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.

In part one of The Truth About Fashion, we explored and compared sourcing issues and supply chains of both fast-fashion and luxury fashion brands. And while many brands do what they can to instil trust and confidence in consumers through ever-growing transparent supply chains and ethical and sustainable sourcing, is it all too late?

As the public moves towards environmentally conscious consumerism, attitudes towards shopping are changing. More so today than ever before, shopping for pre-loved clothing is fashionable. However, growing in parallel is the deeply ingrained wear-once-and-throwaway culture that has been created. In part two of The Truth About Fashion, we investigate people’s attitudes towards shopping and the challenges that face brands to entice today's growing number of reluctant shoppers.

Second-Hand Shopping

Today, second-hand no longer means cheap. In fact, with an explosion of fashion-rental sites, luxury outlets, and online buyers snapping up pre-loved garments, second-hand has become synonymous with mindfulness. In fact, according to a UK-based study by French e-tailer Patatam, one in five British women admit to feelings of guilt when purchasing new clothes, resulting in them turning to pre-owned garments as sustainable alternatives. This finding was followed up with almost two in three (68%) of participants interviewed confessing they’d happily buy preowned items. It appears the undeniable issues that choke the fashion industry, such as water waste and landfills, are resulting in consumers selling, donating and buying second-hand clothing, giving all garments a second lease of life.

While we can all agree shopping second-hand items brings great benefits, from extending the lifecycle of garments to reducing waste, there needs to be a whole separate discussion about what constitutes a worthy second-hand purchase, and more importantly, what doesn’t.

Recycling, upcycling, reusing or donating clothing highlights how conscious consumers are finally putting their money where their mouths are. However, not all clothing is of high-enough quality to justify repair or recycling services. When it comes to expensive fabrics like leather and fur, designers tend to specialize in remodelling garments, meaning these fabrics are routinely remade into other forms or accessories. However, 95% of recycled clothing derives from the fast-fashion industry which is created with synthetic materials like polyester, meaning that when the time comes to remodel or reuse them, they are merely industrial rags not fit for re-purpose.

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

Polyester Clothing Forecast to Double

According to Fashion United, nearly half of the world’s clothing is made of polyethylene terephthalate (commonly known as polyester), which today is the most used plastic in the world. As if that statistic isn’t daunting enough, Greenpeace says polyester clothing is forecast to nearly double by 2030. This is especially alarming given the 11-year deadline – 2030, ironically enough – that the world has to reduce its carbon emissions output, of which the fashion industry is the second largest contributor after the fossil fuel industry, if we are to prevent Earth from crossing an irreversible climate tipping point (a rise of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels).

We stated in part one of this series that, at best, only a small fraction of synthetic materials can ever be indefinitely recyclable, but the simple fact is, most widely-used synthetic materials like polyester, or any fashion textile deriving from crude oil, are not recyclable and do not make worthy second-hand purchases. The poor quality of synthetic materials means they last two to three years (maximum) before they are no longer fit for use – but more importantly, the lack of recyclable qualities of these materials means they are environmentally unsustainable.

Since 2016, shoppers’ consumption of pre-owned items is up 45%, signalling a social appetite for a sustainable wardrobe. This means we need to reconnect the dots between who is producing and using the garment and where the garment comes from and where it ends up. Answering such questions isn’t easy, but if you start with natural materials, the answers are clear. Natural materials are a part of fashion's circular economy. What does this mean? Fabrics which are a part of fashion's circular economy are mainly natural, meaning they come from nature and return back to nature when they are discarded.

As discussed in part one, as soon as big conglomerates saw the profit margins explode with outsourcing and the introduction of cheap fabrics in the 1980s and ’90s, little thought was given to fashion's circular economy. But while the fashion industry seems to have forgotten its own circular economy over the last 30 to 40 years, the fur industry continues to be a staple of it. But how? Well, attached to fur is a string of services, from maintenance, restoring and repairing to recycling, upcycling and remodelling - an advantage of fur that no other material can match.

This means that, in regard to the investigation into social attitudes towards fashion materials and consumerism, fur is on the same side of the debate of fashion with longevity and sustainability at its core. And brands would do well to pay attention to using responsible natural resources like fur as public attitudes shift towards these sustainable natural materials.

