The Israeli Government recently announced that permits for the importation, fabrication or sale of fur will no longer be issued, except for religious, scientific, or educational purposes. In short, the fur business will be effectively banned by regulation, by-passing the normal legislative process that was tried -- and failed -- a decade ago. This short-circuiting of due process is justified because banning fur is a moral issue, claims Minister of Environmental Protection Gila Gamliel. "Utilizing the skin and fur of wildlife for the fashion industry is immoral,” she insists. But she's so wrong.

What does it mean to say that using fur – or any other animal product -- is “immoral”? Some of the best research into public attitudes about using animals was done by the Canadian Royal Commission on Seals and Sealing. Based on opinion polling in six Western democracies (the UK, France, Germany, Norway, Canada, and the US), the Commission determined that four criteria must be met for animal use to be considered morally acceptable. Let’s see how the modern fur trade measures up to these four criteria:

1. Sustainability

For animal use to be considered morally acceptable, it must not threaten the survival of the species. So it’s important to know that all the fur used today comes from abundant populations, and never from endangered species.

Eighty percent of fur is produced on farms, so there's no threat to wildlife there.

The remaining 20% -- the wild fur trade -- is strictly regulated in North America by states and provinces, and internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. These laws and regulations ensure we are using only part of the surplus that nature produces each year, because beavers, muskrats, martens, raccoons, and other furbearers produce more young than their habitat can support to adulthood.

The regulated fur trade is, in fact, an excellent example of “the responsible and sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, as promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

2. Animal Welfare

The second criterion for moral acceptability is that the animals we use should suffer as little stress or pain as possible. The modern fur trade takes this responsibility very seriously.

In Canada, mink and fox farmers follow codes of practice developed under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), with veterinarians, animal scientists, and animal-welfare authorities. Other countries have similar production codes, and farmers have every reason to follow them, because the only way to produce high-quality fur is to provide optimal nutrition, housing, and care.

Animal welfare is also a priority in the wild fur trade: Canada has been a world-leader in humane trapping research and innovation since the 1970s. This research, coordinated by the Fur Institute of Canada, has resulted in improved trapping systems, trapper training, and regulations, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.

Activist claims about fur animals being “skinned alive” or otherwise mistreated have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

3. Important Use

A third moral criterion revealed by the Royal Commission is that animals should not be killed for “frivolous purposes”. This argument is at the core of much anti-fur campaigning, and is echoed by Gamliel in her assertion that it is immoral to kill animals “for fashion”.

Gamliel conveniently ignores the fact that animal-rights activists now openly oppose any use of animals, even for food. But to address the point at hand, humans have to wear something, and there is nothing frivolous about our need for long-lasting, eco-responsible clothing.

The fake furs and other synthetics promoted by animal activists are usually made from petroleum, a polluting, greenhouse gas-producing, non-renewable and non-biodegradable material. We now also know that these synthetics (which represent 80% of our clothing) leach nano-particles of plastic into our waterways each time they are washed, plastics that are now being found in the digestive tracts of marine life and even our drinking water. Cruelty-free indeed!

Fur, by contrast, is a long-lasting, renewable, recyclable, and ultimately biodegradable natural clothing material. So wearing fur is not so frivolous after all, especially at a time when we are trying to develop more sustainable lifestyles.

4. Complete Use

The fourth criterion for moral acceptability is that when an animal is killed to benefit humans, there should be no waste. This is why most people - animal-rightists excepted - consider it morally acceptable to use leather, because it’s the envelope that dinner came in. We ate the meat, so why not wear the skin?

All too often, however, people fail to understand that fur also respects this "no waste" principle.

In fact, farmed mink and fox help to reduce waste in our food production system, by consuming the parts of cows, chickens, pigs, and fish that humans don't eat. Furthermore, the manure, soiled straw bedding, and carcasses of farmed mink and fox are composted to produce organic fertilizer, returning nutrients to the soil and completing the agricultural cycle.

Meanwhile, beavers, muskrats and other wild furbearers provide food for trappers and their families, or are returned to the bush to feed other animals through the long, cold winter. Nothing is wasted.

Inconvenient Facts

If Minister Gamliel were to honestly apply the criteria above, she would have to acknowledge that the modern, well-regulated fur trade is as morally responsible as other commonly accepted uses of animals in our society, for food, clothing and other purposes.

And there are other serious problems with her "immorality" argument.

In North America (and other regions) where wild furbearers actually abound, populations have to be managed whether we use the fur or not. Overpopulated beavers flood farmland, roads, and homes; raccoons and foxes become more susceptible to rabies and other dangerous diseases; coyotes prey on livestock and are now taking pets in urban areas; and the list goes on. But if some of these animals must be culled to protect property and health, is it "immoral" to use their furs? Quite the opposite, in fact. The immoral deed would be to throw those furs away.

Meanwhile, Gamliel faces some moral dilemmas on her own doorstep, because her proposed ban would exempt furs used for “religious  purposes”. Obviously her intent here is to neutralize opposition from ultra-orthodox coalition partners, whose haredi men wear large fur hats, or shtreimels, on the Sabbath and other Holy Days. But these hats don't reflect any true religious practice; actually, they are rooted in 17th-century Eastern European fashion. Gamliel's exemption is driven solely by political expediency. So much for moral imperatives!

Then there's the inconvenient fact that the sacred Torah – the very heart of Judaism – is written on parchment, which is an animal pelt with the hair scraped off. Similarly, the prayers scrolled inside the mezuzot that grace every door of a Jewish house are also written on animal hides.

But what of the Jewish doctrine of bal tashchit – “do not destroy”, which is often cited by animal activists in Israel? In fact, bal tashchit is derived from a commandment in the Torah to not destroy fruit trees outside the walls of a city under siege. It is a recognition that people will need food, no matter who wins, and is one of the world’s first written environmental protection laws. It promotes responsible use and sustainability. But it certainly does not command us to abstain from using animals to meet human needs.

The Politics of Morality

In light of all the above, it is clear that Gamliel's proposal to ban fur has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is just politically expedient virtue-signalling to curry favour with Israel's strong animal-rights lobby, while the financial cost is born by farmers and trappers half a world away.

Apart from streimmels, there is little fur trading in Israel, which is why international animal-rights groups have identified it as an easy target, a thin edge of the wedge. But if one country should understand the dangers of embracing calls for scapegoating and ostracizing the fur trade, it is Israel, which itself is targeted by the militant Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) on university campuses around the world – often the same people who campaign against the fur trade!

No one is obliged to wear fur – or leather or wool, or to eat meat or dairy. Everyone is entitled to draw their own line concerning the appropriate use of animals, so long as sustainability and animal welfare concerns are respected. What cannot be justified in a modern democracy are political bans aimed at imposing one group's views on everyone else.

When a ban on fur trading was last proposed in Israel, ten years ago, I testified before a Knesset committee hearing on behalf of the International Fur Federation. I reminded the committee members that animal-rights activists also campaign against kosher slaughter in many European countries, in concert with anti-semitic hate groups. I also reminded them that Jews -- including my own family -- have played a prominent role in the international fur trade, and that anti-fur campaigns have sometimes included anti-semitic innuendos.

The turning point in the committee meeting, however, came when the chairman read from a letter received that morning from then Canadian Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan. Van Loan reminded the committee that Canada has always been a loyal friend and ally of Israel, and that the regulated fur trade supports the livelihoods and cultures of thousands of First Nations and other Canadians, especially in rural and remote regions. The governments of Denmark, Greece, the US, and the EU also expressed concern at a proposal that would scapegoat a responsibly regulated and sustainable industry. Suddenly, there was a political cost to banning fur. The proposal was quietly dropped.

