Is fur an ethical clothing choice? The media often seem confused about this question, acknowledging the resurgence of fur in designer collections while uncritically reporting sensationalist animal activist complaints about this trend. The implied (and often explicit) message is that consumers are less bothered about whether fur is an ethical clothing choice, and more concerned about looking good. In short, "fashion trumps ethics". But is this true?

To answer this question, we must take a step back and ask what makes it ethical to use any animal product.

Some of the best work on this subject was done by the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada (1984-86). Public-opinion research conducted in six Western countries (the UK, France, West Germany, Norway, Canada and the US) showed that “there is no agreement on whether it is ethical or moral to kill seals. The choice is a matter of personal conviction.” [Report of the Royal Commission, Vol. 1, p. 23, 1986.]

The Royal Commission also found, however, that there is “substantial weight of opinion that if the killing of any wild animals is to be accepted as ethical, it should satisfy the following conditions”:

1. The existence of the species should not be threatened;
2. No unnecessary pain or cruelty should be inflicted;
3. The killing should serve an important use;
4. The killing should involve a minimum of waste.

Let’s see how the modern North American fur trade stacks up when measured against these widely accepted ethical criteria.

The Existence of the Species Should Not Be Threatened

This is a “conservation” or “sustainable use” argument. Simply put, there is no future in using up resources we depend on for our survival.

About one-half of the furs produced in North America today comes from farms, so there's no threat of extinction there. Furs taken from the wild, however, also come from abundant populations. Government-regulated trapping seasons ensure that we use only part of the surpluses produced each year in nature. Most species produce more young than their habitat can support to maturity. Animals that don’t survive feed those that do. Humans are part of this cycle and we too can use the surpluses that nature produces, year after year, generation after generation – so long as we protect and maintain the natural ecosystems that produce this bounty.

This is called “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”. It is a central pillar of modern conservation policy that was first promoted by the landmark World Commission on Environment and Development [Our Common Future, 1987], and now directs the work of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Thanks to excellent national and international regulations, North American furbearers that were once depleted in parts of their ranges have been restored, and more! Biologists believe that beavers are now as abundant as when Europeans first arrived, while coyotes, foxes and raccoons are more numerous in Canada than they have ever been. This is a real environmental success story.

So without question, the modern, well-regulated fur trade meets our first ethical criterion: the existence of species is not threatened.

No Unnecessary Pain or Cruelty Should Be Inflicted

This is the “animal welfare” argument, i.e., the belief that we have a right to use animals for food and other purposes, but only if we cause them as little suffering as possible.

The modern fur trade has taken very seriously its responsibilities to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering. North America is the world leader in scientific research to make trapping as humane as possible. This research provided the scientific protocols for ISO standards, Best Management Practices, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (1997).

Based on this research, state and provincial wildlife authorities determine which traps may be used for each species. Most species can now be taken in quick-killing traps or “sets”. For the others (e.g., larger predators including coyotes, foxes, lynx, and bobcats), live-holding traps have been significantly improved to prevent injuries. The new live-holding foot-hold (or “leg-hold”) traps, for example, are often used by biologists to capture and release (unharmed) wolves, lynx, river otters and other animals for radio collaring or re-introduction into regions where they were once (often intentionally) extirpated.

On fur farms, mink and foxes are provided with excellent nutrition and care; this is the only way to produce the high-quality fur required to compete in international markets. Farms in the US are certified by Fur Commission USA, while in Canada farmers follow codes of practice developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council.

So the North American fur trade also satisfies our second ethical criterion: the responsibility to prevent unnecessary pain or cruelty is taken very seriously in the modern fur trade.

SEE ALSO: NEAL JOTHAM: A LIFE DEDICATED TO HUMANE TRAPPING

If Animals Are Killed, They Should Serve an Important Use

Activists often claim that it is unethical to kill animals for fur because "no one needs a fur coat". Fur coats are portrayed as "unnecessary luxuries"; raising and killing animals for fur is therefore characterized as “frivolous use”. But is fur really a frivolous or unnecessary product?

Humans need clothing to survive, and in many regions warm clothing is essential. Of course there are other materials to keep us warm, but the best of them (wool, down, leather) also come from animals. Meanwhile, most synthetic fibres (including fake or “faux” fur) are derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, the extraction and transformation of which entails serious environmental risks.

Trapping, hunting and fur farming, it should be remembered, also provide food and important income for people living in rural or remote regions where alternative employment may be hard to find; fur is certainly not “frivolous” for them.

Then there is the need, in many regions, for furbearers to be culled annually to maintain healthy and stable populations, to preserve their habitat, to protect endangered species (e.g., by culling predators that attack ground-nesting birds or endangered sea turtle eggs), and to safe-guard human health, livestock and property. If furbearer populations must be culled, surely it is more ethical to use these animals for clothing than to discard them.

Last but not least, fur clothing is remarkably long-lasting, can be worn “vintage” or taken apart and remodeled as styles change, and will eventually biodegrade – all important environmental virtues.

So, in multiple ways, the modern fur trade satisfies our third ethical criterion: the animals serve important purposes.

If Animals Are Killed, There Should Be a Minimum of Waste

Most North Americans eat meat and therefore generally consider it ethical to use leather, a “by-product” that would otherwise be wasted. Fur, however, may seem more problematic if the rest of the animal is not used, as is often assumed. In fact, many wild fur-bearing animals  (beaver, muskrat and other species) also provide food for First Nations and other people, especially in northern regions where cattle and other livestock cannot easily be raised. Wild furbearers not consumed by humans are returned to the bush where they are eaten by mice, birds and other animals. Nothing is wasted.

Meanwhile, farmed mink and foxes are fed left-overs from our own food supply – the parts of chickens, pigs, fish and other animals that we don’t eat and that might otherwise go into landfills. In addition to fur, farmed mink provide oil for cosmetics and the preservation of leather. Their manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers, to enrich the soil and produce more food, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. Biofuels made from mink remains now power buses in Aarhus, Denmark, the world’s largest producer of farmed mink. Similar projects are being tested in North America.

So the modern fur trade satisfies our fourth ethical criterion: there is minimal waste.

As this brief summary shows, the modern North American fur trade satisfies all four of the criteria required to determine that fur is an ethical clothing choice.

Of course, this does not mean that anyone is obliged to wear fur. As the Canadian Royal Commission determined some 30 years ago, that decision is ultimately “a matter of personal conviction”. This has been confirmed by public opinion research conducted in recent years showing that about 80% of North Americans agree that wearing fur should be a question of personal choice.