The most important rule for fashion brands is to stay relevant, so it comes as no surprise that fashion brands are often in the eye of many social and political media storms. From questions surrounding traceability, sustainability and animal welfare, to issues about environmental impact, exploitation, consumerism and waste, the fashion industry isn’t in short supply of concerns. In fact, a surplus of issues, predominantly surrounding production and waste, fronted by the fast-fashion industry which produces 1 billion garments and 1.2 billion tons of CO2 equivalent each year, has caused some of the biggest earthquakes in the fashion industry.

These issues that plague the fashion industry are complex and interlinking, all of which necessitates their exploration. This mini-investigatory series will get to the heart of the fashion industry, asking questions like:

• What is the reality behind natural and synthetic materials?

• Are fast fashion brands profiting at the expense of the environment and the world’s most vulnerable people?

• And as we set sail on this new fashion voyage, are we headed for a sustainable and responsible future in fashion, if one awaits?

These questions are tough and the answers are not easy, but in today’s world where transparency and trust are key, we must explore the truth about fashion.

Opening this three-part series with an exploration into the reality of natural materials, and the difference between natural materials and synthetic alternatives, what better position to start than from the very beginning of fashion production with sourcing.

The sourcing of fashion materials, natural or synthetic, is a hotly contested subject with many burning consumer questions, including:

• Where have my clothes come from?

• Who made my clothes?

• And at what cost to the planet are my clothes?

Ethical and Sustainable?

Today, the sourcing of materials and their impact on the environment is important to consumers who want to feel confident that what they are wearing is both ethically and sustainably sourced. Ensuring clothing is ethically and sustainably sourced should be difficult for brands, as these two tropes - ethical and sustainable - are often in conflict. However, brands find it surprisingly easy to market themselves in this way.

The first reason why fashion brands marketing themselves as both ethical and sustainable is tricky is because there is no universal definition of either. What one person may deem ethical or sustainable may not mirror another person's definition.

For example, vegan consumers (who represent approximately 3% of the world’s population according to leading vegan researchers) may not deem animal-derived products - a fur coat, leather bag, cashmere sweater or meat – as ethical or sustainable. They would rather consume faux-leather and faux-fur products which are made from plastics, a derivative of petroleum – an oil-based product which is by nature unsustainable and unethical to other consumers.

Ensuring clothing is ethically and sustainably sourced should be difficult ... However, brands find it surprisingly easy to market themselves in this way.

Let’s take another example. An argument on one hand may be that plastic fashion has not caused harm to animals through production - hence the popular term “vegan and cruelty-free”. However, the counter argument is that plastic is not biodegradable, and at best can only ever be indefinitely recycled. It will need constant transformation through the use of more harmful chemicals, damaging the environment and affecting wildlife later down the line during its short life-cycle.

These two rather simple examples demonstrate how debates surrounding ethics and sustainability, while often used in the same sentence, are complex and not always working in parallel.

In fact, ethics and sustainability present an ironic paradox in fashion. Since fashion is about creating new things, with each new season high fashion, high street and online brands releasing one new collection minimum, it’s actually impossible for fashion brands to be completely sustainable or even environmentally neutral. Which begs the question: are brands using these fashionable terms for good PR?

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource. Truth About Fur.

Consumers Demanding Accountability

Unpicking this dichotomy further, while ethical and sustainable sourcing has been a focus point for brands for decades, it has only entered the zeitgeist in recent years due to household names being exposed for sourcing malpractice, questionable supply chains, and contributions to global exploitation and climate issues.

A well-known example of this is sportswear manufacturing giant Nike. Since the 1970s, Nike has been attacked for its use of sweatshops, the term used to describe long-hours and low-wages factories in developing countries used by big conglomerates to produce cheap products, ultimately creating greater profits. Nike experienced rapid growth after moving production overseas with record-breaking profit margins. But as this was at the expense of a vulnerable labour force, notably young women in southeast Asia, Nike began to face waves of consumer backlash. Following this, in the 1990s, Nike was forced to introduce a more transparent and ethical supply chain. This is an example of brands adopting consumer concerns not necessarily because they want to, but because they have to in order to survive.