This time around, Gamliel hopes to side-step the legislative process and ban fur trading with a simple regulatory change, a much quicker procedure. It is important that people who support the fur trade and consumer freedom again call on their own governments to intervene, to put some balance into this discussion. (See, below)

Let me conclude with a last word about shtreimels. While there’s no theological basis to the tradition of donning these splendid sable-trimmed hats, haredi men often say that the beauty and craftsmanship of a shtreimel show respect both for the Sabbath and for the animals that were used to make it. Fur apparel is, in fact, a marriage of the beauty of nature with human creativity. Wearing fur should remind all of us of our dependence on nature, and of our responsibility to protect it. If we wear fur with this consciousness, it becomes a moral act. The Israeli Minister’s cynical proposal to ban fur most certainly is not.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

It is unclear how quickly the regulatory change proposed to ban most fur trading in Israel can be implemented, but it is likely that only international diplomatic pressure can stop it. Ask your government to express concern about this arbitrary and anti-ecological ban. The following links may help.

CANADA
Embassy of Canada in Israel
Embassy of Israel in Canada
Find your Canadian Member of Parliament
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau email: [email protected]
Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois-Philippe.Champagne email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Embassy of the US in Israel
Embassy of Israel in the US
Office of the US Trade Representative

***

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

This opinion piece by Truth About Fur's Alan Herscovici was published in the Vancouver Sun on July 22, 2020, under the headline: "BC mink farms are family owned and operated and these farmers respect animal welfare." Note: On August 17, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food announced the first confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 on mink farms in North America.)

---

In a July 13 column, Lesley Fox, executive director of The Furbearers, and infectious disease doctors Jan Hajek and Robert Reynolds played on concerns about COVID-19 to call for an end to mink farming in B.C.

To justify their proposal, the authors cited a recent Dutch government decision to close farms after a number of mink contracted the virus from infected workers, but they omit to mention that a politically motivated ban on mink farming was already coming into force in that country. The reaction of other European governments - including Denmark, the EU’s most important producer of farmed mink - was to enhance monitoring and established farm biosecurity measures.

In fact, antibodies for COVID-19 were also found in several farm cats in Holland. It’s known that cats, hamsters and other animals are also susceptible to COVID-19, and Dutch researchers believe the virus may have been spread between farms by feral cats. Interestingly, Fox doesn’t propose banning cats in B.C. 

The authors of the recent column acknowledge that “secluded mink farms are unlikely to be a major source of community spread.” This is true: in Holland, as a precaution, air and dust samples were collected in the vicinity of affected farms but no sign of the virus was found. The fact that mink are raised “behind closed doors” is reason for reassurance, not concern.

Claims that mink are 'hidden from public and government scrutiny' are simply not true.

Nonetheless, Fox et al. stoke fears that raising animals in an enclosed space might provide “favourable conditions for viruses to evolve towards more virulent forms.” This argument could apply to any animal husbandry, and vegan activists have already jumped on this bandwagon to call for an end to meat and dairy production. This ignores the fact that animal scientists have gained considerable knowledge about the relatively small number of species we raise on farms. Of much greater concern are pathogens spread by wild species - think mosquitoes - which are becoming especially unpredictable because of climate change.

Similarly, claims that mink are "hidden from public and government scrutiny" are simply not true. B.C. mink farms are licensed annually and inspected every two years (sometimes more often) by the Ministry of Agriculture’s compliance, operations and data officers. These officials report directly to the province’s chief veterinary officer.

Mink Farms Not "Factory Farms"

Like most animal agriculture in Canada, B.C. mink farmers follow codes of practice developed under the auspices of the National Farm Animal Care Council, with veterinarians, animal scientists and animal-welfare authorities.

B.C. mink farms are inspected by licensed vets and third-party auditors, and certified to ensure that the codes are respected. Farmers who don’t provide proper care for their animals can be prosecuted under the Criminal Code.

More to the point, mink farmers have every reason to provide excellent care for their animals, because this is the only way to produce the high-quality mink that Canada is known for.

Far from being “industrial” or “factory farms,” B.C. mink farms are family owned and operated. They provide employment and support rural communities. Claims that these hardworking B.C. farm families would mistreat animals or keep mink in unsafe or “miserable conditions” are unjustified and insulting.

Instead of slandering B.C. mink farms, we should recognize their contributions to rural economies and environmental sustainability. Mink are fed leftovers from our own food production: the parts of pigs, cows, chickens and fish that we don’t eat and might otherwise end up in landfills.

SEE ALSO: The sustainability of fur. Truth About Fur.

Unlike today’s “fast fashion,” fur apparel can be restyled and passed down through generations. After 40 or more years of use, fur can be thrown into the garden compost and it returns to the soil.

By contrast, the synthetic alternatives proposed by animal activists are usually made from petrochemicals, a non-renewable resource. Such synthetics leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways each time they’re washed - micro-particles that are now being found in marine life. Cruelty-free indeed!

Of course, no one is obliged to wear fur or leather, or to eat meat or dairy. But that doesn’t give animal activists the right to insult the moral integrity of B.C. farmers, let alone impose their beliefs on others with political bans.

Mink farming is a part of B.C.’s agricultural heritage, but it also has an important place in our future. As we seek to reduce waste, environmentalists say we should buy better quality clothing and keep it longer -- making fur an ideal choice.

SEE ALSO: COVID-19 and Animals, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, updated June 22, 2020. "Based on the limited information available to date, the risk of animals spreading COVID-19 to people is considered to be low."

***

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

If you are looking for a designer who incarnates the Canadian fur trade’s rich cultural mosaic, D’Arcy Moses is an obvious choice.

Adopted at birth, D'Arcy was raised by a non-native farming family in Camrose, Alberta. “They were really good, hard-working people who adopted five children after raising four of their own!” he recalls. Then after he left home, he set out to connect with his aboriginal roots.

While his mixed background sometimes left him feeling uncomfortable ("like an apple, red on the outside, white inside"), in Vancouver he met Leonard George, chief of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, who assured him he could have the best of both worlds. “He told me, ‘You have the First Nations culture and you have the non-aboriginal culture. You can utilize that, because you can mix between cultures at ease.’”

D’Arcy’s chance to apply his complex heritage to creating innovative clothing designs came when he was offered a place in the Toronto Fashion Incubator. The fashion world took notice: in 1991, he was selected as one of ten emerging young designers featured at the Toronto Festival of Fashion. Then he was invited to Montreal by the Fur Council of Canada, where he began working with one of the country’s most important luxury apparel manufacturers, Natural Furs.

The unique, aboriginally-inspired collections D’Arcy developed while working with Natural Furs were sold to Holt Renfrew in Toronto, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue in New York, as well as to many independent high-end retailers across Europe, Russia, and Asia. His work is also owned by private collectors in many countries, and a retrospective collection of his work was recently purchased by the Government of the Northwest Territories for its permanent collection of regional Indigenous arts and crafts.

Going Home at Last

The big-time fashion world recognition was encouraging, but in 1996, D’Arcy received a call from the Pehdzeh Ki First Nation, in Wrigley, NWT. People there had seen a CBC documentary about him and recognized his name; Moses is a common family name in this northern First Nations community, and they had been looking for him.

After several visits, D’Arcy left the glamour, hectic pace, and controversy of international fur fashion to settle in the home he had never known.

His business experience landed him a job as a senior government official, helping his community to navigate the intricacies of bureaucracy and to secure funding for important economic and social development projects. But sewing and designing were never far from his mind.

His Own Workshop

Twelve years with the government provided the nest egg D’Arcy needed to finance his latest project: a workshop in Enterprise, NWT, a community even smaller and more remote than Wrigley, about 100 kilometres north of the Alberta border. “I needed somewhere I wouldn’t be distracted from my design work,” he says.

And the work has been abundant and diverse. In January, D’Arcy participated in a residency at the Banff Centre for the Arts & Creativity, producing a new collection, and he will return to Banff to lead a workshop for indigenous design students from around the world. "We will be using traditional techniques to re-purpose fur, leather and other natural materials,” he says.

D’Arcy's designs – including fur-trimmed pieces – are also featured in a two-year exhibition at the Buffalo Luxton Museum, in Banff.

He also runs workshops in Yellowknife, sponsored by the NWT Government, for traditional harvesters and craftspeople, where they use fur and leather to make everything from trappers’ hats to iPad cases. “Some of the hand-stitched leather these men and women can do is seen only in the top fashion houses of Europe - no one else can do this beautiful work, it’s a great privilege to work with them,” D’Arcy says.

