below, that the real fur (left) has disintegrated a lot more than the synthetic. The synthetic fur (right) looks pretty much intact, whereas the majority of the hairs of the real fur seem to have disappeared. The leather is frail and the only parts of the real fur sample that seem to be in decent condition are the threads.
This photo shows the backs of the samples, and it is obvious that the real fur is in much worse condition than the synthetic fur.
Let's look at the real fur, close up. The hairs are practically gone and the leather is frail. The sample is disintegrating.
In contrast, the synthetic fur, below, still looks practically intact. The hairs are still soft and the backing shows very little change since it was buried. It is hard to imagine any dramatic change happening between now and our next exhumation a year from now, so it's looking like the story is true: fake fur can sit in a landfill for hundreds of years.
Summary
Equal-sized pieces of real and fake fur were buried side by side. After six months, the fake fur showed no obvious signs of degradation, biological or otherwise. In other words, it was almost perfectly intact. The real fur, however, was in an advanced state of degradation, with the hairs reduced to a few fine wisps, and the leather frail and delicate.
Like all good scientists, we’ll hold back on making conclusions until the experiment has run its course. But the way things are headed, it might not be long before we’re using tweezers and a magnifying glass to find a real fur sample. It will all then be down to the fake fur samples. Will they degrade in five years? Or by the end of time?
The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In… Read More
Three months ago, we launched the Great Fur Burial. This is what we buried - mink on the left, fake fur on the right. How do they look now?
The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In contrast, when fake fur made from petrochemicals reaches the end of its useful, and typically very short, life, it goes in a landfill where it will sit until the end of time. Or will it? In pursuit of knowledge and truth, we decided to do a little experiment: the Great Fur Burial.
On May 14, we took a mink stole and a fake fur vest, cut them into equal-sized pieces, and buried them. Above is how the pieces looked on burial day. After 3 months, 6 months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth a piece of the mink and a piece of the fake fur to check for degradation. This experiment is hardly scientific, but it only has to show one thing: do they rot, or not?
Three Months Later ...
Last week we unearthed the first of the eight sets of fake and real fur. We set out to the burial ground, marked by two sticks.
It only took a few seconds of digging to find the first piece of fake fur, which appeared to be fairly intact.
Finding the real fur was more of a challenge. We decided to dig by hand to avoid disturbing the site too much, and came across a sad-looking shred.
After refilling the grave, we put our exhumed samples onto a tray. It was time to have a closer look for signs of degradation.
Before cleaning. Fake fur on the left, real on the right.
A lot of dirt was still attached to the samples, so a bit of gentle cleaning was in order. And here's what we ended up with:
After cleaning. Fake fur on the left, real on the right.
Ocular inspection immediately told us that the two samples, which were originally the same size, were not the same size anymore. The real fur sample was much smaller.
Closer inspection revealed that the synthetic fur was pretty much intact, front and back.
Close-up of the synthetic fur after three months in the ground.
The backing of the synthetic fur looks almost like new.
The real fur, on the other hand, was falling to pieces, and was held together by the threads from the letting-out sewing process. The leather had all but disappeared and most of the hairs showed clear signs of biodegradation.
The real fur sample looked more like an owl pellet than a mink stole.
We're only three months into a multi-year experiment, and already the findings are quite dramatic.
Equal-sized pieces of fake and real fur were buried side by side. After three months, the fake fur showed no obvious signs of degradation, biological or otherwise. In other words, it was perfectly intact. The real fur, however, was in an advanced state of degradation, in particular the leather.
Like all good scientists, we'll hold back on making conclusions until the experiment has run its course. But the way things are headed, it might not be long before we're using tweezers and a magnifying glass to find a real fur sample. It will all then be down to the fake fur samples. Will they degrade in five years? Or by the end of time?
The fur industry is proud to state that one of reasons real fur is eco-friendly is that it biodegrades. Fake fur made from… Read More
RIP to our real mink stole (left) and our fake fur vest made of polyamide and polyester.
The fur industry is proud to state that one of reasons real fur is eco-friendly is that it biodegrades. Fake fur made from petrochemicals, on the other hand, just sits in landfills for centuries - though that is, admittedly, hard to demonstrate! So thinking it's time to walk the walk, we decided to do a little experiment. Join us now in the Great Fur Burial!