However, it’s not only fast-fashion retailers like Nike who have had to answer questions regarding sourcing and revise their position. The luxury fashion sector has also had to face growing consumer demands head on, with the fur industry facing its biggest attack yet.

In a bid to answer consumer concerns, sustainability strategies have become commonplace in the fashion industry, with luxury umbrella juggernauts LVMH and Kering among those adopting them. However, while the term "sustainability" is this season's must-have, according to the Global Fashion Agenda around half of the fashion industry have not yet taken any action on sustainability whatsoever. Instead, the term has been, and is being, used as a self-serving marketing tool to drive sales and good PR.

But, while this may be the motivation for most, this has not been the approach of the fur trade.

SEE ALSO: Fur-free Gucci policy contradicts company's "sustainability" claims. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

Certification and Traceability

For decades, the fur trade has been at the centre of media attention regarding the sourcing of natural fur, in particular the methods by which fur farms are managed and fur is harvested for fashion. Yet while high animal welfare is the reality of fur farming, even when compared to other animal-based industries including the food and dairy industries, the reality is not always accurately reported. But why?

The media have a large role in shaping public consciousness, often backed by sensationalist and extremist "animal rights" groups, and bear huge responsibility for the spread of misinformation. Nonetheless, the fur industry has responded to sourcing concerns in a huge way, wanting to reassure and instill confidence in consumers of fur products with its high levels of standards and welfare. It’s for this reason that the fur industry, which is already regulated at government, independent scientific and auction house levels, including the European WelFur program, is introducing the world’s first industry-wide certification and traceability program in 2020, called FurMark.

FurMark, which has the backing of luxury conglomerates like LVMH and Kering, will give consumers of natural fur products confidence that the fur they are purchasing comes from a certified supplier with the highest level of animal welfare. This will include certified farms across Europe and North America and wild fur deriving from government-regulated North American conservation programs. This means, unlike plastic fashion brands, FurMark will present consumers with a clear step-by-step supply chain including where the fur was farmed, dressed and dyed, auctioned, manufactured, and retailed. This level of transparency is unrivalled not only at company level, but industry too.

SEE ALSO: North American fur trade - Ahead of the curve on traceability. By Derek Martel, Fur Institute of Canada.

Natural Materials a Staple of Circular Economy

The narrative when it comes to material sourcing within the fashion industry is a clear one.

Since the 1980s and '90s, when a large number of major fashion and sportswear brands outsourced their production to developing countries, questions surrounding the production of fashion grew in parallel with supply chains becoming more complex and foggy. It’s this which ultimately led to a spike in consumers demanding to know the origin of the goods they consume, something that is now standard practice. 

However, while supply chains have become clearer than ever before, the materials and their effects on the environment have remained the same, with natural materials being a staple of the circular economy and plastic materials helping destroy the planet.

Yet, this isn’t the narrative of vegans, animal rights campaigners, or the media at large. In fact, according to vegans, the world's consumption of animal-based products (food, clothing, cosmetics, fuels) is redundant and archaic.

However, across all cultures, from millennials in China to the world’s Jewish community and the black communities of the US, fur is not outdated, nor is it only an economic signifier of wealth, but it is a material with heritage and deep social and religious meaning.

Fur is entrenched in many people’s beliefs and everyday lives. With the growing standards of fur sourcing, and the implementation of FurMark in 2020, the fur industry can pride itself on being ethical and sustainable – something many brands promise but ultimately do not deliver.

SEE ALSO: The Truth About Fashion Part 2: Attitude and attire.

When New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who represents the Garment District, announced a proposal back in March to ban future sales of fur in the city, many viewed it as another case of politicians blindly following a trend. After all, the animal rights industry has made a national business out of vilifying the animal consumption world - regardless of what’s fact or fiction.

But what animal rights activists and political sponsors assumed would be an easy steam-roll over “rich white women” and “redneck trappers and farmers” who support fur usage, has proven shakier than imagined. Perhaps the large majority of Americans who recognize the regulated usage of animal by-products as both sustainable and practical, wasn’t quite anticipated.