Committed to Natural Materials

In his studio in Enterprise, where we reached him by phone, D’Arcy is now also experimenting with digitally-controlled bead work, which would allow Dene First Nations designs to be produced at more affordable prices. But above all, D’Arcy remains committed to using natural materials, including fur.

“Many people in my community still hunt and trap, and their attachment to the land is very strong. But natural materials like fur are also important at a time when people are increasingly concerned about protecting our natural environment. So-called `fast fashion’ is killing the Earth. That $20 synthetic blouse or jeans may seem cheap, but 10 grams of micro-plastics are leached into our waterways every time they are washed," explains D'Arcy.

“Progressives who want to ban fur need to look at the whole ecosystem, the broader impact of industries, not just the individual animal.  When we look at the whole picture, from sourcing to use and maintenance, through to disposal, it is clear that we should be using responsibly and sustainably sourced natural materials – including wool, leather, fur. The First Nations understood that we are part of nature and that we have an obligation to use resources with respect. I hope that my designs, marrying traditional and modern themes, can help people remember these important lessons.”

SEE ALSO: D'arcy Moses' big bet. Up Here, October 2015.

***

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

Many trappers and others in the trade were caught by surprise when luxury outerwear maker Canada Goose announced on April 22 – Earth Day – that the hood ruffs on its iconic parkas would be made with “reclaimed fur”, beginning in 2022. Some were concerned that the company was giving in to activist pressure and that the sourcing shift was the first step towards dropping fur completely - which the company has denied. To find out what was really behind this decision by Canada Goose, we sat down (virtually!) with Gavin Thompson, Vice-President for Corporate Citizenship.

TruthAboutFur: Thank you for taking the time to answer some of the questions people in the fur trade are asking about your recent announcement. To begin, could you tell us what Canada Goose means by “reclaimed fur”?

Gavin Thompson: “Reclaimed fur” is what people in the trade have long called recycled or vintage fur.  A number of creative young designers have sourced fur this way and, of course, furriers often remodel coats for their customers. The concept is the same: reusing fur that’s already in the system. Over the many years we have worked with the industry we have come to understand that there are considerable quantities of unused fur in the supply chain. We think we have an opportunity now to use that fur. This is very much in line with current efforts to reduce waste in all areas of the apparel industry.

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing. Truth About Fur.

TaF: Why has Canada Goose decided to announce this shift now?

Thompson: On April 22, which as you know is Earth Day, we presented our new corporate Sustainable Impact Strategy. Among our objectives, Canada Goose has committed to working to become carbon-neutral by 2025. As we developed this strategy we examined every aspect of our production and distribution chain. In the case of fur, we know that wild fur is produced sustainably and we are proud of our involvement with the North American fur industry. Fur has always been very much part of our product and corporate identity, and that won’t change. Now, with reclaimed fur we believe we can make our use of this sustainably-produced, natural material even more sustainable.

TaF: Where will you source this reclaimed fur?

Thompson: We believe there are a number of potential sources, and we hope to work closely with the fur industry as we roll this out. First, we are planning a consumer buy-back program. Some people live in warmer climates and may not need a fur ruff for protection from the elements; we will offer to buy these back. A second source is our warranty program. When there’s a problem with a Canada Goose coat, we repair or replace it; if the fur on coats we’ve taken back is in good condition, we will reuse it. The third and potentially most important source – and this is where we hope to work closely with the industry – is to identify unused furs in other parts of the supply chain, for example in the workshops or storage vaults of North American fur manufacturers and retailers. We will be exploring all these sources.

TaF: Do you think you may look beyond coyote to other longhair furs, like beaver or raccoon?

Thompson: I think it’s too early to say yet whether we might use other fur types; we’ll be exploring all options. But what’s certain is that any fur we use must have the quality, performance, look, and feel that consumers expect from Canada Goose. Performance has been the guiding principle for our outerwear products from the beginning.

If we were responding to activist groups, we would stop using fur completely. Down too, for that matter. We’re not doing that.

TaF: We know that Canada Goose has been subjected to intense pressure campaigns by animal activists. Some people wonder whether activist pressure is what’s really driving this shift to reclaimed fur. Is it?

Thompson: Absolutely not. If we were responding to activist groups, we would stop using fur completely. Down too, for that matter. We’re not doing that. Our commitment to using high quality, natural materials is what Canada Goose is all about. The motivation here is to further enhance sustainability. The fact that fur is long-lasting and can be restyled is an important aspect of its sustainability.

TaF: So Canada Goose is not abandoning the fur trade?

Thompson: Absolutely not! If anything, we hope to work more closely with more sectors of the fur industry. We will need to work with the industry as we develop new supply chains for reclaimed fur. Our commitment to using fur is unwavering.

TaF: Has Canada Goose ever been tempted to use synthetics for hood ruffs?

Thompson: Again, function is our first criterion when selecting which materials we use, and we have found fur to be superior to any synthetic materials for parka ruffs in our collections.

SEE ALSO: 5 reasons why PETA won't make me ditch my Canada Goose. Truth About Fur.

"Made in Canada"

TaF: You often mention function and performance. These concepts have deep roots in the company’s history, don’t they?

Thompson: For sure. The company was created by Sam Tick, who arrived in Canada in the 1950s. He launched Metro Sportswear Ltd., in Toronto, in 1957, specializing in protection from the elements: woolen vests, raincoats and snowmobile suits.

David Reiss, Sam’s son-in-law, joined the company in the 1970s and launched a new era with the invention of a volume-based down filling machine. It was David who established the Snow Goose label, which later became Canada Goose. His "Expedition Parka" was developed for scientists at Antarctica’s McMurdo Station and became standard issue.

In 1982, Laurie Skreslet became the first Canadian to summit Mt. Everest, wearing a custom parka designed and manufactured by Metro Sportswear.

In 1997, Dani Reiss, David’s son and Sam’s grandson, joined the company. It was Dani, who became President and CEO in 2001, who guided Canada Goose to become the global phenomenon we see today, while resisting pressures to manufacture off-shore and renewing his family’s pledge to remain “Made in Canada.” We are now one of the country’s largest apparel makers with eight manufacturing facilities across Canada: three in Winnipeg, three in the Greater Toronto Area, and two in Quebec - Montreal and Boisbriand.

Giving Back to the North

TaF: And the company has maintained strong relations with the North, hasn’t it?

Thompson: Our company was inspired by the North and its people, and we try to give something back. In 2009, for example, we established the Canada Goose Resource Centres in the Canadian Arctic. These centres provide free fabrics, buttons, zippers and other materials for Inuit sewers who hand-make jackets and clothing for their families and communities. We also launched Project Atigi in 2019 to showcase Inuit designers internationally. In fact, our new reclaimed fur program was inspired by seeing how Inuit designers reuse fur.

TaF: So how do you see the future for fur?

Thompson: We think there’s a long and bright future for fur, because it is such a good example of the sustainability values that more and more people are seeking to support with their lifestyle and purchasing choices.

TaF: Do you have any advice about what the fur trade could be doing better?

Thompson: The fur trade has so many talented people with wonderful stories, I think we should talk more about them. We should also promote the practicality and incomparable performance values of natural materials like fur. And we should explain the sustainability of fur, because – once we cut through the noise that animal activists have created – that’s what many people are now really looking for.

TaF: Any final thoughts?

Thompson: The North American fur trade has a wonderful story to tell, and we look forward to working with the industry as we embark on this new chapter!

***

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

As the oldest trappers’ organization in Canada, the British Columbia Trappers Association marks its 75th anniversary this year, but celebrations will be muted thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic. TruthAboutFur visited with BCTA president Tim Killey to learn about all the exciting events that were planned but sadly now have been postponed.

TruthAboutFur: So Tim, the British Columbia Trappers Association was preparing for some special celebrations on the west coast this year, but the coronavirus has put a stop to all that. It must be terribly frustrating, but can you at least tell us about some of what was planned, and what may yet happen?