We've taken a mink stole and a fake fur vest, cut them into pieces, and buried them in the ground. At 3 months, 6 months, and then once a year for five years, we will be unearthing a piece of the mink and a piece of the fake fur and checking in on the biodegrading process. While our experiment is hardly scientific, we are endeavouring to ensure the results are as realistic as possible.
Mink vs. Polyamide
First, we found a real fur stole (100% mink) and a fake fur vest (80% polyamide and 20% polyester). We removed the lining from both.
Here is a closeup of the mink before the backing was removed ...
And here is a closeup of the fake fur ...
We cut both into pieces, all of similar size (mink on the left, fake on the right) ...
Then we dug a shallow hole, roughly one foot down, and placed eight pieces of each fur into the "fur grave". This happened on May 14, 2016. (Mink on the left, fake on the right.)
Then we covered them with dirt and turf ...
Now let's let Mother Nature do her work! See you in August, little fur pieces!
Dilan Porzuczek has a passion for fur — a passion he’s now sharing with a new generation of talented young… Read More
Dilan Porzuczek (centre) explains how to plan a pattern on a skin.
Dilan Porzuczek has a passion for fur -- a passion he’s now sharing with a new generation of talented young designers.
“I was first invited to do a presentation for the fashion program at Quebec City’s College Notre-Dame-de-Foy several years ago,” says the 28-year-old owner of Fourrures Léopold Martel, a well-established fur store in Jonquiere, about 200 kilometres north of the provincial capital.
“The students could relate to me because I am young, and coming from a retail fashion background I understood their creative interests.
Students practice blocking techniques, fitting the plate to the pattern.
“It is important that we go into fashion schools because the teachers often aren’t comfortable introducing fur in their classes; they don’t have the information they need to reassure students about their ethical concerns,” says Dilan.
“Many of the students were anti-fur to start, but they listened when I explained how I had become uncomfortable with the ecological cost of ‘fast fashion’. The younger generation is very conscious and concerned about waste in the fashion industry.
A student analyses the different traits of a red fox pelt.
“They were really interested to learn about the environmental credentials of fur – that fur is responsibly-produced, natural, long-lasting and recyclable. And that after decades of use you can throw fur into the garden compost. Unlike fake fur or other petroleum-based synthetics that make up 60% of our clothing today, fur is fully biodegradable, it quickly returns to the earth. If we are looking for sustainable clothing, fur checks all the boxes!
“At the last seminar we did, in November, I was told that seven teachers but only five students had signed up for the two-day workshop that followed,” says Dilan. “But after my presentation, 30 showed up, so I guess we changed a few minds!
“We had set up blocking boards, and fur machines, and the Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires du Québec donated some coyotes, fox, beaver and other furs. [Ed.: A "fur machine", as it is known in the trade, is a fur sewing machine to the layman.] We also had some old coats to recycle.
Dilan Porzuczek shows the technique of blocking a mink coat..
“Gathered around a big table, I started by explaining how we use the different furrier’s tools. Then I had them work on their patterns, and that afternoon they were blocking skins and learning how to use a fur machine.
“The second day they were all working on their projects, cutting and sewing fur pelts. Some of the teachers even wanted to learn how to ‘let out’ pelts!
Students are required to design "something different". We think this hat qualifies!
“They didn’t all manage to finish their pieces that weekend, but we followed up with Facebook. Some made accessories, or a small vest, even a bomber jacket ... My only requirement was that they make something different.
“That’s what’s so wonderful about fur – you can really get creative,” says Dilan. “I just love working with fur, and it’s very satisfying when you see young designers catching that excitement!”
This article was first published in Country Squire Magazine on Jan. 12, 2024, and has been slightly edited. It is… Read More
This article was first published in Country Squire Magazine on Jan. 12, 2024, and has been slightly edited. It is reproduced with permission.
Being an Old Testament bloke, I usually reply in kind to those rude people who call law-abiding farmers, hunters, field-sportspeople and wildlife managers “murderers, killers and evil monsters”. I insult people who tell blatant lies about trophy hunting, and I mock demented Animal Rights (AR) evangelists who are so blinded by zealotry that they can’t tell a human from a hippo. It is therefore with awful sadness and restraint that I comment on one of my heroes and favourite people on TV, the wonderful Stephen Fry, whose appearances in Blackadder as Lord/General Melchett over 30 years ago and as the genial host of QI over 20 years ago (I know!) has enriched my life a bit and made him a firm favourite with the nation.