We sure do live in interesting times in American culture! If I sound punchier than usual, it's with good reason.

When the public just won’t pay attention to self-righteous anti-fur diatribes, it's become a national trend to politically force legal bans upon the masses of your fellow citizenry instead.

California knows this process all too well, with the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco both imposing bans on the sale of fur recently. Political pressure has also been applied with current legislation seeking to totally snuff out regulated trapping and the sale of wild fur statewide.

It doesn’t take a business strategist to see what’s going on. Clearly, in the eyes of the animal rights industry, the “east coast” was in need of a dust-up with some good ol’ frivolous (and completely egregious) hunting and garment restrictions. Hopes were quickly imposed to ensure New York City becomes the next “fur-free” urban mecca.

The only difference from the antics playing out on the west coast: the Big Apple isn’t going down without swingin’… hard!

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

We Don't Care How They Do It in California

According to trade group FurNYC, the city still has the largest retail fur market in the country, stating the 150 remaining fur businesses in New York create 1,100 jobs and produce $400 million in revenue per year.

And it's not just backwoods fur trappers supporting the industry. As the NYC fur ban really started to heat up this May, folks from all walks of American life came out to fight the proposal.

African-American and Jewish faith leaders added to the protests in opposition, stating that the ban discriminates against their cultural heritage. Outspoken immigrants weighed in regarding the potential loss of skills and careers. Celebrities jumped into the mix to criticize government who thinks it can tell its people how to dress. Anyone who recognized fur as a sustainable material made sure to join the vocal movement against the ban.

"People feel complete when they put on something that they worked hard for, they have sacrificed for," said the Rev. Phil Craig, who was among 75 clergy and other advocates who turned out at one protest against the ban.

In a Tweet sent out in May, The Coalition For Blacks For Fur stated: “This fur ban will destroy jobs, the environment, and critical tax revenue.”

Apparently, the pushback from a ban on fur in NYC was more than the city’s politicians expected.

“Maybe I should have thought more about this before I introduced it because I didn’t realize the amount of pushback there would be,” Johnson told reporters at City Hall. “I was actually moved by some of the furriers and their testimony,” he said.

Animal rights proponents, on the other hand, still desperately contend the usage of fur is trending downward. (All the more reason to force a ban I guess, right? These folks clearly aren’t famous for their rationale.)

On the contrary, a national locavore movement seems to be fueling a revival in sustainable materials, like fur, which is probably why industry leaders like PETA and the Humane Society of the US are scrambling to support restrictions on fur usage and regulated hunting of fur across the country.

SEE ALSO: HSUS and PETA: Top fur ban proponents not credible. Truth About Fur.

We reported just a few months ago about the booming demand for coyote fur-trimmed winter jackets produced by Canada Goose. And it's not just fashion - more and more rural citizens are interested in ethically utilizing fur-bearing species that pose problems to homes, property, and livestock.

With synthetic fibers from “faux fur” coats flushing 1,900 fibers into our world’s waterways every wash, it's no wonder that eco-conscious citizens are turning to more natural ways to reduce the “plastic footprint” that all parties seem to agree is a global issue.

In the case of wild fur especially, the regulated seasonal trapping and usage of fur pelts from abundant wild species such as raccoons, skunks, and beaver is nationally considered wise use of resources that are otherwise destined for the landfill when they’re struck by vehicles, lose habitat due to urbanization, succumb to disease, or cause conflict for landowners and municipalities.

Environmental and wildlife management aspects aside, an underlying theme heard from citizens in the NYC fur ban debates is clear - freedom of choice.

The “my closet, my choice” meme seems to be resonating with a growing sector of the American population that has grown tired of hollow protests and frivolous government bans.

It appears as though the “freedom of choice crowd” carries the bigger stick - at least for the moment.

SEE ALSO: Progressive politicians should promote fur, not ban it. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

Wrong Info Creates Wrong Decisions

While some people are certainly foaming at the mouth to drive another nail in the coffin of rural culture, many more are lighting their torches and wielding their pitchforks against fur-supporters based on hearsay rather than tangible information.