True life stories of a Métis trapper and his love for the land, his family and friends

A primary goal of Truth About Fur is to give a voice to the real people of the fur trade. So what a pleasure it is to tell you about a newly published autobiography by one of Canada’s foremost trappers and trapping advocates, the legendary Alcide Giroux.

My First Sixty Years Enjoying Nature as a Trapper promises, and delivers, a passionate and epic tale of a life lived in close harmony with the land: hunting, fishing and trapping. And thanks to Alcide's extraordinary memory, he shares many wonderful adventures with us in vivid detail.

God's Country

The story begins in December 1951, near Sturgeon Falls, Ontario. Alcide was just six years old when his father moved their family onto the old homestead his grandfather had cleared and built in the early 1920s. There was no electricity or indoor plumbing, and young Alcide and his siblings had to cross the Sturgeon River in a small homemade boat before walking to school – a walk that provided opportunities for the young Alcide to snare rabbits to complement the moose and beaver in his mother’s stew pot. It was God’s Country back then, Alcide tells us, with wilderness and wildlife all around. Their trap lines began at the farmhouse door.

A few years later, Alcide’s Dad built a remarkable suspension bridge to facilitate the family’s commuting. “We had so many curious and nosy visitors; they all came to see the 8th Wonder of the World ... well the 8th wonder of River Valley!” Alcide recalls.

I enjoyed reading about this remarkable DIY engineering feat all the more because I walked across this same bridge many years later when I visited Alcide’s trapline, in the 1980s.

In the pages of his new book, Alcide pays tribute to many kind and talented woodsmen, but none more than his own father, “a great trapper with a built-in GPS in his brain.” Philippe Giroux was a Métis who instilled in his sons the importance of respecting the animals they depended upon, which meant trapping as humanely as possible. “Because we only had leg-hold traps back then, Dad showed us how to build underwater sets that ensured a quicker death for muskrats, mink and beaver.”

Alcide Giroux clearly learned his Dad’s lessons well; he became one of Canada’s foremost advocates for humane trapping. By the time he was 30, in 1975, he was writing articles in trappers’ magazines and leading workshops across Ontario and beyond, promoting the importance of researching and implementing better trapping techniques.

"I Had Gained Their Trust"

In 1980, as newly-elected president of the Ontario Trappers Association (OTA), his first speech called on trappers to take the lead in humane trapping, rather than have changes imposed on them by others. He remembers that his beloved wife, Pat, sitting at the back of the hall, was worried about how this call for change would be received. But Alcide’s sincerity and straight talk won the day.

“There were no hard feelings, no arrows thrown, but lots of applause and many handshakes," recalls Alcide. "I could breathe again; I had gained the trust and confidence of my fellow trappers.”

When the Fur Institute of Canada was created in 1982, to implement recommendations of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping (1974-1981), Alcide became a founding member, and later vice-chair. Accompanied by Pat, he travelled the world to lend his expertise to trap-research and conservation meetings in New Zealand, Europe, Louisiana, Australia and elsewhere. When scientists, politicians or journalists wanted to see a trap line first-hand, more often than not it was Alcide and Pat who received them.

Alcide’s story bursts with good humour and a passion for life, whether he’s describing the orphaned bear cub, Ben, that his family adopted, or the time that famed country singer Murray McLauchlan came for a visit and wrote a song about Alcide for his 1984 album about true Canadian heroes. The song, Little Brothers of the Wood, includes the lines:

I only take what I need, don’t take no more
The woods ain’t a shelf in a grocery store.
I only take what I need because come the spring
I want to see beaver cubs in that pond again.

Alcide’s strength of character is also evident as he faces life’s more difficult moments: political battles in the OTA, a fire that destroys the old family farmhouse, and especially Pat’s courageous battle with cancer.

Front-Line Defenders

In recognition of Alcide’s outstanding contributions, in May 2005 he was presented with the Fur Council of Canada’s “Furrier of the Year” award, at the North American Fur & Fashion Exposition in Montreal (NAFFEM). In his speech to more than 600 fur manufacturers, designers, retailers and government officials, Alcide reminded them that trappers did more than provide the beautiful furs on display in the hall. They were also front-line defenders of the industry, using responsible practices and educating the urban population – including furriers – about the importance of using nature's gifts sustainably.

Speaking of nature’s gifts, for the gala fashion show that evening we had arranged for Alcide and Pat to sit with another celebrity: Miss Universe Canada, the beautiful Natalie Glebova. “Since trapping is always on my mind, I looked at Natalie and thought she would be good in the snow with legs like that!” Alcide remembers, with a chuckle.

The setting for most of this book, however, is in the bush, and anyone who enjoys the outdoors will appreciate Alcide’s keen observations about nature and wildlife.

To order your copy of My First Sixty Years Enjoying Nature as a Trapper, by Alcide P. Giroux (AKA “Ti-Lou”), email or call Angela Gurley of the Fur Council of Canada at [email protected] or on 1-800-376-9996. If ordering by email, please include your phone number so Angela can call for your credit card information. A French version is available, please specify whether you would like the book in English or in French. The price is $20CAD plus mailing and handling, about $6.50 in Canada and $12.50 for the US. Contact us for international shipping rates.

Le livre d’Alcide Giroux est aussi disponible en français.

SEE ALSO: NEAL JOTHAM: A LIFE DEDICATED TO HUMANE TRAPPING

(Editor's note: Alcide Giroux passed away on February 20, 2018. Read his obituary from the Fur Institute of Canada.)

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: So you got involved with the CAHT?

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

TaF: How did you go about raising awareness?

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

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

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

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

TaF: But the governments still weren’t involved?

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

TaF: How did trappers feel about your efforts?

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

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

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

TaF: So trappers associations supported efforts to improve traps?

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: And what happened to your film?

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

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

TaF: So what did the FPCHT research program achieve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: What are the main contributions of the AIHTS?

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

SEE ALSO: Why fur trim keeps us warm.

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

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

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

1. Video Shows Perfect Kill

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

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

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

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

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

2. Coyote Mums Not "Desperate"

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

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

3. Coyote Predator Problem

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

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

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

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

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

4. New Foot-Hold Traps Designed to Prevent Injuries

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

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

SEE ALSO: Types of traps.

5. PETA Opposes All Animal Use

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

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

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource.

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

***

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

COMMENTS: Comments are now closed for this post.

Have you ever visited a mink farm? Would you like to know more about how farmed mink are raised and cared for? Senior Truth About Fur writer Alan Herscovici asked “Les”, a third-generation Nova Scotia mink farmer, to give us a personal tour and explain the work he does during a typical year.