Tim Killey: Yes, the BCTA wanted to celebrate its 75th anniversary at our annual meeting in Kamloops, April 24-26, and we were certainly planning to have some fun!

You know, Kamloops was an original Hudson’s Bay Company trading post, so we were asking people to imagine they were coming to a Rendez-Vous, when trappers would gather at the fort to sell their furs. We were hoping that many would dress in old-time clothing and really play the part. We also planned to launch our Hall of Fame to recognize some of the heroes of our industry, and the contributions they have made.

TaF: Tell us about some of those people.

Killey: Well, we want to recognize people like Wayne Sharp, one of our oldest members, who ran the Prince George fur depot for many years. There was a time when it was said that if a piece of fur came out of BC, it probably went through Wayne’s hands.

TaF: People like that must have some great stories to tell.

Killey: Oh yes, like many old timers, Wayne is a great story teller, and we were looking forward to hearing some of his adventures during our “Campfire Tales” sessions. They were also going to be part of a live podcast by our special guests Rich and Sandi Mellon, hosts of Wild TV’s hit series Trapping Inc.

TaF: I believe you also planned to use the Rendez-Vous to highlight some of the contributions trappers make to conservation.

Killey: Yes, we would like people to know about success stories like how wolverine and fisher from BC were live-captured and reintroduced into Washington State. Or how we work to encourage forestry practices that better protect wildlife habitat – like not spraying to kill deciduous growth in pine plantations. We also want to talk about our BC Trappers Training Program, which we think is one of the best on the continent. Our program now includes three full 8-hour days where trappers learn about wildlife management, regulations and modern trapping methods, as well as the best fur-handling techniques, to ensure that the resource is well used.

We feel it’s important to encourage young people to get away from their laptops and cellphones for a while, and learn the skills they need to get out into nature.

TaF: And I hear you wanted to make this a real family event.

Killey: That’s right. We have a strong Youth Program, and the Rendez-Vous was to be free for kids up to 14 years old. We planned a special muskrat skinning competition for young people this year, as well as an organized visit to a wildlife park. And workshops on bush survival skills, leather and bead work, and even a session where they would build a bird house. We feel it’s important to encourage young people to get away from their laptops and cellphones for a while, and learn the skills they need to get out into nature.

TaF: Trapper conventions are also a good opportunity to share scientific information with biologists, aren’t they?

Killey: For sure. We’d planned several presentations from government biologists and veterinarians, for example about identifying wildlife diseases, and reports on new studies about key species. And, of course, this relationship works both ways, because trappers assist in providing samples or observational data for the research biologists.

TaF: It must also help to have good relations with your political leaders.

Killey: Yes, we’re lucky to have some politicians who understand and appreciate our industry. One of our speakers was to be Mike Morris, who is an MLA, an elected member of the provincial Legislative Assembly, and a trapper himself. We also have excellent relations with our wildlife department. We worked with them, for example, to develop signage we can use to warn the public to keep dogs on leashes during trapping season.

TaF: And what about you, Tim? How did you get involved in trapping?

Killey: That’s interesting, because although I have hunted since I was young, I’ve only been trapping for 12 years. My wife’s dad was a trapper and he’s the one who brought me out onto the trapline. I took to it with a passion, became an instructor, and then a board member of the association, and now president. I guess I don’t know how to say no, but like for so many of us, trapping is really a passion for me.

TaF: And how do you see the future for trapping?

Killey: Despite the current low prices for most species, there are definitely some positive signs. For one thing, lately we’ve been seeing a definite uptick in the number of young people taking our trapper education courses. I think it may be the reality TV shows that have attracted new people, including more women.

On the downside, our biggest concern right now, of course - like for everyone else - is Covid-19. We’d hoped the crisis would die down by the end of April so we wouldn’t have to postpone our meeting in Kamloops, but it's now clear that's not going to happen. Whatever happens, though, we’re planning a special collectors’ edition of our magazine for October, to celebrate the history of BC trappers. We’ll highlight past presidents, and we’re inviting everyone to contribute their memories and stories.

***

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

North America is the world leader in science-based research to develop the most humane trapping systems possible. To understand more about this important work we interviewed Pierre Canac-Marquis, a retired Government of Quebec wildlife biologist who serves as Coordinator for the Canadian Trap Research Program, under the auspices of the Fur Institute of Canada.

TruthAboutFur:  Hello Pierre. Can you tell our readers about the Canadian Trap Research Program?

Pierre Canac-Marquis: The Canadian Trap Research Program is the only program of its kind in the world. The science-based standards we have developed are the world reference for evaluating trapping systems from an animal-welfare perspective. The most important part of our mandate now is to test and certify traps for compliance with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.

TaF: Who runs this program?

Canac-Marquis: The trap research program is funded and directed by Environment Canada and the provincial and territorial wildlife services. The Fur Institute of Canada has been mandated by government to run the program.

TaF: How did the program begin? I think there’s quite a history here.

Canac-Marquis: This work actually began more than 40 years ago with the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping, that ran from 1974 to 1981. The project was driven by animal-welfare advocates, including the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and visionaries like Neal Jotham. The report of the committee, in 1981, led to the creation of the Fur Institute of Canada, with a mandate from government to develop scientific criteria for testing and certifying animal traps from an animal-welfare perspective.

TaF: And while many of our readers are interested in the fur trade, I understand that this research goes far beyond trapping for fur.

Canac-Marquis: Absolutely, because trapping is used around the world for all sorts of purposes. Biologists live-trap and radio-collar furbearers for research, or for reintroduction into areas where they were formerly extirpated. And furbearer populations must often be managed to protect natural habitat, property, endangered species, or public health and safety. As examples, beaver populations must be controlled to prevent the flooding of roads, fields and homes. Over-populated raccoons or foxes spread rabies and other diseases. Coyotes are the main predators of young and calves of endangered caribou populations. Our work is to develop or certify trapping systems to assure that capture of these animals is done as humanely as possible, whatever the reason.

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

TaF: How does your work relate to the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS)?

Canac-Marquis: Firstly, the work of the Canadian trap-research program provided the science-based methodologies that underpin the AIHTS. Secondly, since 1996, much of our work has been to test and certify traps for compliance with the AIHTS.  In all, since 1985, more than 450 quick-killing traps have been evaluated, with 189 being certified. As well, some 180 restraining (live-holding) traps have been tested, with 65 being certified. As these stats show, the research and testing program has permitted us to reject many trap designs that might have looked good on paper or in prototype, but did not sufficiently protect animal welfare. No one had ever done this before.

TaF: How is this research and testing conducted?

Canac-Marquis: Most of our trap-testing technology has been developed at the laboratories of Innotech Alberta, a provincial government research agency in Vegreville. One of the most exciting achievements has been the development of computer technology to minimise the need for animals in our testing. Computer simulation models now allow us to evaluate and either reject or certify effective quick-killing traps. Similarly, we can now evaluate mechanical properties to know whether restraining traps have the capacity to hold animals without injuries. It is also important that all our work is done with the close involvement of veterinarians and veterinary pathologists.

TaF: And how has this research been translated into practice in the field?

Canac-Marquis: Thanks to this research we’ve seen important changes in trapping systems that have dramatically improved animal welfare. The program has provided a strong incentive for innovation in trap technology, trapping regulations, and trapper training. We are proud to be able to say that all traps used in Canada have now been, or will shortly be, tested and certified as conforming with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. AIHTS standards are also cited by the Canadian Animal Care Council guidelines for researchers capturing wild vertebrates.

TaF: What do you see as the most important achievement of the Canadian Trap Research Program?

Canac-Marquis: I think that our most important achievement is that, after so many years of talking and debating about humane trapping, we have established objective, science-based criteria to ensure that animal welfare is respected to the fullest extent of our technological ability - whatever the reason trapping is practiced. The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards is the first - and still the only - convention to establish international animal-welfare standards for animals captured by means of trapping systems. We can be very proud of that.