“All-knowing” celebrities like fashion designer Tim Gunn have been outspoken supporters of the fur ban. Gunn told reporters that “Foxes, rabbits, chinchillas and even dogs and cats are anally electrocuted, gassed, bludgeoned and often skinned alive.”

Even Speaker Johnson, in explaining to reporters why he proposed the ban, said he “really just did it because I felt like it was the right thing to do in my heart.”

Apparently Johnson and Gunn, and also PETA representative Dan Matthews who echoed similar statements, did not do their homework before pushing for a city-wide ban. They also haven't been paying attention to the news lately.

In March, two Chinese workers came forward stating they’d been paid by animal rights activists to skin a dog alive on video. That video, which has been circulated around the internet, is the only crutch the animal rights industry has been able to rely upon for the out-of-left-field (and inherently false) statement that licensed trappers and fur farmers “skin animals alive for their fur”.

SEE ALSO: Notorious "skinning fur animals alive" video exposed as complete fraud! By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

Of course, licensed fur trappers and fur farmers know full well skinning animals alive isn’t part of the pelting process - but who asked them, right? Not the mainstream media, not the government officials imposing these bans from city to city, and certainly not the anti-hunting/anti-fur crowds.

While some may argue that fur pelts aren’t “needed” in the modern age, some could also argue that the detractions against regulated fur usage are also in dire need of some evolutionary creativity.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreements in opinion, the usage of animal byproducts, or even wildlife management fundamentals. A disagreement however, is far from shoving cult-like laws and legal bans down the throats of the American people.

No Such Thing As Bad Publicity

For the animal rights industry, I suspect the battles over fur bans from coast to coast (and coat to coat) present themselves as a win/win situation.

Even if the NYC fur ban caves to the pressure of citizens’ right to choose, the animal rights organizations spearheading the ban still walk away with profitable notoriety as a byproduct of their latest PR stunt.

Which is why, despite the lunacy of strong-arming a ban on the usage of a natural resource, the organizations, celebrities, and politicians involved in perpetuating the NYC fur ban will continue the circus act from city to city, state to state, country to country, and, inevitably, closet to closet.

Let's be real, if anyone supporting a ban on fur garments actually cared about animal welfare, they’d do their due diligence by researching all aspects of the debate, rather than selfishly hiding behind a protest sign or online petition. But alas, ignorance breeds ignorance; and a false sense of “moral superiority” just breeds more lackluster grandstanding - an obvious hot commodity surrounding the topic.

Perhaps it's time the (already heavily regulated) hunting, trapping, and fur-garment communities take a page out of the animal rights industry playbook and soak up a slice of the publicity pie themselves.

At the end of the day, groups like PETA don’t care if they win or lose another media-fueled public cage match - I’m talking about them aren’t I? And that’s what ultimately sells - whether the facts lean in favor of their views or not.

Supporters of the regulated usage of natural fur materials would be hard-pressed to find a better microphone than the one they’ve been forced to fight against in New York City - and it's time for those invested parties to take full advantage of this circus while it's still in town!

Suffice to say, the animal activism industry has a PR problem: the men and women protesting the NYC ban on fur aren’t your run-of-the-mill rural fur trappers and mink farmers the American public has been conditioned to demonize. Collectively, the folks most outraged over the proposed fur ban represent a cross-section of modern America - all creeds, all races, all classes, all political affiliations.

Sometimes, a government-backed “ban” on a particular material or chemical makes sense to protect the health of its citizens (or the natural resources we all cherish and have been tasked with conserving). The NYC fur ban, clearly, is not one of those instances.

A ban on clothing choice? Especially from a material that is regulated, and has proven no modern negative impact on our environment (while the alternative product has proven to cause environmental harm) - well now, we all know that’s just silly.

At the end of the day, whether NYC moves forward with its ban on fur or not, one thing has been made painfully clear: the animal rights industry can’t claim the “moral majority” any longer.

The growing opposition to Assembly Bill 44, which proposes a statewide fur retail ban in California, has taken longer than it should have for a simple reason: no one who farms and sells furs expected the state legislature to seriously try to target their centuries-old craft for elimination - certainly not businesses that legally operate, produce jobs, and pay their taxes.