But now he has gone and done his own round of QI’s “General Ignorance”, concerning the bearskins worn by His Majesty’s Guards. Fry has unfortunately seen fit to front a campaign by PeTA ostensibly aimed at getting the Guards to use fake plastic fur instead of real fur bearskins – and fake sums up the whole AR campaign.
PeTA (also known as “PeTAnnihilation” from its habit of killing pets) you might recall, is the global AR behemoth (UK income £6 million, Global income $66 million and part of the $88 million that the network of mega AR parasites rake in annually). PeTA’s founder, stark-raving Ingrid Newkirk (“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth”), who openly condones ecoterrorism, set up PeTA to spread the mental disease of AR and oppose any use of animals by humans – no pets, no seeing dogs, no mine-detecting rats, no drug dogs, no farming animals, no nothing.
Unfortunately, since all of our physical resources and clearing land for any building work or farming, even vegetable farming (yes, vegans) or any other primary industry, involves killing animals, it is a simple fact of life that we humans couldn’t exist without killing animals, so the AR ideology is, in reality, an intellectual cow-pat. This is hardly surprising because Newkirk, like the rest of the AR souls, was apparently intoxicated by reading Peter Singer’s brain-fart of a book, Animal Liberation. He, in turn, is infamous for suggesting that, given a choice, competent monkeys should be given more rights than mentally incompetent human infants and he is AR’s founding father. There is, in fact, no such thing as animal rights, as any deer fawn can explain, shortly before being torn to shreds by an omnivorous black bear.
As Baldrick might have put it, “AR is a cunning plan, as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University”. AR is just about as realistic as that, too.
If the Ministry of Defence stopped using bearskins, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to either the sustainable bear harvest or its market. Photo: Swaminathan Iyer, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
This story isn’t new. Bears and the King’s Guards, like naked women and red paint, make for wonderful press photos, so they have been a favourite target for PeTA for years; in fact the suggestion has been made that PeTA might want to let this particular golden goose live on. In the past, PeTA organised the usual petition and got their empty-vessel, willing donkey MPs to waste time in the Westminster Asylum debating their anti-bearskin nonsense and waste money taking the MOD to court in 2022. Bears are very charismatic in the UK – you will notice that AR souls make much less fuss here about rats, but even then, PeTA suggests that rats “should be caught gently in live catch traps and released not more than 100 yards from where they are caught” – an idea with obviously only one oar in the water, like most AR souls’ ideas. This is really all about publicity, not bears.
And what of the bears?
Well, according to Canadian government wildlife authorities, who may know a tad more about fur than either nut-roast PeTA or vegetarian Mr Fry, black bears are abundant and common in Canada. There is an estimated black bear population of about 500,000 black bears in Canada that is both healthy and stable. Black bear hunting and trapping has a very long history and is strictly regulated by both season and quota. In Canada, it contributes to food security and economic sovereignty in Indigenous communities and is an important source of rural income, especially where alternative economic opportunities are few. Bear meat and red offal are eaten, while grey offal is laid out for the natural scavengers or buried if you don’t want a bear’s picnic. There is nothing strange about any of it. We humans have been predators since before we were humans. Hunting by modern humans and our ancestors goes back at least 1,600,000 years.
PeTA has been around for about 43 years.
Stephen Fry is simply wrong when he repeats PeTA’s dishonest but obligatory “Trophy hunting” jibe – harvesting bears per se is not trophy hunting. He’s having a stir. Trophy hunting (usually conducted by hunting tourists) is something entirely different – trophy hunters keep their bear skins for a start. The Canadian bear harvest is not a “sport” – it is closer to subsistence hunting, an ancient and honourable human activity aimed at sustainably harvesting a natural resource, like rabbits, deer or fish in the UK and, like all predation, it doesn’t have to be “fair” – it’s not some kind of frivolous urban game to be played.
Bearskins are not just a UK thing. As of 2020, the militaries of 14 countries use them. Photo: Sadelmageren, Denmark.
Things get killed. It is a way of life and a cultural tradition. The number of Canadian bears annually harvested by legal hunting and trapping is only a maximum of 6% of the total population and the harvest is RATS – Regulated, Accountable, Transparent and Sustainable. The meat is eaten while skins, bones, claws, and grease, etc. are important by-products of this harvest and are sent to market, no different to leather, feathers, hide glue, deer antlers for handles or dog chews that end up in UK pet shops.