In Part 1: Breeding, Les explained how the mink production cycle begins early each spring. In Part 2: Whelping and Weaning, we got an insider’s view of life on the farm through one of the busiest periods, from April to June. In Part 3: Growing Up, we saw how the mink kits are vaccinated and separated into smaller groups as they grow. This time, we learn about some of the final steps in producing the high-quality mink for which Canada is known around the world.

Truth About Fur (TaF): When we last spoke, the intense work of vaccinating and separating the young kits into pairs had been completed and life on the farm was somewhat quieter as the mink grew through the summer months. What happens next?

“Les” (Nova Scotia mink farmer): As the days become shorter and the weather gets cooler in the Fall, the mink are about full grown and start putting on their winter fur. By early November we are deciding which females to keep for breeding the following Spring.

The first step is to do some blood tests. We clip the tip of a toe nail to take a few drops of blood from each mink. This is placed into a small glass tube and spun in a special centrifuge to separate the blood components.

We then extract some of the clear whitish plasma and add a drop of iodine. If rust-colored clumps appear after adding the iodine, we know that some sort of disease or infection may be present. These mink will not be kept for breeding; the data cards on their cages are marked for pelting.

TaF: So are you choosing the healthiest mink for reproduction?

Les: That’s just the first step. Then we start the most important selection, hand-grading the mink for fur quality. We are looking for a number of crucial factors, especially the velvety short-nap fur that North America is famous for. But we are also checking for the softness of the fur and consistency of colour. If there are white hairs among the brown or black fur, for example, you want to eliminate that as much as possible from your herd. This hand-grading and selection is vital. It is what determines your fur quality for years to come.

TaF: So you are selecting for health and fur quality.

Les: Yes, but we also take into account the litter size females produced, and how well they cared for their young, as well as how calm and easy to handle they are. These are all factors in deciding which females we keep for breeding the following season. And each farmer makes these decisions somewhat differently, depending on how you are trying to develop your bloodlines and fur quality for the future.

TaF: So you have balanced all these factors and decided which mink to keep for breeding. Then what?

Les: By December the mink are fully furred - we say the fur is “prime” - and it is time to euthanize the mink we will be pelting.

We wheel a special, air-tight box into the barn; it is filled with the proper concentration of bottled carbon monoxide gas. The mink are not stressed because normally it’s the feeding cart we bring through the barns.

One by one, we open the cages and place the mink into the gas-filled box. They turn around a few times, lie down peacefully, and in a few moments they are dead. Carbon monoxide is an odorless gas that acts very quickly and humanely.

TaF: And then you pelt them?

Les: Not right away. First we place them on top of the cages or onto a wire shelf, to cool thoroughly. That’s very important because the fur can be damaged if it rests too long against a solid surface while the mink are still warm. We usually send them to the pelting facility the following day.

TaF: So what do you say to activist claims that mink are skinned while they are still alive?

Les: That’s complete nonsense, like so much that the activists say about us. It’s very frustrating, for sure: we work so hard all through the year to produce the best quality mink we can raise. It’s insulting and ignorant for activists to claim that we would mistreat these animals. We are proud of how we care for our mink. Our livelihoods depend on them!

TaF: What happens at the pelting facility?

Les: The mink are pelted by experts who have the experience to do this perfectly, without damaging the fur. The fur pelt is then cleaned and put onto a special stretching form to dry slowly in the proper size and shape. This has to be done at the right temperature and humidity. The fur will then be sent to the auction facility to be graded and prepared in lots for the next auction sale.

TaF: Is only the fur used? What happens to the rest of the mink?

Les: The fat from the mink is collected to make mink oil, which is used to waterproof and protect leather, or as a fine lubricant. The carcasses and manure are usually composted to make organic fertilizers. Here in Nova Scotia we also have a pilot facility to make methane from the manure to produce electricity. In Denmark they are already producing biofuels with mink carcasses.

TaF: So let me understand this: your mink were first fed by-products from our food supply – the parts of fish, poultry and meat animals that we humans don’t eat – and then, in addition to producing beautiful fur, their manure, soiled bedding straw and carcasses produce organic fertilizers to replenish the soil?

Les: That’s right, mink help to complete the agricultural nutrient cycle, while producing one of the most beautiful, long-lasting and ultimately biodegradable clothing materials in the world!

***

SEE ALSO: A YEAR ON A MINK FARM. PART 1: BREEDING, PART 2: WHELPING AND WEANING, and PART 3: GROWING UP

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

Violence against women - murdering them even - is acceptable if they are wearing fur. That is the message of the latest shock-and-awe campaign from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Oh my, how silly of me!  PETA is really trying to say that we shouldn’t kill animals for fur. Let’s just hope the young muggers out there appreciate the metaphor!

The campaign video shows a man clubbing a woman in a park with a big stick before stripping a fur coat from her lifeless, semi-naked body. (To complete the sex-and-violence theme, we catch a glimpse of breasts as her stripped body hits the ground.)

The video generated angry comments on social media, denouncing its outrageous trivialization of violence against women. Several commenters suggested that “PETA has finally gone too far” and has now “lost all credibility”. If only they were right.

Unfortunately, PETA understands modern media far better than most of its critics do. It knows that the media, and especially social media, cannot resist sensationalism. PETA’s modus operandi takes a page right out of P.T. Barnum's playbook when he said: “We don’t care what you write about us, so long as you spell our name correctly!”

Or as PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk put it: “We are complete media sluts. We didn’t make up the rules, we just learned how to play the game.”

PetaFiles: A Legacy of Crass Exploitation

Here are a few examples of PETA’s adventures into the land beyond good taste and common decency:

THE HOLOCAUST ON YOUR PLATE campaign of 2003 was a travelling display juxtaposing photos of concentration camp prisoners with images of farm animals in abattoirs. Widely criticised wherever it went, this campaign was banned in Germany.

NEITHER OF US IS MEAT was a 2004 billboard campaign exploiting the case of British Columbia pig farmer Robert Pickton, who abducted and savagely murdered dozens of women. Authorities suspect that he may have fed their corpses to his pigs. PETA's billboards showed a young woman on one side and a pig on the other.

GOT PROSTATE CANCER? was the slogan on PETA billboards in 2000 linking milk to prostate cancer. Featured without his consent was cancer sufferer New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with a milky moustache. "It's tasteless and inappropriate to exploit my illness,” said Giuliani. “The message they're trying to deliver just makes sense in their own zealous, out-of-control thinking."