Introduced in December 2018, AB 44 would "make it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, display for sale, trade, or otherwise distribute for monetary or nonmonetary consideration a fur product, as defined, in the state. The bill would also make it unlawful to manufacture a fur product in the state for sale."

AB 44 sailed to passage through its house of origin but is now encountering some increasing headwinds in the State Senate. A larger-than-expected number of opponents of AB 44 turned out at the measure’s hearing before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, June 25, a video of which can be found on the committee’s webpage.

SEE ALSO: Progressive politicians should promote fur, not ban it. By Alan Herscovici.

Opponents Line Up in Senate

Lining up to speak against AB 44 were people from all over California, including a Native American who told of fur’s importance in helping many of his people fight their way out of poverty. Earlier, the president of the California Black Chamber of Commerce and prominent leader with the Black Business Association told committee members of the affront AB 44 was to many members of his community who had fur as the only avenue open to them to overcome the many indignities of job and housing discrimination.

Two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, asked the author of the bill, Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, if it is possible to amend her measure in a way that achieves her goal of improving the treatment of animals without destroying a whole industry.

There is a way to do that, which Friedman has steadfastly opposed so far. It would be amending AB 44 to adopt a global traceability and certification program that ensures all fur farms adhere to strict, science-based standards of animal welfare and sustainability with independent third-party audits and inspections every 15 to 18 months, as well as the integration of block chain technology to ensure traceability and access to information on every fur skin used in a garment all the way from the farm through processing and manufacturing and to the retailer.

Key word, that: "traceability". According to an Agence France-Presse news report, “French fashion designer Jean Paul Gaultier said Wednesday [July 3, 2019] he could go back to using fur if he could be sure it was entirely traceable. The flamboyant creator announced in November he was renouncing fur, a move hailed as a major victory by animal rights groups like PETA who have previously tried to disrupt one of his shows and occupied his Paris boutique.”

SEE ALSO: North American fur trade: Ahead of the curve on traceability. By Truth About Fur.

Retailers Fear Disruptions - or Worse

Friedman thought she made a point in asking members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee why, if her bill were so harmful to retailers, none of them were there to testify against it. Here’s why. Because retailers fear that groups like PETA and Direct Action Everywhere, one of whose adherents recently charged a stage to swipe a microphone from US Sen. Kamala Harris, would be organizing disruptions in their stores. Or worse, that they would subject retailers and their clients to the kind of harassment and intimidation that they have experienced at the hands of animal extremists for years, including vandalism of their stores and homes, destruction of inventory and, in some cases, even the use of Molotov cocktails thrown into their stores.

In fact, in 2017 animal activists were sentenced for splashing flesh-eating acid and other chemicals on the outside of a San Diego fur store, gluing their locks and spray-painting anti-fur screeds on the store’s exterior. The homes of the store owner and her elderly parents were similarly targeted.

However, it should be noted that retailers, consumers and other Californians have collectively sent upwards of 600 letters opposing AB 44, because they have had enough of government overreach and the attack on small businesses, jobs and personal choice.

Pushing for Compromise

AB 44’s next hearing was to be before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 9. That committee is chaired by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who is also a member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee and at its June 25 meeting asked Friedman if there was a way to “create some kind of a compromise situation for those who insist upon producing fur, for those folk who are trying to do it the most humane way possible.”

It will be interesting to see if Jackson’s committee follows through on finding a compromise, which the proposed amendment mandating the comprehensive certification program is.

Problematic Process

One of the greatest challenges AB 44’s opponents face has been the process itself:

• Accelerated scheduling of hearings to challenge our ability to respond.

• The setup of the testimony itself whereby the author has 10 minutes and each of her sponsors has five minutes to introduce their bill, and we are allowed only two people who each have only two minutes to testify.

• Our being prohibited from raising questions or challenging falsehoods in these hearings.

• Instructions to the Senate Judiciary Committee staff to use the analysis done on the Assembly side.