Could someone please tell critics that the MOD don’t look at a tatty old bearskin cap and immediately phone someone in Canada to go out and club a bear to death for a new one. The MOD has nothing to do with the Canadian bear harvest or its market any more than it buys steel for its guns or leather for its boots. The MOD buys their bearskin caps from a supplier, representing (in number) a minuscule 0.04% of the skins available from the bear population and if those suppliers did not buy them, it would not make a blind bit of difference to either the sustainable bear harvest or its market.
It is therefore not true for Fry to suggest that buying them “encourages hunting”. Bear pelts are a natural commodity like any other. As of 2020, there were 14 countries whose militaries used bearskin as a part of their ceremonial uniforms and there is an interesting piece about making the UK bearskin caps on the excellent and most illuminative Fieldsports Channel.
Of course, the public are not Royal Guards, so PeTA and Fry and their usual posse of rich, virtue-signalling slebs can pretend to their doting and donating public that plastic fur makes a better substitute and from there imply deceptively that it will save bears’ lives.
Wrong on both counts, as usual.
The MOD have made it clear here that fake fur isn’t up to scratch (so to speak) and, as you can see from the link, using fake fur won’t save a single bear. Quite apart from these practical and sensible considerations, there is also the serious matter of military tradition and esprit de corps.
AR souls, whose self-indulgent, look-at-me ideology is only possible because they are safe and well protected by the sharp sword and bright armour of the military, have no more idea about military tradition than they do about hunting culture. In the earlier debate about bearskins in the Westminster Asylum, Martyn Day MP (nothing to do with the shamed Al Sweady lawyer) got up to pee on military tradition, saying, “As the writer and philosopher G. K. Chesterton wrote: Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” He omitted to acknowledge that the sacrifices of those dead allowed him to stand in Parliament and freely spout his wrong-headed opinions.
Dear Readers, there is another serious, real-world note. Fake fur is made up of millions of tiny oil-based plastic fibres that snap off in sunlit use and inevitably break down into smaller and smaller pieces. We all know that trillions of micro plastics are shed by synthetic plastic clothes (up to 700,000 in a 6kg wash), exfoliants (up to 94,000 in a single use) and tyres (18,000 tons annually), making up 65% of the micro plastics released into UK surface waters that end up in the oceans and inside us. What we should be doing is stopping using fake plastic Franken-fur, not promoting it. It may well be poisoning all of us (and, ironically, the bears in Canada) just to keep a handful of gobby urban head-bangers happy.
Natural fur, on the other hand, has another story. It is an unbeatably warm and beautiful, sustainable and replaceable natural resource that can be absorbed back into nature’s own cycle – one that we have been using for the whole of our history. It is bio-degradable and uses fewer chemicals to produce than, say, leather. Sustainably utilising natural resources like fur and meat while managing wildlife populations is an excellent use for vast areas of remote wilderness, ensuring that it is self-protected from development or other uses such as farming. In doing so, all the other fauna and flora is conserved, too. Armchair conservationists may grumble and the AR happy clappers may moan, but hunters on the ground are often the first eyes and ears monitoring the condition of the environment and its residents.
Looking at the state of the world at the moment, surely we have much more important problems to attend to rather than waste time and money, pointlessly pandering to PeTA the Parasites or to the twisted ideology and emotions of rich, virtue-signalling AR souls – even souls of the otherwise exemplary stature of Stephen Fry, bless him.
A major new public opinion poll shows that, despite decades of aggressive and misleading activist campaigning, most Canadians are still… Read More
For most Canadians, the environmental benefits of natural fur are clear. The big problem is synthetics. Photo: International Fur Federation.
A major new public opinion poll shows that, despite decades of aggressive and misleading activist campaigning, most Canadians are still fine with wearing fur and other natural clothing materials -- but are increasingly worried about the environmental costs of petroleum-based synthetics that activists love to promote as “vegan”.
The survey of 1,500 Canadians was commissioned by the Natural Fibers Alliance, and conducted in August 2022 by Abacus Data, a leading public affairs and market research consultancy.
The research completely contradicts animal activist claims that fur is no longer socially acceptable. In fact, two-thirds (65%) of Canadians believe that wearing fur is acceptable so long as the industry is well regulated and animals are treated humanely. Only one in five (21%) of Canadians do not agree – with just 10% saying they “strongly disagree”.