GOT BEER? was a 2000 campaign aimed at college campuses, encouraging underage students to drink beer instead of milk. "It's official," claimed PETA's posters. "Beer is better for you than milk." Another advocacy group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), was understandably not amused. For more on this campaign, read "Hey PETA: Got Ethics?"

We could also mention the 2008 Payback Is Hell billboard, which played off the story of spear fisherman C.J. Wickersham, who survived a shark attack with 800 stitches to his leg. Or PETA’s 2011 request to the US Federal Court to rule that five Sea World orcas be considered as “slaves” in violation of the 13th Amendment. Or Ingrid Newkirk’s call, this year, for Minnesota dentist and Cecil-the-lion hunter Walter Palmer to be hanged. The list goes on.

Raking It In

According to its website, PETA’s excuse for such excesses is that, “Unlike our opposition which is mostly wealthy industries and corporations, PETA must rely largely on free ‘advertising’ through media coverage...”

They omit to mention that PETA raked in more than US$50 million in 2014 alone!

Or that, despite zero tolerance for animal killing by others, PETA routinely kills more than 90% of the pets entrusted to it. In a recent case, PETA staffers allegedly killed a dog they had stolen from someone’s porch! While preaching “compassion”, PETA’s double standards bring to mind Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana’s definition of fanaticism as “redoubling your effort after you've forgotten your aim."

SEE ALSO: HYPOCRITE PROFILE: PINK

Violence Against Women

PETA’s new woman-beating video is particularly disgusting at a time when most people are working to end violence against women. The period from November 25 (International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women) through December 10 (Human Rights Day) has been designated as 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, to raise public awareness and mobilize people everywhere to bring about change. Talk about timing!

In fact, I hesitated to write this piece because I am very conscious that we are doing exactly what PETA wants: we are talking about them.

Nonetheless, I do think we need to denounce this latest PETA campaign, and not only because of the unconscionable trivialization of violence against women. This video also exposes how completely superficial PETA’s understanding really is of the environmental and ethical dimensions of the fur debate.

The fur trade is finally getting its story out, with public information campaigns like Furisgreen.com and TruthAboutFur.com. And the media and public are listening. Some may still choose not to wear fur, leather, wool or silk – or to eat meat – and that’s their right. But people are beginning to understand that, unlike most synthetics, fur is a natural and renewable resource that is being produced responsibly and sustainably. The fur trade is also a heritage industry that supports a wide range of cultures, skills and knowledge.

If this vicious video is the best response that PETA can offer to the serious discussion that the fur trade has initiated, its free ride with the media may soon be coming to an end.

Thirty years! The other day I suddenly realised that this is the 30th anniversary of the publication my book Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy. First published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in 1985, this was the first serious critique – and is still one of the very few – of the animal-rights movement from an environmental and human-rights perspective.

The publication of Second Nature changed my life. Until then, my interests as a freelance writer had ranged widely, although curiosity about different people and cultures was often a unifying theme: from promoting the cause of Tibetan refugees to exploring the mystical world of Hassidic Jews. While I was brought up in a Canadian fur manufacturing family, the emerging “animal rights” debate was only one story among many.

Now, suddenly, I was thrust into a quickly escalating battle. I was invited to speak with cattle, chicken and hog producers, medical researchers, science teachers, and many others. My message was that people working with animals should speak out about what they do, so the media and public can hear both (or, rather, the many) sides of these complex issues.

I had the opportunity to put theory into practice when I was asked to serve as executive vice-president of the Fur Council of Canada. In that capacity I directed the industry’s “Fur Is Green” campaign and, more recently, the first full-fledged North American information program under the “Truth About Fur” banner.

So what have I learned in more than 30 years of studying and sparring with the animal-rights movement? Here are 10 important lessons, most of which have implications far beyond the debate about fur.

1. The medium is the message. The frenetic pace of modern news cycles clearly favours sensationalism and emotions, the stuff of animal-activist campaigning. In a world of information overload and attention spans measured in sound bites, it is increasingly difficult to discuss complex (aka “real”) issues in any serious way.

2. A picture is worth a thousand words. So good luck explaining to the television audience why well-regulated trapping helps to maintain stable and healthy wildlife populations while the activists' photo of an animal in a trap is projected onto the screen behind you. What the audience is not seeing is the animal suffering (starvation, disease) that results if we “let nature take care of itself”, as activists propose.

Thanks to decades of scientific research, modern trapping methods are much more humane than nature’s way of regulating wildlife populations. But most of us will never see the fox scratching itself raw for weeks before dying of sarcoptic mange, or the bite scars on beaver that fought each other for survival in an overpopulated pond.

3. “Animal rights” is NOT animal welfare. The animal-welfare movement developed to ensure that animals we use – for food, clothing or other purposes – are treated “humanely”, i.e., with respect and as little suffering as possible. Animal rights, by contrast, is a philosophy that claims we have no right to use animals at all. “Not better cages, no cages!” says the Animal Liberation Front slogan.

SEE ALSO: Mink liberation: 5 facts the ALF doesn't want you to know

I traced the origins of this radical new philosophy in Second Nature, and yet, 30 years later, the profound difference between “animal rights” and “animal welfare” is still not understood by most journalists or politicians, let alone the general public. This allows groups like PETA to masquerade as welfare advocates – attracting media attention and credibility with shocking exposés of animal abuse – although PETA really opposes any use of animals, no matter how humanely it is done.

4. Urban trumps rural. It is striking how often rural people play the bad guys in activist campaigns: loggers, miners, ranchers, hunters. This reflects a widening split between rural and urban cultures; for the first time in human history, most of us live in cities. It wasn’t so long ago that most North Americans still had family on the land – you visited grandparents on the farm at Christmas and learned to respect rural skills and knowledge – but not anymore.

Most journalists also live in cities, and with reduced budgets they rarely have time to seek out the rural side of the story. Not surprisingly, media usually reflect an urban bias with little interest in, or understanding of, rural realities.

5. We have lost contact with the real sources of our survival. We all use paper and wood, but it’s “eco-cide” to cut trees. We need metal and glass, but miners are evil. It’s hard to imagine life without gas for cars and oil for heating, without plastics or synthetic textiles – but no oil wells or pipelines here please! Plentiful meat and milk has allowed even poor children to develop healthy minds and bodies, but activists now want us to believe that animal agriculture is a continuation of the Holocaust.

The remarkable productivity of primary producers has given the rest of us the freedom to do many other wonderful things that make a thriving and cultured modern society. And yet, perversely, we use that freedom to attack the people who feed and clothe us!