The state’s handling of conflict diamonds holds a lesson for fur. As awareness of the consequences of conflict diamonds grew, including insurgencies and loss of human lives, lawmakers here did not ban diamonds. Instead, they adopted the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme rather than eliminate an entire industry. Why can’t lawmakers apply the same thinking for fur?

* * *

An earlier version of this article appeared on the website Fox&Hounds Daily.

In this age of mass-produced, imported goods, textile artist and jewellery designer Vanessa Ægirsdóttir belongs to a growing band of people who want more of the benefits of commerce going to producers of raw materials, and specifically in her case to Canada's First Nations trappers. While her family name reflects her Icelandic heritage, this artisan is Canadian born and bred, and currently lives in Whitehorse, Yukon. Together with her partner, Tlingit trapper George Bahm, her mission is to generate more economic returns for trappers of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council, in whose traditional territory they reside.

TruthAboutFur: Last year you opened a boutique in Whitehorse selling mainly fur jewellery. The Yukon is known for hats and mittens made by First Nations artisans. Why not do the same? Are you trying to create a new market?

Vanessa Ægirsdóttir: Our products include scarves, hair scrunchies, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, and rings. We will be growing the line to include housewares and garments in the future. When developing the line, I wasn’t so much trying to create a new market as much as I was looking to enhance an existing one. Yes, the Yukon is known for mukluks, moccasins, mittens and trapper hats, but there was room for me to add a jewellery line and other accessories.

I feel strongly that it is not my place to elbow my way into the traditional fur products market, and there are many extremely skilled makers who are far more qualified than I am to be making these products. When folks inquire with me about having these traditional items made, I forward the contact information of the makers that have opted into being on a referral list that I share. So while I am an agent, I am not a middle man, and we don't sell their goods in our boutique.

I also know that many of those makers (several of whom are Elders) rely on the income generated from sewing traditional fur and hide garments, and I have absolutely no interest in taking that away from them. It’s a matter of respect.

TAF: How do you source your furs?

Vanessa: Preference is given to First Nations trappers when buying our furs. First, I buy all the furs of my partner, George Bahm, then if we need furs that his trapline didn’t produce, we go to his cousins and uncles. If we still need furs, we extend our search to his home community of Teslin and outward from there, always giving priority to First Nations trappers.

TAF: What incentive do trappers have to sell to you, rather than sending their pelts to auction, as is the common practice?

Vanessa: We often pay the same as, if not more than, what is typically obtained through the auction houses. This is a multi-faceted decision.

We want our local trappers to have choices about where their furs go, so by offering to buy the furs instead of them having to send them out, we create an option for them. We want to put more power back into the hands of the trappers. Normally, trappers can sell at auction for an unknown (often disappointing) price, or keep the furs and make finished goods themselves -- but this is something not everyone can do due to skill, time, or interest.

We also want to help our trappers make informed decisions about which furs to target, and how to invest in capital assets for their trapline operations. Knowing the current values of furs at the outset of the trapping season gives the trappers the choice with regard to what species to target and in what quantities.

Also, in our experience, it is rewarding for the trappers to see how the furs are being used, which is not an experience many are familiar with because furs sent to auction are never seen again.

"More than Just Harvesting Fur"

TAF: So your motivation is not just to build a successful business for yourself. Tell us about your larger vision.

Vanessa: Incentivising our First Nations trappers to sell their furs to us is not my main intention. More than that, I want their trapping to be sustainable and profitable.

Having spent only part of one winter out on the trapline with my partner, I have merely glimpsed a fraction of the beauty and teachings that await on the trapline. But I know that this traditional practice, with its skill, stories and lessons, will be lost if the wild fur industry continues as it is. My hope is to protect the importance of what is out on the trail, in the quiet of a fresh snowfall, so that future generations of fur harvesters can reconnect with their ancestors and the teachings that have endured for thousands of years. Trapping is so much more than just harvesting fur.

It is from this perspective that I might play a small part in an act that builds bridges and relationships between myself, as a non-Indigenous person, and the First Nations trapping community.

SEE ALSO: "'Trapping is beautiful' says proud Cree Robert Grandjambe."

Cultural Immersion Through Weaving

TAF: You have sought to immerse yourself in First Nations culture, and in particular the textiles aspect. But you are also mindful that you yourself are non-Indigenous. Tell us about your journey. Has it been easy?