More than three-quarters (77%) of Canadians also believe that wearing fur is a matter of personal choice – putting the lie to activist claims that the public supports their call for fur bans. (Politicians take note!)
Seven in ten (71%) Canadians also agree that warm clothing is a necessity in many countries, and that natural fur is a sustainable warm clothing choice.
It is fascinating to see that, despite years of activist propaganda against mink farming, 35% of Canadians have a positive view of the sector while 25% are “neutral”, and only 21% have a negative view – of which only 10% are “very negative” – about mink farming. (18% feel they don't know enough to form an opinion.)
Encouraging for Mink Farmers
Canadian mink farmers like Tom McLellan can draw encouragement from the latest survey..
Mink farmers will also be encouraged to learn that younger people tend to have a more positive view of their sector: 41% of 18-29-year-olds have a positive view of mink farming, compared with 35% of 30-60-year-olds, and 25% of those over 60. Again, these findings completely contradict activist claims that the future is theirs.
Strong pluralities of Canadians also believe that the mink farming sector supports rural communities (41%; versus 8% who disagree); that it is environmentally sustainable (38%; versus 12% who disagree); and that it takes care to maintain animal health and welfare (37%; versus 16% who disagree.) About one in five Canadians are “neutral” about these questions, while the balance don’t feel they know enough to state an opinion.
More broadly, this study completely debunks activist claims that the public is buying into their no-animal-use, vegan agenda. Despite all the hype we see these days about vegan products and vegan menu choices, 96% of Canadians are still open to eating animal products like eggs and dairy, while 90% think it’s OK to eat meat. So much for the vegan wave!
Three-quarters (74%) of Canadians also say they are comfortable with people wearing clothing or accessories made from leather, fur, wool, down, or other animal-derived natural fibres. (15% are “not too comfortable” with such choices, while only 7% of Canadians say they are “not at all comfortable” with animal-derived clothing materials.)
In fact, it is not fur or other animal-derived natural clothing materials that have consumers worried, but petroleum-based synthetics. 83% of Canadians are concerned that such synthetics – now in more than 60% of all our clothing – don’t biodegrade. 86% worry that synthetic fibres pollute our waterways and poison aquatic life. 83% are concerned about microplastics in our food and water.
Because of such concerns, most Canadians (87%) now feel we should strive to use fewer synthetic fibres in our clothing (58%), or phase them out completely (29%).
Two-thirds of Canadians, in fact, now believe that “fast fashion” is contributing to an ecological crisis – and 60% of consumers feel that an environmental fee should be applied to all non-renewable clothing materials, because of their impact on the environment!
Again, completely contradicting activist claims, most consumers (77%) believe that natural fur is a more environmentally sustainable clothing choice than synthetics. Nearly two-thirds (64%) also believe that fur is a more socially responsible choice, while 59% consider fur to be a more ethical choice than synthetics.
Bottom line, this new research provides some important lessons for the fur trade, the fashion industry, consumers, politicians, and the media:
1. The Fashion Industry: Designers, manufacturers, and retailers should listen to their consumers. Contrary to activist claims, most Canadian consumers do want to buy and wear fur, leather, wool, and other animal-derived products, so long as they are produced responsibly and sustainably. In fact, consumers today are more comfortable with responsibly produced animal-based clothing products than they are with petroleum-based synthetics.
2. Politicians: This research puts the lie to activist claims that Canadians want mink farming banned. In fact, more Canadians have a positive impression of mink farming than a negative impression, and more believe that the sector respects animal welfare and environmental sustainability. The research also completely debunks activist claims that the public want the sale of fur products banned. Quite the contrary, an absolute majority of Canadians believe that it is morally acceptable to use fur, and more than three-quarters believe that wearing fur should be a matter of personal choice. (The father of the current Canadian prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, once famously said that “the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”. It’s time to remind politicians that they shouldn’t be in our clothes closets either!)
3. Consumers: Those who appreciate its warmth, comfort, and beauty can wear fur with confidence, knowing that most Canadians agree that wearing fur is morally acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and a matter of personal choice.
4. Media: With this research at hand, journalists should stop giving a free ride to fraudulent activist claims that “consumers no longer accept that wearing fur is ethical”, or that “80% of Canadians want fur farming banned.” This research shows clearly that it is petroleum-based synthetics that have Canadians worried, and that most think that fur and other responsibly-produced animal-based clothing materials are a better environmental choice.