6. Animal activism is big business. We have come a long way from “the little old ladies in tennis shoes” whose volunteer efforts supported the SPCA and other traditional animal-welfare groups. Groups like PETA rake in some $30 million annually; the so-called Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) collects more than $100 million. And there are dozens of other such groups.

They attract attention with naked “celebrities" or sensationalist “exposés”; they translate their “brand recognition” into income with sophisticated computer-assisted fund-raising techniques. As one leading activist told me: “You can’t win because it costs your industry money to fight us, but we make our money campaigning. The longer the battle, the more we make!”

7. Animal rights reflects a culture in transition. It was Michael Pollan’s 2006 book The Omnivore’s Dilemma that first drew my attention to this aspect of the animal-rights phenomenon. Not long ago our ancestors lived in societies with clear ideas about how one should live, what we should eat, who we should marry, and so on. With the erosion of "traditional values" by globalisation, multiculturalism and secularism, everything is up for grabs.

A trip to the grocery store triggers a complex ethical calculus: should we buy organic or conventional, local or imports, GMOs, trans fats, low cholesterol, gluten free, and on it goes! In this confusion, philosophies that propose a new moral certitude can be very attractive, especially to younger people.

8. Animal activists show more aggression than compassion! Over the past 30 years, the tone and tactics of animal activist campaigning have become much more confrontational. Check out the comments posted on animal-related articles, the Facebook pages of activist groups, videos of “direct action” demonstrations, not to mention the criminal attacks by the Animal Liberation Front.

Compassion for animals has become a pretext for hatred of farmers, furriers, medical researchers and other people. In part, this parallels the hyper-testosteronization of society in general, from the sex and violence of video games and music videos to road rage. But the fundamentalist core of the animal-rights philosophy should not be ignored: i.e., when idealistic young people are told that raising and eating farm animals is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust, don’t be surprised that butcher stores are vandalized.

It seems ironic, nonetheless, that activists who claim to speak for compassion are so keen to attack the livelihoods and cultures of others. Unfortunately, many animal activist organisations have become politically-correct hate groups.

9. Freedom to protest vs. freedom of choice. Freedom of expression is essential in a free society. For that reason, police in western democracies are generally very tolerant of protesters. Where, however, is the balance between the right to protest the sale of fur-trimmed, down-filled parkas, for example, and the right of consumers and retailers to buy and sell such products?

One store in Vancouver has been subjected to rowdy protests several times a week for more than a year! The activists have vowed to put this retailer out of business unless he stops selling Canada Goose coats. Customers are harassed, neighbours are disturbed, the survival of a legal business that pays taxes and employs many young people is threatened – but the rights of a few dozen activists apparently trump everyone else’s interests. Another store selling fur in Hotel Vancouver was subjected to such frequent and aggressive protests that its lease was not renewed, not because the management disliked fur but because their guests felt intimidated. Can you spell “protection racket”?

It is time to ask whether “freedom of expression” includes the right to protest wherever one chooses. If we think it’s wrong to sell fur, this could be expressed in a public park or square as easily as in front of small, family-owned businesses. Or at the seat of government, since it is government that is empowered to decide whether a product should be banned.

After all: if consumers didn't want to buy fur or fur-trimmed coats, retailers would not be stocking them. Protesters are using the freedom that democracy provides as a weapon to short-circuit it.

10. Time to speak out! There are many reasons why activist voices have dominated this debate until now. Farmers, ranchers and medical researchers are busy farming, ranching, and researching. As my activist friend so astutely observed: “It costs you to fight us; we make our money fighting you!”

The natural bias of the media is also a factor: thousands of farmers doing a good job caring for their animals, day in and day out, is not “news”.

Often, too, activist claims seemed so absurd that the people involved felt no need to respond; they didn’t understand that the public can’t know which claims are absurd if the experts remain silent.

Happily, the people who work with animals are beginning to understand the importance of speaking out. In our case, producer and trade associations across North America have joined to produce TruthAboutFur.com. While still a work in progress, we are already seeing impressive results: e.g., our Facebook page now has more than 23,000 “followers”!

Now it is up to everyone to use these tools to make our voices heard. If you see an anti-fur comment in the paper, write a letter or call the journalist to suggest they check out our website. Retailers can provide the URL to consumers who wonder whether it’s “OK” to wear fur. There are great resources for schools. And the website also provides credible information that politicians need to make responsible decisions affecting our industry.

And, finally, perhaps that’s the most important lesson of all from my 30 years of battling “animal rights”: it’s up to each of us to speak out for our industry. Because, as Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke reputedly said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

As we cross Confederation Bridge – the graceful, 13-kilometer, engineering marvel that links New Brunswick to beautiful Prince Edward Island in Canada's far east – I am invaded by a swell of memories and nostalgia. Our last trip to PEI was six years ago, to attend my son’s wedding, and my Dad travelled with us. This time I am heading for a family reunion, but also in search of the origins of fox farming.

Crossing the Northumberland Strait six years ago, my father, Jack, told us about his trips here with his father – my grandfather, Armand – many years before to buy fox pelts. Dad joined his father’s fur-manufacturing business when he got out of the Air Force, at the end of World War Two. PEI was where fox farming began at the end of the 19th century, and in the early 1950s it was still a leading production centre.

So when we arrived on the island, Dad wanted to stop in Summerside to search for the dry cleaners where he and my grandfather had set up shop to meet the farmers. “There was a bank across the street; they let us store the pelts in their vault overnight,” Dad recalled.

In downtown Summerside we found several tributes to PEI’s fabled fox industry – a statue of a silver fox on a stone pedestal, a huge painted fox mural on the wooden wall of an old building – but no dry cleaner across from a bank. We were about to give up – after all, a half-century had passed – but even at 87, Dad was not one to quit easily.

He went into a small jewelry store and asked the young salesperson if she knew where his dry cleaner might be. She shook her head. But then she picked up the phone to ask her Mom – PEI is that kind of place – and, bingo! The dry cleaner had closed some years before, but Mom remembered where it had been so we could do our pilgrimage. Mission accomplished!

Picturesque Alberton

Fast forward six years. Dad is no longer with us, but my son and his wife now have three young children. We are heading to the farm (dairy and seed potatoes) where my daughter-in-law was raised, to vacation with her siblings and their spouses and kids. My wife and I also take some time on our own to explore beautiful Prince County – and to track down the origins of the fox farming industry that first brought my father and grandfather here.

We find it in the picturesque little town of Alberton. From the wharf you can see Cherry Island, where the world’s first fox farm was built, in the early 1890s. The extraordinary story is recorded in Alberton’s charming little historical museum in the centre of town.