***

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

The following essay appeared recently in the Toronto Star (Canada’s largest circulation newspaper), as the pro-fur side of a debate on whether banning the sale of fur apparel and accessories is justifiable.

If we look at facts, those of us who care about the environment, ethical lifestyles, and social justice should promote natural fur, not seek to ban it. Let's review some of the reasons why wearing fur makes sense for anyone wishing to embrace a sustainable and responsible way of living.

Fur today is produced responsibly and sustainably. Only abundant furs are used, never endangered species. This is assured by provincial/state, federal and international regulations.

In the wild, most species produce more offspring than their habitat can support to maturity. Animals that don’t make it feed others, and we too can use part of this natural surplus. This is an excellent example of  “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, a cornerstone of the World Conservation Strategy.

There is little waste. Many fur animals – especially beavers and muskrats -- provide food for trappers and their families. Others are returned to the woods to feed birds, mice, and other animals. And because fur is “prime” in late Fall/Winter when the young of the year are already autonomous, activist claims that coyotes or other animals leave behind “starving pups” are nonsense.

Many furbearers would be culled even if we didn’t use fur. Overpopulated beavers flood property. Coyotes are top predators of lambs, calves and, increasingly, pets. Raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other diseases ... the list goes on. But if we must cull some of these animals to maintain a balance, surely it is more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away?

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

Trappers take animal-welfare responsibilities very seriously: Canada is the world leader in humane trapping research, and traps are certified to conform with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Trapping is also strictly regulated in the US, under state “Best Practices” provisions.

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

Fur farmers – producing more than half the fur in North America -- follow codes of practice to ensure their animals receive excellent nutrition and care. Farms are certified to confirm that codes are followed, and farmers may be charged for animal cruelty if they are not. In any case, providing proper care is the only way to produce high-quality fur.

SEE ALSO: Calling PETA: US fur farming is strictly regulated.

Farmed mink recycle left-overs from our own food production – parts of cows, chickens and fish that we don’t eat and might otherwise clog landfills. Manure, straw bedding, and other farm wastes are composted to produce high-quality organic fertilizer, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

In contrast to mass-produced “fast fashion”, each fur garment or accessory is crafted individually by artisans, maintaining skills passed from father to son or daughter. Furs are preserved (“dressed”) using alum salts, lanolin, and other benign chemicals; the activist claim that “a World Bank report cited fur dressing as polluting” is simply not true. Furthermore, furs come in a wide range of natural colours, minimizing the need for dyes.

Fur is long-lasting, recyclable, and after decades of service can be thrown into the garden compost. Compare that with fake fur and other synthetics: generally made from petrochemicals, they are not biodegradable and leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways when washed -- plastics that are now being found in marine life. Cruelty-free indeed!

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

Fur, however, is the activists’ designated scapegoat. Perhaps because fur is often associated with glamour and wealth? But most fur producers are not wealthy or glamorous. The ugly lies parroted by anti-fur activists are all the more odious because they attack the integrity and livelihoods of hard-working farm families; of First Nations and other trappers who are among the last people maintaining our North American land-based heritage; and of artisans producing warm and durable clothing with responsibly produced natural materials.

There is little public discussion of how insulting and hurtful activist lies are for the people involved. Living far from media centres, their voices are rarely heard. TruthAboutFur.com was created to help bridge that gap.

No one is obliged to wear fur, but each of us should have the right to make this decision for ourselves. Especially because animal activists now oppose any use of animals. The same misleading and insulting arguments and tactics used against fur are now being mustered against wearing leather, silk and wool; against eating meat or dairy products. Shall all these products be banned as well?

Each of us can decide where we draw the line, these are personal choices. But if you believe it’s ethical to use animal products that are produced responsibly and sustainably, you can wear fur with pride.

***

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

For the past four years, the small but dedicated team at TruthAboutFur has worked to tell the true story of our remarkable North American fur trade, while exposing the lies of animal-rights extremists.

We’ve made impressive progress.  According to the traffic monitoring service Alexa.com, TruthAboutFur is, by far, the strongest on-line voice of the fur industry … world-wide! As of February 9, 2020, Alexa ranked TruthAboutFur at 254,839 in terms of global Internet traffic. No other fur industry site ranked higher than 1,000,000.

Unfortunately, our ability to continue fighting is now seriously threatened. Market conditions and political battles in the US have slashed the industry funding that supported TruthAboutFur.

If you think the work of TruthAboutFur is important, we need your help now!

For the first time, we have added a “Donate” button to our website, blog, and Facebook page. Pressing that button can help TruthAboutFur continue its important work. Or if you prefer to donate by cheque, click here for information.

Your help can make a real difference. If every one of our 70,000 Facebook followers donates just $2, or 10% of them donate $20, we can maintain TruthAboutFur.com for the coming year.

Our budgetary needs are astoundingly small for so powerful a platform, and clearly no one is getting rich from this work! We can do it only because everyone in our little team is passionate about defending our industry.

But we can’t do it alone. The International Fur Federation helped us get this far, but now we need your help to continue fighting.

Thousands Finding Accurate Info - Every Day

Here’s a snapshot of what we have achieved so far:

• TruthAboutFur.com now attracts between 30,000 and 50,000 visitors a month. That’s more than 1,000 people finding accurate pro-fur information each and every day!

• Fully one-half of our visitors are from the US, which matters because this is where the battle over the future of fur is the fiercest. About one-quarter are from Canada, and another quarter are from around the world, mainly Europe.

• Our audience is 50/50 male and female, so we're reaching both genders -- and we are speaking to young people, with the largest segments being between 18 and 45 years old. This is important because it is among millennials and the younger Generation Z that the battle of ideas is being fought the hardest.

• TruthAboutFur is increasingly used by journalists, political researchers and others to get the industry’s side of the fur story.

We’ve achieved a lot, but we can’t stop now. With militant activists pressuring designer brands, retailers and politicians, we are engaged in a ruthless war for the fur industry’s very survival.

It’s time to stand up for our remarkable heritage industry – for the thousands of hard-working men and women who maintain the special skills and knowledge of the fur trade.

Animal extremists would like nothing better than to see TruthAboutFur fall silent, so please take a moment to press the Donate button. Help us to keep working for you!

Those who follow this blog know that I have written often about why banning fur sales – as California did recently -  is a really bad idea. I have repeatedly argued that banning fur makes no sense economically, socially, ecologically, or ethically.  After more than 30 years of writing about fur, you wouldn’t think there was much to add. Then I read a remarkable new book about rare-earth elements and the dark underbelly of our much-vaunted “green transition”.

In his French-language book La Guerre des Métaux Rares* ("The Rare Metals War"), journalist Guillaume Pitron reveals the hidden face of our society’s emerging energetic and digital transformation. How is this related to fur? Well, I think it’s fair to say that the current trendiness of anti-fur rhetoric is part of a much broader rejection of all things "messy". That includes raising and killing animals, cutting trees, digging stuff out of the earth, and burning fossil fuels. Stuff produced by rural working people with calloused hands and dirt under their fingernails.

The cool kids now feel much more comfortable with the clean slickness of computer screens and iPhones, and with lightweight, throwaway fashions. Yes, these pretty things usually involve petroleum in the making of many of their parts, but they don’t look it, so why spoil a good story?

As for the energy to power our fast-paced society, its bye-bye to dirty coal-burning power-plants and smelly combustion engines; hello shiny new solar panels and whooshing wind turbines. And this is only the beginning. New digital “smart” technology will soon direct “clean” energy when and where we need it, eliminating waste, creating wealth, and improving human health. The future looks bright!

Goodbye Coal, Hello Rare Earths

Not so fast, warns Pitron. All our slick new “green” technology relies on a group of some 30 rare metals with exotic names like vanadium, cerium, gallium, and lutetium. While the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century was powered by coal, to fire steam engines, and the 20th century by petroleum, to fuel internal combustion engines, the 21st century’s “green transition” in fact depends upon vanadium, germanium, platinoids, tungsten, antimony, beryllium, rhonium, and niobium. These rare metals have extraordinary magnetic, conductive, and other properties that lie at the heart of our current digital and renewable energy revolution.