5. People of the Fur Trade: This research provides a powerful and timely response to anti-fur propaganda — but it is only useful if it is seen by others. It is up to people in every sector of the fur trade – trappers, farmers, designers, manufacturers, and retailers – to make sure this important information is widely circulated. Share this summary with your local and regional politicians. Use these statistics to respond whenever you see activist lies reported in the media — and to reassure customers, friends and neighbours.
Charles Dickens’ classic novel A Tale of Two Cities begins with the wonderful sentence: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” This describes very well the situation of the fur trade today. Clearly the industry has been seriously damaged by decades of activist bullying and lies. At the same time, the growing public concern for protecting the environment provides a golden opportunity for the fur trade: when it comes to responsibly and sustainably produced clothing, fur checks all the boxes. We have long known this, and now we have the statistics to prove that many Canadians understand it too.
It’s now up to everyone in the trade to share and promote this important news!
Hoping that trapping associations across Canada will be inspired to follow suit, the Ontario Fur Managers Federation (OFMF) is launching… Read More
Hoping that trapping associations across Canada will be inspired to follow suit, the Ontario Fur Managers Federation (OFMF) is launching a billboard campaign to raise public awareness of the roles trappers play in wildlife management and pest control. It also hopes to correct misunderstandings about trapping created intentionally by animal activists.
Animal rights groups have long been spreading falsehoods about the trapping of furbearers, in particular that it is unnecessary and cruel. Trappers have defended themselves, with support from wildlife managers, conservationists, and consumers who appreciate the unique qualities of fur. However, some people – in particular those living in cities with limited access to nature – continue to be misled by activist misinformation. It is against this backdrop that the billboard campaign kicks off this September.
In the first wave of the campaign, the OFMF will erect six billboards at border crossings between Ontario and the US, strategically selected for their heavy traffic. (Slow-moving drivers have more time to look!)
The OFMF hopes to generate media interest in telling stories that reflect the truth about trapping, and that this will inspire other trapping associations across Canada to follow suit, turning it into a national campaign. If all goes well, the Fur Institute of Canada – a leader in research on humane traps and an authority on furbearer conservation – will be standing by to provide coordination as needed.
Key Message
There are many positive stories to tell about trapping, but the opening salvo in this campaign will focus on one in particular. The message on the billboards is simple, but hopefully thought-provoking: “In Ontario, trappers work to maintain healthy wildlife populations for today and the future.” The OFMF hopes discussion of this key message will then lead to discussion of related topics like protecting property, habitat, and public health.
Ontario trappers assist in the management of many furbearing species, among them the large populations of beavers and raccoons, and the far scarcer wolverines.
Beavers: There are now believed to be more beavers in Ontario than ever before, but this success story has a downside: the dams of over-populated beavers can flood homes, roads, fields, and forest habitat. Managing beavers is complex, and involves the co-operation of trappers, private landowners and government agencies.
Raccoons: Raccoons are found in most parts of Ontario where the habitat is suitable and winters are shorter. Managers rely on hunters and trappers to keep the numbers at an optimum level, and thereby minimise two particular problems associated with over-populated raccoons: damage to crops, notably corn; and rabies. Both raccoons and foxes carry this deadly disease, and can pass it on not only to humans, but also livestock and pets.
Wolverines: Trappers are often called upon to assist in conservation efforts, such as for wolverines. These solitary carnivores are listed as a threatened species in Ontario, and so cannot be killed or captured. Among the threats wolverines face are degraded or fragmented habitat, and falling prey to wolves and mountain lions. Trappers assist wildlife managers by keeping a close eye on the health of wolverine habitat, and by controlling predators.
Other key talking points the OFMF is keen to discuss are:
Humane traps. Contrary to claims by animal rights activists, tremendous advances have been made in trapping technologies and methods in recent decades, as required under the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS);
Saving taxpayers’ money. Many furbearer populations must be managed whether activists like it or not. By letting trappers keep and sell the furs, the cost to taxpayers of wildlife management is reduced;
Controlling predators of livestock. Trappers are often asked by livestock farmers to control predation by coyotes. Particularly vulnerable are calves and lambs;
Fur is sustainable. Unlike synthetic materials made from fossil fuels, fur is a renewable natural resource. Fur apparel and accessories can be restyled and repaired, and after decades of use can be thrown into the garden compost where they quickly biodegrade.
Three Ontario trappers are on standby to handle media inquiries.