Charles Dalton and Robert Oulton were the pioneers of breeding and raising foxes in captivity. Their foxes were “silver-blacks”, a naturally occurring mutation of the Canadian red fox.

The story began some time before 1890 when a Mr. Lamb dug a few young foxes from their den in the woods near Tignish, not far from Alberton, and sold them to one Benjamin Haywood. Haywood tried briefly to raise the young foxes in a shed adjoining his carriage house before turning them over to Dalton.

After some unsuccessful efforts to raise the foxes in cages in his barn, Dalton formed a partnership with his friend and hunting companion Oulton. Oulton would take care of the animals, while Dalton handled finance and marketing.

Oulton decided to try raising the foxes in a more natural environment; he fenced in a section of spruce and hardwood forest on his isolated Cherry (then Oulton) Island farm. By 1895, Oulton’s farm had produced several foxes, the first to be bred and raised to maturity in captivity.

As Oulton and Dalton worked to develop a consistent strain of silver-black foxes, they began selling the pelts of the animals they did not retain for breeding at the January sale of C.M. Lampson and Company, in London. They shipped the furs from a small PEI harbor in the dead of night, to keep their production secret, and for good reason: in 1900 they received $1,807 for a single fox pelt, an enormous sum at a time when an average Island farm worker could expect to earn $320 for a year’s work!

As production increased, it became impossible to keep their project secret, and in 1900 Dalton and Oulton expanded their partnership into the “Big Six Combine”, with several neighbours. The group pledged never to sell live animals outside the group, but their monopoly was broken in 1910 when the nephew of one of the partners, Frank F. Tuplin, sold two pairs of live silver foxes for $10,000.

During the fox boom that followed (1910-14), fortunes were made. In 1910 Dalton sold 25 pelts in London for more than $20,000. The commissioner of agriculture reported in 1914 that the 3,130 foxes raised on the Island’s 277 ranches had a value of $14 million – an average of almost $4,500 per pelt!

"Million-Dollar Train"

Dalton set up a new farm near Charlottetown, PEI, to supply the Charles Dalton Silver Black Fox Company Limited, a new venture for which he had received $400,000 in cash and $100,000 in shares, in 1912. The fast-growing fox industry was riding so high by then that the train carrying breeding stock from his farm in Tignish was dubbed the "Million-Dollar Train" in the local papers.

With the outbreak of World War One, however, Dalton must have felt that the “soft-gold” rush was peaking; he sold all his fur interests and devoted the rest of his life to politics and philanthropy.

He was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1912 and 1915, where he served as minister without portfolio. He also donated generously to fund a tuberculosis sanitarium, schools and help for the Island’s poor.

In 1930, at the age of 80, Dalton was appointed lieutenant governor of Prince Edward Island, a position he held until his death in 1933.

Today, there are only a few small fox farms remaining on PEI. But the breeding stock and husbandry techniques developed by Dalton, Oulton and other founding members of PEI’s “Big Six Combine” were used to launch fox farming operations across North America, Europe and Asia.

One last personal note: one of the larger fox farms that my father visited in PEI back in the 1950s was in the tiny community of Birch Hill, just down the road from the farm where my daughter-in-law was raised. Little could he have known that, some 60 years later, his own son, grandson and great-grandchildren would be back in Birch Hill for a family reunion!

The author would like to thank the curators of the Alberton Museum for allowing us to reproduce photos from their wonderful collection. This charming museum is well worth a visit for anyone travelling to Prince Edward Island!

Have you ever visited a mink farm? Would you like to know more about how farmed mink are raised and cared for? Senior Truth About Fur writer Alan Herscovici asked "Les", a third-generation Nova Scotia mink farmer, to give us a personal tour and explain the work he does during a typical year.

In Part 1: Breeding, Les explained how the mink production cycle begins early each spring. In Part 2: Whelping and Weaning, we got an insider’s view of life on the farm through one of the busiest periods, from April to June. This time, we find out how young mink are cared for through the summer.

Truth About Fur (TaF): When we last spoke, you explained all the work involved in preparing and caring for the newly born mink kits. What happens next?

“Les” (Nova Scotia mink farmer): Most of our kits were born towards the end of April or beginning of May. At about one month old they start licking at the fresh feed we put onto the wire mesh of their pen, and a few weeks after that they are usually fully weaned. On our farm we install the nipples of the drinking water distribution system quite close to the nest box opening, to encourage the kits to explore the larger pen and become more independent.

TaF: Is that when you start breaking down the litters into smaller groups?

Les: Exactly. Around mid-June, on our farm, we start moving female kits into their own pens, in groups of four. If there are more than four females in a litter – say, six – we will take two female kits from another large litter to make two pens of four each.

TaF: So the kits are about six-weeks old when they’re separated from their mothers?

Les: On average. You are watching carefully to see when the kits can fend for themselves. If you move them when they’re too small, they may have trouble reaching the water nipples and become dehydrated. If you leave them together too long, they can quarrel and bite at each other to establish dominance.

TaF: What about the male kits?

Les: Some that we select for breeding next season are moved into their own pens in another barn. Most male kits, however, we usually leave, in pairs, with their mothers. Even when fully grown, the males seem to remain calm together with their mothers. And there is research from Denmark that shows they grow bigger and healthier that way.

TaF: So you are already selecting mink for breeding or harvesting at this stage?

Les: It’s a first selection. We do the same when we divide the female kits into groups of four: we are watching for the best fur colour and quality, size, vigour, and the ones from the largest litters. These are moved into a separate barn for breeding next season.

But the female kits don’t remain in fours for long. We leave the pens across the aisle empty, so we can divide each group of four into pairs a few weeks later. Some farms settle their kits into pairs directly. But we find that doing this in two steps – fours and then pairs – helps the kits to adapt with less stress. And because we have developed movable nest boxes (see Part 1), we minimise the need to catch or handle the young mink during the extra move.

During the move from fours to pairs we also vaccinate the young mink. In Canada a 4-Way vaccine is used, protecting against distemper, pseudomonas, enteritis and botulism. We try to get our mink settled into pairs and vaccinated by the first week of July, before the weather gets too hot.

TaF: What happens next?

Les: Through the summer, the mink eat and grow. We feed them at least twice a day, sometimes more. If we see that all the feed on the wire mesh of their pen has been eaten – or if the kits seem overly active – we increase their ration. Within a month, our feed order has doubled!