These metals are indeed rare compared to iron, copper, nickel and other metals that supported our society until now. Only 600 tonnes of gallium are produced per year compared with 15 million tonnes of copper. And only 160,000 tonnes of rare-earth elements are produced annually, compared with about 2 billion tonnes of iron.

Not only do rare metals occur in very small quantities, but considerable refining is required to extract them: eight tonnes of ore must be crushed to extract one kilogram of vanadium; 16 tonnes to produce one kilo of cerium; 50 tonnes for a single kilo of gallium ... and 1,200 tonnes of ore for one kilo of lutetium.

To put it another way, only 0.8 milligrams of lutetium can be extracted from one kilogram of ore.

And there’s the rub. To extract these remarkable minerals from their ores, huge quantities of rock must be crushed and then dissolved with strong chemicals, including sulphuric and nitric acids. And because rare-earth elements are usually closely fused with other materials, these highly-toxic and polluting operations must be repeated multiple times to refine the pure metals. This is one reason why most of the world’s rare-earth elements are produced in remote parts of China, Africa and South America - far from the prying eyes of the media and environmental protection groups.

Pitron’s research took him, at considerable personal risk, to Inner Mongolia and other parts of China where much of the world’s rare-earth elements is produced. He saw great lakes of effluent-polluted water from the refineries, and heard from local people about crop failures and shockingly high rates of cancer and other diseases. Did I mention that every tonne of ore processed requires at least 200 cubic metres of water?

Cobalt from Congo

The situation is no better in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo, an important producer of cobalt and other rare metals, where children do much of the most dangerous work. These mines too are now often owned by Chinese companies – as they are in many other countries. In fact, China has quietly achieved overwhelming dominance in the production of the rare metals upon which our new digital and electronic society increasingly depends, raising security concerns as well as economic and ecological ones.

China is now leveraging its control of rare metals both to produce and consume the new technologies they support. The Middle Kingdom already produces four-fifths of the world’s electric car batteries, and while representing only 20% of the world’s population, will soon account for 60% of electric cars. (Ironically, three-quarters of the electricity needed to run these “green” cars in China is produced by burning fossil fuels, especially coal! The same is true in India, the world’s most populous nation.)

Yes, Pitron acknowledges, rare metals could theoretically be produced with better environmental controls – while enhancing national security -- if production was ramped up in Western countries. But that would be costly - who wants to pay more for their iPhone or laptop? - and environmental groups strongly resist any attempt to increase mining activity in the West, a hypocritical stance that Pitron challenges them to confront more honestly.

Green Smokescreen

In fact, the much-touted “clean and green transition" is really a smokescreen for shifting pollution off-shore. Solar energy, wind turbines, electric cars and digital “smart” technologies are all based on the unregulated exploitation of rare metals that is trashing the environment and hurting people in faraway places we rarely talk about.

And this environmental damage will only get worse. Our “green transition" will require doubling the production of rare metals every 15 years. Over the next 30 years – in a single generation – we will rip more minerals from the Earth’s crust than we have done over the past 70,000 years of our existence on this planet!

So what are political leaders in California doing in response to the crises being generated by these new technologies? They're banning fur, a responsibly produced and truly renewable natural resource.

The new “clean" energy produced by windmills and solar panels is anything but. (Ask the people in the Baotou region of Inner Mongolia where thorium levels are 36 times higher than acceptable levels.) But even if extraction were better regulated, our “renewable” energy technologies are really based on the rapidly accelerating exploitation of rare metals – a non-renewable resource!

California as a whole, and Silicon Valley in particular, is of course the heartland of these supposedly “green” new technologies. So what are political leaders in California doing in response to the emerging environmental, social, economic and security crises being generated by these new technologies, of which their state is a major proponent and beneficiary? They're banning fur, a responsibly produced and truly renewable natural resource.

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

*  *  *

* La Guerre des Métaux Rares: La face cachée de la transition énergique et numérique, par Guillaume Pitron, (Éditions Les Liens qui Libèrent, Paris, 2019).

* * *

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

As many in the industry are aware, Fur Harvesters Auction is boosting its operations to better serve North American trappers and the fur industry worldwide. For an update, we contacted FHA’s Director of Planning and Development, Howard Noseworthy.

TruthAboutFur: Good to speak with you Howard. So how long has Fur Harvesters Auction been serving trappers and the fur industry?

Howard Noseworthy: We trace our roots back to the auction launched in North Bay by the old Ontario Trappers Association, in 1947. The current name and structure of Fur Harvesters Auction was set up in 1991.

TaF: And it is quite a special structure, isn’t it?

Noseworthy: Yes, Fur Harvesters Auction is a 50/50 partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous trappers, and that 50/50 partnership carries right through to the composition of our Board of Directors. The president also rotates every two years between native and non-native trappers. And I am happy to say this partnership has truly been wonderful; it’s served us well for the past 28 years, and hopefully will continue for many years to come.

TaF: We hear that Fur Harvesters Auction is in the process of expanding its operations. What can you tell us about that?

Noseworthy: Fur Harvesters Auction is certainly in growth mode. We are considerably expanding our network of agents servicing trappers, across both Canada and the US. As part of this expansion, we have taken over a facility in Winnipeg to handle western Canadian furs. All our western coyotes will be graded in Winnipeg by an experienced team that is well known to trappers, headed up by Mary Schellenberg.

TaF: We understand that you are stepping things up in the US as well.

Noseworthy: Yes, we are also ramping up the capacity of our facility in Cambridge, Wisconsin, to better serve US trappers. All our US and Canadian raccoons will be graded by the Cambridge team, as well as the majority of US coyotes. We are increasing the number of employees in the US to handle these new responsibilities.

TaF: And we hear there is also some exciting news from northern Canada.

Noseworthy: Yes, on December 11, we were proud to announce a new collaboration with the North West Company whereby Northern and NorthMart stores, across northern Canada, will be acting as our agents. They will receive furs and provide indigenous and other northern trappers with cash advances for pelts they send to auction. This will further expand our offering of the finest northern furs while providing an important service for remote communities.

TaF: And what about your headquarters in North Bay, Ontario?

Noseworthy: We are increasing the size of our team in North Bay as well, so we can handle greater volumes of fur. We expect that the larger collection of fine North American wild furs in one location will attract more buyers, which should result in higher prices for trappers.

TaF: Speaking of prices, how do you see the wild fur market playing out in the coming year?

Noseworthy: We expect coyotes to remain very strong. Better bobcats will also continue at good levels. Muskrats are actually quite strong too; they have been selling through, which is important. Beaver actually saw a little bump this year - prices gained about 18% in the May sale, compared with March - but of course that’s from a low baseline so we still have a long way to go. But demand and prices are strong and still increasing for castoreum, so that helps. Sables should hold current levels. Otters and fishers, unfortunately, are still having trouble. But from what we hear from our customers, the trimming trade is performing well and should be an increasingly important factor. We definitely see some good opportunities emerging for wild fur.

TaF: Fur Harvesters Auction also provides trapping supplies, doesn’t it?

Noseworthy: Oh yes, our agents and depots carry a full range of traps and trapping supplies, and all of our traps comply with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.

TaF: On a more personal level, Howard, how did you get involved in the fur business?

Noseworthy: Ah, well, I’ve been at this for quite a while. I began trapping when I was 23, and that’s more than 40 years ago. I was active in the Newfoundland and Labrador Trappers Association, and was elected president. The legendary Alec Shieff asked me to set up the first Ontario Trappers Association depot in Newfoundland. After that I worked with the Ontario Fur Managers Federation for 11 years, before moving here to North Bay. I’ve been here for about 11 years now.

TaF: So you have a true ground-up knowledge of the fur business.

Noseworthy: Yes, and I still grade fur too. In fact, all of us here at Harvesters grade fur, even Mark Downey, the CEO. Mark grades lynx and bobcats. That’s part of what makes Fur Harvesters such a special auction house, I think. We understand all sides of the business. We’re close to our buyers, of course, and we understand the market and its needs, but we also understand what it’s like getting wet and cold when you’re out on the trap line. Fur is in our blood.