Lauren Tonelli
Lauren Tonelli setting a beaver trap with her Dad.
Lauren Tonelli is a third-generation trapper from Iron Bridge, currently living in Sault Ste Marie. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology and has worked in the environmental/wildlife management field for almost a decade. This August, she took over as the new general manager of the OFMF.
“I am a passionate angler, hunter, and trapper,” says Lauren, “and I want to ensure that the opportunities and experiences I have had are available for generations to come. Teaching the public to understand and appreciate the importance of trappers will go a very long way to securing the traditions of trapping in Ontario for all current and future trappers.”
Robin Horwath
Robin Horwath continues a family tradition of trapping started by two grandfathers.
Robin Horwath hails from Blind River, and continues a family trapping tradition that started with his two grandfathers. From 2010 until this August, he was general manager of the OFMF, and until this June he was also chairman of the Fur Institute of Canada.
“I dream of the day when trappers once again are recognized and valued by the general public as great stewards of the land,” says Robin. “Trapping is a vital tool for managing furbearers to achieve healthy sustainable populations, to protect infrastructure, and control the spread of disease, which is important not just for the animals but also for humans.”
Sporting a fox ruff and raccoon mitts she made herself, Katie Ball loves the whole outdoors life, even ice fishing. Photo: Alyssa Lloyd, Bushwoman Workshops
Katie is a firm believer in explaining to non-trappers why the work of trappers is so important. “I have found that by talking to the public, educating individuals on our regulations, and standing behind our ethical practices, most get a bigger picture and realize that we are not out to destroy animal populations with archaic trapping methods. We are out helping maintain a healthy balance in nature.”
If you would like to see one of the OFMF’s billboards for yourself, they will be up from September 5 to October 14, and come in two formats: traditional, and digital or virtual. Traditional boards will be placed in Sarnia on Nelson Street, and in Sault Ste Marie on Trunk Road. Digital boards will be displayed in Kingston on Gardiners Road heading to Highway 401; Fort Erie on Queen Elizabeth Way, 100 metres from the Peace Bridge; Windsor on Gayeau Street; and Thunder Bay on the corner of Memorial Avenue and Harbour Expressway.
For further information, or to arrange an interview with any of OFMF’s spokespeople, please contact general manager Lauren Tonelli at 705-542-4017 or [email protected].
***
To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.
Fur is a natural, organic material, and like all such materials will quickly disintegrate and biodegrade unless preventive measures… Read More
Fur is a natural, organic material, and like all such materials will quickly disintegrate and biodegrade unless preventive measures are taken. To prolong the life of fur garments, pelts first undergo a special tanning process known as "dressing". This process protects the hair follicles and the fur, while preserving the skin, making it less likely to disintegrate and therefore more durable.
However, even this tanning process cannot prevent deterioration entirely, and the fur pelts will, in time, dry out and become brittle. But when the garment is properly cared for, this could take several decades.
Eventually, however, fur pelts will biodegrade just like any other organic material, and can even be turned into compost for your garden. To demonstrate this, and also to compare the rate of degradation with that of fake fur made from petroleum, Truth About Fur conducted the Great Fur Burial experiment. The results were clear. After one year, the real fur had almost entirely biodegraded, while the fake fur remained intact.
Answer by :
Luigi Cappuccio, fur processor (Montreal, Canada); and Truth About Fur
A troubling new trend among progressive legislators in the US is to virtue signal by proposing to ban the sale… Read More
A troubling new trend among progressive legislators in the US is to virtue signal by proposing to ban the sale of natural fur products. Apart from the question of whether it is appropriate for government to legislate such personal choices, even a quick review of the facts suggests that progressives should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to ban it.
Unfortunately, the sponsors of recent fur-ban proposals in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and several other states have clearly not bothered to do their own research. Instead, they just parrot animal activist inaccuracies and even lies.
Take, for example, a House bill in Rhode Island, H 7483, and a House bill, H.965, and Senate companion, S.623, in Massachusetts. All three bills use the exact same language in claiming that farm-raised mink “endure tremendous suffering”, despite the fact this simply isn't true. North American farmed mink receive excellent nutrition and care, not just because it's the ethical thing to do, but also because it's the only way to produce the high-quality fur for which North America is known. Standards for pen sizes and handling farmed mink are developed by veterinarians, animal scientists, and animal-welfare authorities.