Traditionally, mink farmers had to source, store and mix their own feed every day – and many still do that. We are lucky because we receive our feed every morning, direct from a central kitchen that services a number of farms in the region. They have a vet on staff and professional nutritionists to ensure that the mink receive the right proportions of fat and protein and other nutrients for each stage of their development.

After the rush of whelping and weaning, and then separating the mink into pairs and vaccinating, the summer is also a quieter time for the mink farmer. We keep the mink fed and clean, of course, but we finally have more time to catch up on maintenance and paperwork ... and for some relaxation.

If you are lucky enough to have good people to help, there may even be some time for a vacation with the family. Which is just as well, because things will get busy again soon enough!

***

SEE ALSO: A YEAR ON A MINK FARM. PART 1: BREEDING, PART 2: WHELPING AND WEANING, and PART 4: FUR TIME

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

Have you ever visited a mink farm? Are you interested to know more about the care farmed mink receive? Senior Truth About Fur writer Alan Herscovici asked "Les", a third-generation Nova Scotia mink farmer, to give us a personal tour and explain the work he does during a typical year. In Part 1: Breeding, Les explained the beginning of the mink production cycle that takes place in Spring. Now we move on to the period April - June and Part 2: Whelping and Weaning.

Truth About Fur (TaF): When are the young mink born and what do you do to prepare for them?

“Les” (Nova Scotia mink farmer): Some of the first litters can come as early as mid-April. Most are born towards the end of April, beginning of May. Even before the young are born, however, the mink farmer has plenty of work to do.

First we prepare the pens to receive young mink, or “kits”, by covering the regular 1 ½-inch by 1-inch flooring mesh with a ½-inch by 1-inch plastic-coated mesh. This does not allow manure to fall away as easily, but it protects the small kits.

We also install a plastic funnel guard at the entrance of the nest box, to keep in the straw or wood shavings that will make a warm nest when the kits are born. We are constantly building up those shavings and forming them into a bowl shape, to keep the kits near the centre of the nest where the mother can nurse them and keep them warm. When you are preparing nest boxes like this for several thousand females, it keeps you pretty busy!

TaF: Is there anything special you do when the kits are born?

Les: Whelping is one of the busiest times on a mink farm. From first thing in the morning until late at night we are in the barns, checking to see who’s been born, ensuring that their bedding is in a good shape to keep the kits in the centre of the box.

We are also watching for any kits that may be born tangled in their umbilical cords. 99% of the time, the moms take good care of things themselves: eating the placentas, cleaning and nursing the babies. But sometimes you will have five babies wound together in the umbilical cords so tightly that the mother can’t free them. We take them to the little surgery section of the barn where we have heat lamps and scalpels. Once we’ve cut them free and cleaned them up, we return them to their mothers.

While we’re ensuring that the new-borns are safe, we are also watching the kits born over the past few days, to be sure they are warm enough and nursing well. We are also on the look-out for little ones that are not getting enough milk; perhaps there are too many kits in the litter. You learn to recognize their weak, hungry cries. If necessary, we may move a kit to an adoptive mother with a smaller litter.

TaF: Mink will adopt kits from another female?

Les: Often they will. You pick a female that is doing a good job caring for a small litter, and hold the tiny, young kit near her. If she snaps at it, you try another female. But if she sniffs and licks it, then you can slowly slide the kit beside her and usually she will care for it with the rest of her litter.

TaF: All this sounds like a lot of work with so many young mink.

Les: It is! During this whole period we are checking every litter several times each day. Newborn mink kits are tiny. At birth, their eyes are still closed and they have no fur, so they are very prone to hypothermia. In addition to a good bed of shavings, we keep a plywood cover over the nest box for a while, to keep in heat.

TaF: And when are the kits weaned?

Les: As the kits get bigger, we remove the plastic shield and move the food and water closer to the nest box. There is also a shelf in the pen area where the female can get away from the kits, to rest herself and encourage her young to fend for themselves.

At about one month, they will start licking at the fresh feed we put on the pens every day, and then it’s a few more weeks before they are fully weaned.

By mid-June, we can also start removing the small gauge mesh from the floor of the pens, to keep them cleaner. This continues through into late June for the litters born later. It is good that the litters are not all born at the same time; it helps to spread out the work!

TaF: It must be very satisfying to see the kits come out of the nest box and feed themselves.

Les: It is, because we have been working very hard to ensure that they make it. It is so strange - insulting really - when some activists claim that we are cruel to our animals, because we work so hard to ensure that they are healthy. We are watching for signs of dehydration, of hypothermia; it takes so much experience and concentration to watch for all the things that can go wrong with young animals. If you don’t love working with animals and caring for them, you probably shouldn’t be a mink farmer!

TaF: And how did you become a mink farmer, Les?

Les: I am the third generation of mink farmers in my family, and before that there were two more generations who were trappers and early experimenters with breeding mink in captivity. So I guess mink farming is in my genes. I enjoy working with animals, and I enjoy working with mink. It’s a passion, for sure!

***

SEE ALSO: A YEAR ON A MINK FARM. PART 1: BREEDING, PART 3: GROWING UP, AND PART 4: FUR TIME

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

What really happens when misguided animal-rights zealots break into fur farms, cut fences, open cages and “liberate” mink? Here are five facts about "mink liberation" the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and their activist cheerleaders don’t want you to know!

1. Most “liberated” mink don’t enjoy their “freedom” for long!

Farmed mink are not wild animals. They have been raised in captivity for more than 100 generations - that’s more than 2,000 years in human terms - and are ill-equipped to fend for themselves in nature.

In fact, farmed mink have been selectively bred to be less aggressive and have never had to hunt for their food. Many “liberated” mink therefore die from dehydration or starvation. And because they associate the sound of vehicles with the arrival of the farmer’s motorized feed cart, many are attracted to roads where they are run over by cars.

In their boastful press releases, activists never show the mangled results of these deadly encounters. The media also generally choose to protect public sensibilities. But mink farmers are left to clean up the remains of animals they cared for since birth.

The carnage is not pretty, but we decided that the public has a right to see the truth about these mink “liberations”. I took the following picture last Fall on the road outside a Quebec mink farm, the day after activists broke in and released several hundred mink. So far, no one has been charged for intentionally subjecting mink to the suffering you see here:

2. Mink that do survive, wreak havoc on local livestock and biodiversity

Inevitably, some “liberated” mink do survive, at least for a while, and especially if neighbours keep an outdoor chicken run or duck pond! The results are not good for the chickens and ducks.

Mink are notorious for going into a murderous feeding frenzy when the opportunity arises; they will bloodily wipe out dozens of hens or ducks within minutes.