TaF: Any thought of adding farmed fur to the offering?

Noseworthy: Many people don’t realize that while we’re primarily a wild fur house, we have also been selling the largest collection of North American farmed fox for some time. We have also handled small numbers of farmed mink. As for the future, we’ll see what it brings.

TaF: Anything else important that you see on the horizon?

Noseworthy: One very important event for the industry will be the implementation of the new FurMark program, that begins in 2020. The program is spearheaded through the International Fur Federation and will provide assurance to consumers that furs they buy are produced responsibly. We believe this will be very important for the industry, and Fur Harvesters is supporting it strongly.

TaF: Busy times!

Noseworthy: For sure. For now we’re continuing to focus on providing the best service we can for producers and for the industry as a whole - and we think our role is more important now than ever.

TaF: Thank you for this update, Howard.

***

For information about Fur Harvesters Auction's pick-up and auction schedules, trapping supplies, and other matters, please visit its website. And be sure to check out its Facebook page too. 

Despite some unfortunate flaws in the section on fur, with Putting on the Dog: The Animal Origins of What We Wear (Trinity University Press, San Antonio, 2019), Montana poet Melissa Kwasny has produced a fascinating read and done a service by highlighting the continued importance of animal products in our lives.

Kwasny set out to “investigate the history and ongoing relationship forged between humans and the nonhuman animals whom we still depend on to clothe and adorn us.” In this quest, she says, “one of my goals has been to meet and learn from people who spend their lives working with these animals – hunters, trappers, farmers, ranchers and shepherds – and find out  what their experience can teach the rest of us in a broader sense about our place in nature.”

She also sought to explore the “time-consuming process of making and, therefore, interacting with the material these animals provide, by hearing from tanners, spinners, weavers, sewers, dyers, and artisans of all sorts.”

What does it mean, she asks, for us as consumers (and as individuals) to have lost connection with the source of our clothing, now that few of us make our own anymore?

Fascinating Voyage

“Putting on the dog” is an American expression meaning to get dressed up for a special occasion, perhaps derived from the stiff “dog collar” shirts once worn for formal events at Yale University. Kwasny finds it an appropriate title for her book because it reminds us that the materials animals provide “are precious, given that they often require the loss of an animal’s life and hours of care from those humans who have hunted it, raised it, and crafted painstakingly elegant and practical things from it.”

What follows is a fascinating voyage into the world of six important animal products: leather (including sheepskin), wool (including cashmere, angora, and mohair), silk, feathers (including down), pearls, and fur. Her voyage takes her – and us -- from Alaska’s tundra to sheep farms atop Montana’s Continental Divide, from silkworm farms in northern Japan to a mink farm on Denmark’s western coast, and to pearl beds in the Sea of Cortes.

Her first stop is a visit to a Yu’pik community in Alaska where she considers the aboriginal understanding of how animals “give themselves” to the hunter. “The worst thing is to not appreciate that gift or to turn it down,” she writes. For the Yupiit – like other aboriginal peoples -- making beautiful clothing from these gifts is a way to pay respect to the animals that provide them. As Barry Lopez wrote in his 1986 masterpiece Arctic Dreams, “It was the gift rather than the death that was preeminent in the Eskimo view of hunting.” (PETA take note!)

Kwasny then explores commercial leather production, tracing the process back from wholesalers and tanners, to the abattoir and cattle ranches, becoming aware of the skills, knowledge - and the animals - incarnated in that beautiful leather wallet, jacket, or pair of shoes.

"Green" Wool

The next chapter recounts the remarkable history of wool since the domestication of sheep some 8,000 years ago. As an indicator of the economic importance of wool in British history, Kwasny reminds us that the Lord Speaker of the UK's House of Lords "today literally sits on a sack of wool, the ‘Woolsack’.” The wool industry has also been good for sheep: there is now one sheep for every six people on Earth.

Kwasny visits people who are raising traditional breeds (including some that produce natural colour ranges, without dyeing), as well as artisanal spinners whose wool commands premium prices among knitters ready to pay the price to know by who and how their materials were produced. “They want to be assured their wool is ‘green’, that the processing of their wool has low impact on the earth. They like to think about what flock it comes from.” (Could that be a market trend for the fur industry to consider as we implement traceability with the International Fur Federation’s FurMark?)

At the other extreme, Kwasny exposes the impact of global demand for cheap cashmere. Over the past 50 years, the domestic goat population of Inner Mongolia has soared from about 2.4 million to more than 25.6 million, resulting in overgrazing and, in some cases, desertification of fragile grasslands.

Environment-Friendly Silk

The chapter on silk production tells a fascinating story that will be new to most of us. “No one who has heard the sound will ever forget the low all-night roar created by the munching of thousands of voracious silk worms in a Japanese mountain farm-house!” In one interesting section, producers respond to critics concerned that the silkworms - which are actually caterpillars of the silk moth - must be killed to extract their silk. About 150 silkworm cocoons are needed to produce a silk scarf or tie – and up to 9,000 cocoons for a single traditional Japanese lady’s silk kimono and undergarment. But if all the pupae were allowed to hatch into moths, silk farmers explain, there would not be enough mulberry leaves in the world to feed the next generation. In fact, after so many centuries of cultivation, silkworms have lost their ability to find food on their own, while the moths can no longer mate without help. “The silkworm is a human invention now.” Furthermore, sericulture is environment-friendly, using little energy and a fraction of the water needed to grow cotton, while mulberry trees produce oxygen and nutrients for the soil. In contrast, cotton – a vegan clothing material of choice - accounts for 3% of global water consumption and 7% of US pesticide use, Kwasny reminds us.

A chapter on the evolving use of feathers and down is equally fascinating. Ostrich feathers, Kwasny recounts, became hugely popular when Eugénie de Montijo, the last Empress of France as the wife of Emperor Napoleon III, wore one on her hat, and were worth nearly as much as diamonds (by weight) by the beginning of the 20th century. At the market’s height, in the 1890s, South Africa was feeding and plucking a million ostriches a year. (In an interesting parallel with the fur trade, more than 90% of the South African feather merchants were Jewish immigrants fleeing pogroms in Russia.) Most of these feathers went to England, centre of the global millinery trade, and when the Titanic went down in 1912, en route to New York, some 20,000 pounds of ostrich feathers sank with it. Kwasny also provides an interesting overview of modern down production, mostly for pillows and quilts but also for the lightweight coats and parkas that often include fur-trimmed hoods.

The chapter on pearls includes a short history of the industry and its current evolution, including concerns for sustainability. Who knew that pearls were the most valuable resource the Spanish found in South America, until they began mining silver in Bolivia and Peru? Or that one of the world’s most famous pearls is named La Peregrina - The Wanderer. Pear-shaped and the size of a dove’s egg, this extraordinary pearl was bought by King Phillip II of Spain (1527-1598), who designated it an official Spanish Crown Jewel. It later "wandered" to France, so gaining its name, and then England, until in 1969 it was purchased at auction by Richard Burton, for $37,000, as a Valentine’s gift for Elizabeth Taylor. In 2011 it sold for $11 million.

Grappling with Fur

The final chapter is about fur, and it is here that Kwasny clearly has the most difficulty.  The chapter begins with her visit to a Danish mink farm on the Jutland coast, where she sees for herself that the animals are well cared for. Nonetheless, while perusing fashion photos, Kwasny reflects that fur seems somehow too ostentatious; no one she knows wears fur. “Conspicuous consumption seems less relevant to our lives,” she observes. To her credit, however, she wonders “how much of my attitude has been conditioned by the advertising budgets of PETA.”

What constitutes an ethical relationship with animals? she wonders. "Do I sincerely wish that there were no more mink farmers like the Kvist Jensens? Am I ready to demand the extinguishing of all such rural knowledge, of this husbandry, passed between generations, of this culture of seasons, weather, tools, the farmers’ ‘gear and tackle and trim,’ and instead offer my homage to the chemists who make each day anew our pleather and polyester and faux fur?”