Scaremongering Over Covid
Biosecurity measures on North American mink farms have been extremely effective at limiting outbreaks of Covid-19. Photo: Matt Moses, president, Canada Mink Breeders Association.
Fur-ban supporters are also guilty of scaremongering about the susceptibility of mink to Covid-19, claiming that mink farms are a threat to public health. Strict bio-security measures in place on all North American mink farms are one reason the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can state: "Currently, there is no evidence that mink are playing a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people."
As for the fear that a virus strain that showed up on mink farms in Denmark will lower the efficacy of vaccines, America's top infectious disease official is not too worried. "[A]t first cut, it doesn't look like something that's going to be a really big problem for the vaccines that are currently being used to induce an immune response,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was Chief Medical Advisor under President Trump and has stayed in the role under President Biden.
Bear in mind also that when there are outbreaks of swine flu (H1N1) or avian flu in chickens, we do not ban the sale of pork and poultry – although this is exactly what animal activists call for. Instead, farmers work closely with public officials to resolve the problems, just as US mink farmers have done with Covid-19.
Ignoring Positive Contributions
Wisconsin is America's leading producer of cheese, which is also a great source of protein for mink. Image: Fur Commission USA.
Fur-ban proponents also refuse to acknowledge the many positives of producing and wearing fur.
For example, they ignore the fact that farmed mink, as carnivores, eat by-products from human food-production – the parts of cows, pigs and fish that we don’t eat, expired cheeses, broken eggs – that might otherwise end up in landfills. Manure, soiled straw bedding, and other farm wastes are composted to produce organic fertilizers, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. And mink are raised on family-run farms, providing employment and revenue to support rural communities.
They also fail to mention that half the fur produced in the US is taken from the wild, and from abundant species only. This way they avoid the awkward truth that many of these furbearers are so numerous that they'd have to be culled even if we didn't use their fur. Overpopulated beavers flood homes and roads; raccoons spread rabies and other dangerous diseases; coyotes are the main predators of young calves and lambs, and even pet dogs and cats; and the list goes on. Regulated trapping, as practiced in the US, helps to maintain more stable and healthy wildlife populations by smoothing out boom-and-bust cycles. And if we must cull some of these animals, it is surely more ethical to use their fur than to throw it away.
Finally, it is grossly misleading for fur-ban proponents to claim that alternative materials render the use of natural fur “unjustifiable”. Fake furs – and more than 60% of all our clothing – are synthetics, mostly made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. We now know that each time these synthetics are washed, they leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways that are now turning up in marine life, drinking water, and even breast milk. Cruelty-free indeed!
Natural fur, by contrast, is produced responsibly and sustainably. Each fur garment is cut and sewn individually by artisans maintaining heritage handcraft skills. A well-made mink coat can be worn for 30 or 40 years or more, passed from mother to daughter and granddaughter. Unlike most clothing, a natural fur coat can be taken apart and completely restyled. And after decades of use, it can be thrown into the garden compost where it will biodegrade completely. Using natural fur makes more sense than ever at a time when environmentalists are saying we should buy better-quality clothing and keep it longer.
Scapegoating Artisans
The fur trade is small and artisanal, and a soft target for lazy politicians. Photo: Diane Giroux.
So why do we hear so much anti-fur rhetoric? Despite its “luxury” image, the fur trade – from farmers to trappers to craftspeople -- is a small and artisanal industry that has been unfairly stigmatized and scapegoated. The fur trade is easily sacrificed by politicians bent on winning votes and raising funds, in the knowledge that it simply doesn't have the resources to compete with multi-million-dollar, media-savvy, “animal rights” lobby groups.
No one is obliged to wear natural fur – or, for that matter, wool or leather – or to eat meat or dairy. These are personal choices, and they are rarely black and white. For example, despite the growing popularity of vegetarianism, few of us actually go the whole nine yards, let alone become vegans. Instead, we may opt to become pesco- or ovo-vegetarians, meaning we still eat seafood or eggs. Others choose to buy organic beef, or free-range eggs.
As we navigate these choices, we want more information about the environmental and ethical implications of our decisions. In response, the International Fur Federation is launching FurMark this year to further enhance traceability and transparency about industry standards.
What is not appropriate is for legislators to impose such decisions from on high. Rather, it behooves them to actually meet with the people whose cultures, reputations, and livelihoods they are so blithely and unfairly attacking. Politicians who fancy themselves to be progressive may then find that they should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to arbitrarily ban it.
***
To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.