Even more worrisome for biologists is the potential for the transmission of disease, to and from wild populations, and the possibility of weakening the gene pool if even a few domesticated mink survive long enough to mate with their wild cousins.

3. Releasing nursing females is just plain stupid!

Releasing farm-raised mink is never a good idea, but it takes a special sort of idiot to break into a farm while the females are nursing their young. This is exactly what some still-unidentified pea-brains did last month in southern Ontario. During the night of May 30-31, they cut the perimeter fence of a mink farm near the town of St. Mary’s and opened the cages of 1,600 nursing females.

The young kits, just 2-4 weeks old, are completely dependent on their mothers. With little or no fur (some still won’t even have their eyes open), they can easily die from hypothermia or dehydration. The farmers spend long hours in the barn through this critical period, to ensure that the kits are nursing and well cared for.

Luckily, most of the females "liberated" in St. Mary's did not go very far when their cages were opened, precisely because their young kits were nearby. So most of the females were quickly rescued, but there was no way of knowing which litters belonged to which!

Farmers will sometimes move nursing kits from large litters to be adopted by a female with fewer young. But this is done slowly and carefully, to ensure that the female will accept her new charge. But in St. Mary's, there was no choice but to return the females to cages at random, and hope that their maternal instinct would win out.

4. The livelihood of small family farms is put in jeopardy

A farm invasion is clearly very damaging: the female mink have been fed and cared for since the previous year, and the kits represent the income needed to cover these and other expenses. The damage to the livelihood of the farm family, however, goes far beyond these immediate losses.

The success of a mink farm is directly related to the quality of the fur produced. Fur quality, in turn, is determined by nutrition and care, but also by genetics. Each year, mink farmers carefully select the animals they will retain for reproduction; they are constantly working to improve the quality of their herd.

Tragically, although most “liberated” mink are quickly recovered, their genetic history is usually lost. Breeding records are kept on cards attached to the mink pens. But there is no way to know which pens the recovered mink were released from. Since many North American farms are now operated by a second or third generation of the family, decades of genetic records - and work - are lost.

ALF criminals know all this: on their websites they brag about destroying breeding records and encourage others to do the same. How can these misguided activists claim to be “non-violent” when they destroy the life-work of several generations?

5. Mink “liberations” are a direct attack on democracy and everyone’s freedom!

The recent attack on the St. Mary’s, Ontario mink farm occurred on a weekend billed by radical extremists as “a day of direct action”.

Responsibility for the attack was claimed by an anonymous group in a "communiqué" (ALF's preferred term for a press release) posted by the “Animal Liberation Press Office”.

SEE ALSO: AFTER 50 YEARS, FUR TRADE TURNS TABLES ON ACTIVISTS

The communiqué makes chilling reading for anyone who values democracy and personal freedom. In addition to the muddled collection of misinformation (e.g., claims that farmed mink are “mercilessly trapped in painful leghold traps” and suffer “a painful and agonizing death” on farms), the text states openly that Animal Liberation Front activists are using “economic sabotage” to raise costs for people working with animals, with the goal of putting them out of business.

On a personal level, farmers and their families are being terrorized by these attacks on their property, their animals and their livelihoods. (Intruders are sometimes armed with baseball bats and other weapons.) On a broader level, it is all of society that is threatened by people who think their beliefs give them the right to break into private property and sabotage legal businesses.

And what do mainstream animal activist groups say about such criminal activity? Unfortunately, they often resort to Orwellian doublespeak: “We do not support illegal activity,” they insist. “But we understand why some people feel the need to stop this industry at any cost!”

Nice try. But we can turn this doublespeak on its head: if mainstream groups did not play so fast and loose with the facts in their verbal attacks on the fur trade, perhaps impressionable young activists would not be lured into such criminal activity!

***

What else do you think ALF doesn't want us to know about mink "liberation"? Please leave a comment below! And see what Fur Commission USA has to say about mink "liberation".

Have you ever visited a mink farm? Are you interested to know more about the care farmed mink receive? Senior Truth About Fur writer Alan Herscovici asked "Les", a third-generation Nova Scotia mink farmer, to give us a personal tour and to explain the work he does during a typical year on a mink farm. In this first installment, Les explains the beginning of the mink production cycle: breeding. Welcome to Spring on a mink farm!

Truth About Fur (TaF): What does Spring mean for you on the mink farm?

Les (Nova Scotia mink farmer): Like most farmers, our production cycle begins in the Spring. As the days get longer in the first half of March, it’s breeding season for the mink.

We will have selected our breeding stock back in November/December. In choosing breeders, we take several factors into account. We are looking for size, fur colour and quality, for sure. But we are also watching for females that produce larger litters and take good care of their young.

We also want mink that are easy to handle and that thrive in the farm environment.

Not least important, we select for resistance to disease; we use blood tests to help identify the most disease-resistant animals for reproduction. We are constantly working to improve the genetic quality of our herd, for health, temperament and fur quality.

SEE ALSO: A YEAR ON A MINK FARM. PART 2: WHELPING AND WEANING

TaF: How are mink bred?

Les: It’s all natural, there’s no artificial insemination. For breeding, we bring the females to the males because they are easier to manage.

On our farm we have done something to make this much easier: instead of catching the female to move her, we developed removable and interchangeable nest boxes. When the female is in her nest box, we can close the door to her larger pen with a sliding panel. We carry her nest box, with the female in it, to the male’s pen and insert it there in place of his, after shooing the male into his pen. Then all we have to do is open the sliding panel and the party begins.

After mating, the female will return to her nest box, which is her territory. We close the sliding panel and bring her back to her pen. The whole operation is completed without handling the animals, with no trouble or stress for either mink or people!

TaF: Do males breed more than one female?

Les: Yes, each male is usually mated with about five females. When we introduce a female into a male’s pen, we watch to be sure that mating occurs and record that date. The female will be bred with a second male about a week later, because ovulation in mink is provoked by intercourse. The second mating also provides insurance in case the first male was infertile. We try to breed our females three times, for maximum assurance.

TaF: What happens next?

Les: It is important to disturb the mink as little as possible during the period when the fertilized eggs are implanting. Some producers will increase the hours of light in the barn during this period, but we find that the natural lengthening of the days is sufficient for implantation and gestation. We will also decrease the fat in the females’ diet and increase the percentage of protein during gestation.

***

SEE ALSO: A YEAR ON A MINK FARM. PART 2: WHELPING AND WEANING, PART 3: GROWING UP, AND PART 4: FUR TIME

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