Kwasny is an honest investigator, but the fur cause is not helped when a fur farmer and then an auction employee – while admitting they know nothing about it - tell her they think trapping is cruel. And while Kwasny does quote biologists, the International Fur Federation, and even my own writings to explain the environmental credentials of fur as a sustainably produced natural material, her section on trapping is perhaps the weakest. Unlike the other sections, this one is based solely on secondary sources – including claims by anti-fur groups that are left unanswered. To her credit, Kwasny does clearly report the serious environmental problems of synthetics, including fake furs.

Kwasny acknowledges that when she began her book, she knew fur would be the most difficult chapter for her to write. Though we eat meat, and wear leather, wool and silk, “fur alone brings us face to face with the fact that we need to kill for it. Fur is the least transformed of all animal products.”

Interestingly, Kwasny ends her book with a call for moderation. Everything we use comes from nature, and, contrary to PETA’s claims, she recognizes that it is not possible to live on this Earth without using resources and harming other beings. The only ethical response to this dilemma, she proposes, is to consume less. Buy less but better-quality clothing, especially from natural sources – plants and animals – and care for them so they last as long as possible. Sounds like a great sales pitch for fur!

In summary, while parts of the fur section will cause people who know the industry – especially trappers - to squirm with frustration, Melissa Kwasny has produced an interesting and worthwhile read. She reminds us of the fascinating range of skills and knowledge maintained by people who work with animals, and the materials those animals provide. I only hope that a good trapper will invite her out onto the land to more fully understand that experience before she writes the second edition of Putting on the Dog.

***

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

The remarkable tale of one man's experiment in domestication is told in How to Tame a Fox (And Build a Dog) [University of Chicago Press, 2017], by Lee Alan Dugatkin and Lyudmila Trut. Photo: Institute of Cytology and Genetics archives.

In the Fall of 1952, a Russian scientist boarded an overnight train from Moscow to Tallinn, the capital of Soviet Estonia. It was the beginning of a remarkable adventure that would change our understanding of animal domestication.

Dmitri Belyaev, a geneticist by training, was a lead scientist at the Central Research Laboratory on Fur Breeding Animals in Moscow, working to help the many government-run fox and mink farms produce more beautiful and valuable furs.  Fur farming was an important source of foreign currency for the Soviet government after the war, which provided Belyaev with some protection for the daring experiment he was about to launch.

It was protection he needed, because while Russian geneticists had once been world-leaders, this important new field of study was under attack in Stalin’s Russia. Soviet science policy was dominated by Trofim Lysenko, a poorly educated peasant’s son who rose to power in the 1930s as part of Stalin’s glorification of the common man. Lysenko’s bizarre theories were eventually discredited, but meanwhile a generation of geneticists lost their jobs because their work would have exposed Lysenko as a fraud.  Some – including Belyaev’s own brother -- were imprisoned and killed.

Belyaev enjoyed a measure of freedom because of his success in developing valuable new genetic lines of mink. But the daring new project he was about to launch went far beyond his mandate to increase the value of fur production.

Belyaev was fascinated by the question of how animals had first come to be domesticated. The way farmers selectively breed domesticated plants and animals for desirable traits was quite well understood. But this didn’t explain how certain species had been domesticated in the first place. Or why so few species of plants and animals out of the millions on the planet had ever been domesticated - only a few dozen animals, mostly mammals, plus a few fish, birds, and insects such as silk worms and honey bees.

Scientists by now believed that dogs were the first species domesticated by humans, some 15,000 years ago, and that they had evolved from wolves. But no one really understood how wolves – animals that generally fear and avoid or act aggressively towards humans – developed into man’s best friend, an animal that is attracted to and trusts humans.

Belyaev was also intrigued by the fact that so many of the changes that occur in many different domesticated species were so similar. As Charles Darwin had noted, they often had patches of different colours on their coats. And they often retained physical traits from childhood that their wild cousins outgrew as they matured: floppy ears, curly tails, shorter snouts and babyish faces – neotonic features that make young animals so “cute”. But why would breeders have selected for these traits? Farmers received no benefit, after all, from cows with spotted hides or pigs with curly tails. So why had they emerged?

Belyaev had a theory that domestication – with all the qualities that distinguish domesticated animals from their wild cousins -- might be triggered by selecting for just a single trait: tameness. It had been suggested that dogs evolved from less aggressive wolves – individuals that would have been low-ranking in their own packs but were tolerated close to human settlements, where they gained access to a more reliable source of food and thrived. Belyaev wondered if this process might be replicated by repeatedly selecting the least aggressive foxes on fur farms for breeding.

Floppy Ears and Curly Tails

One of the well-known features of domesticated animals – dogs, cats, cows, pigs -- is that they can breed several times a year, not just once like most of their wild ancestors.  If farmed foxes could be bred more than once a year there would be a clear economic benefit – and this was Belyaev’s cover story as he approached a trusted colleague in Estonia that fateful day in 1952. Nina Sorokina was in charge of some 1,500 silver foxes on a large government-owned farm in a remote forest hamlet. She was surprised by Belyaev’s proposal, because silver foxes were generally quite fearful and aggressive towards people, but she agreed to begin selecting and breeding a group of the least aggressive animals.

The foxes Sorokina bred in Estonia provided the nucleus for a much larger project that Belyaev launched at a new research centre in Siberia as Lysenko was finally repudiated after Stalin’s death. The results soon followed, validating Belyaev’s ground-breaking theories of domestication. Within ten generations – barely a blink in evolutionary time -- foxes were being born that were noticeably tamer. These puppy-like foxes had floppy ears, piebald spots, and curly tails. Some of these pups eagerly approached humans with their tails wagging, behavior never seen before in foxes. As scientific knowledge of hormones evolved, it was confirmed that these newly domesticated foxes had far lower levels of stress hormones. In the next stage of the research, several of the tamest foxes actually lived in a house with one of the lead scientists, Lyudmila Trut, and soon acted very much like dogs.

The speed with which these changes in the physiology and behavior emerged confirmed Belyaev's radically new understanding of the process of domestication. Since Darwin, scientists had assumed that change could occur only in small increments over long periods of time, driven by a gradual accumulation of useful but random genetic mutations. The speed with which these new domesticated foxes evolved, however, suggested to Belyaev that the changes revealed a range of genetic variation that already existed within the original fox population.

This would explain why such a small number of plant or animal species has ever been domesticated. Wild horses, for example, must have had a wide range of genetic variation within their populations, facilitating domestication, while zebras – which have sometimes been somewhat tamed, but never domesticated – do not.

Belyaev was ahead of his time in proposing that important changes to physiology and behaviour might result without the mutation of genes, but rather through the activation or deactivation of existing genes in response to new environmental pressures -- in this case, the selection for tamer foxes. The disruption of long-established systems of genetic stability could provoke a complex suite of changes (curly tails, spotted coats, shorter snouts, etc.) in surprisingly few generations.

Belyaev’s ground-breaking ideas were, in fact, originally sparked by his observation of farmed mink, where he saw new colour strains – pastels, sapphires, violets, pearls – emerge less than 30 years after wild mink were brought onto farms.

Not least interesting, Belyaev’s work puts the lie to activist claims that farmed mink and foxes are “wild animals” that should not be kept in captivity. These species have been selectively bred on farms for more than 100 generations, resulting in significantly different colours, size, and behaviour. These are no longer "wild" animals.

The full story of this extraordinary research project has now been told for the first time in a wonderful book, How to Tame a Fox (And Build a Dog), co-authored by Lyudmila Trut and Lee Alan Dugatkin. Trut heads the research group at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk, and continues to lead Belyaev's fox project to this day. Dugatkin is a professor of biology at the University of Louisville and a science writer. Fur farmers and anyone interested in animals and domestication will find it a fascinating read!

FURTHER READING: How humans domesticated themselves. National Public Radio, October 31, 2020.

***

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