Vanessa: In addition to working with fur, I am also a Ravenstail weaver. This ancient form of weaving predates the more commonly known Chilkat, and is similar to basket weaving. It originated on the Pacific West Coast with the First Nations (Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian, among others) who wove and traded Ravenstail robes long before contact. I learned this weaving method from Lily Hope whose mother, Clarissa Rizal, was a master weaver.

I have been warmly welcomed into the weaving community, which is comprised almost exclusively of First Nations weavers. Because of the teachings I’ve been given and the protocols that have been shared with me, in addition to my own skill and cultural awareness, I am allowed to do this weaving work. That’s not to say it has been without question and even upset some members of various First Nations communities. However, we try to use these interactions to inform and to dialogue with those posing questions and expressing concern, and are able to explain the special nature of the permissions given to me to be welcomed into the weaving community. This extends to my relationship with the fur and hide-maker community.

But make no mistake, I am aware that I am a non-Indigenous maker, and I don’t for a minute pretend to be First Nations. I am a guest, and it is a privilege to be welcomed into these various circles of knowledge. I treasure that deeply and take pains to preserve that.

Adding Value to Furs

TAF: So how do you see the current state of trapping in the Yukon? Presumably all is not well, or you wouldn't be striving for change.

Vanessa: There are around 300 to 400 trapping licenses currently issued by the Yukon Department of Environment, of which I guess fewer than half are held by First Nations trappers, mostly operating on traplines that have been in their families for generations.

What I see is that most trappers, regardless of their indigeneity, are limited in how to add value to their furs. We have the Yukon Trappers Association, which works with trappers of all backgrounds to get their furs to market. They make tools, traps, scent, and boards available for purchase, and also hold workshops. The YTA will batch furs from several trappers and send them out for tanning, which is not a service that is otherwise readily available in the area. Aside from individual makers (traditional or otherwise), there aren’t local manufacturing or design facilities that are taking the furs and producing Yukon-made fur garments.

Many First Nations trappers continue to produce finished goods from their furs like mitts and hats, but as is the case with most producers, the supply chain favours the final seller and not the producer of the materials or the finished goods. If these makers have an established clientele, they are positioned to make a reasonable income, but for those who rely on retail vendors to get their products in front of consumers, their work is shockingly under-valued. For example, it’s common for a maker of moccasins (smoke- and brain-tanned moose hide, beaver fur, and beadwork) to receive only $100 from a retail store owner, regardless of the innumerable hours spent in production.

While there may be a limit to what the market will bear in terms of the final retail price of such goods, it is seldom the maker who is receiving the majority of the money for the product being sold. We’re working to improve that balance.

***

SEE ALSO:

"Fur jewellery shop works to raise awareness about Indigenous culture", Yukon News, Jan. 24, 2019.

"Yukon artist and Tlingit trapper create stunning jewelry", Broadview, Feb. 13, 2019.

***

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

The strength of the fur industry is that it is always reinventing itself.  In the 1970s and 1980s, it was the revival of wild fur. In the 1990s, furs were sheared low and treated like fabric. Since the dawn of the 21st century, a new generation of designers is mixing it up, exploring a wide range of techniques and some very new approaches to marketing fur.

At TruthAboutFur, we enjoy introducing our readers to innovative creators like Brenda Dragon, who draws on her childhood on the land to make practical accessories for her growing Aurora Heat brand. Or New Zealand designer Jane Avery, who uses fur from culled rabbits to craft one-of-a-kind works of wearable art. Today we visit with American creator Pamela Paquin, a passionate promoter of “accidental fur”. What is accidental fur, you ask? Read on!

TaF: Pamela Paquin, you have specialized in a quite unusual sector of the fur trade. Tell us about “accidental fur”.

PP: As anyone who drives through the countryside knows, a very large number of furbearing animals are killed on our roads: raccoons, foxes, squirrels and many others. I recuperate these animals to make beautiful fur accessories that sell for anywhere from $45 to $2,000. I find that “accidental fur” is a more respectful term for these animals than “road kill”; I like to focus on their potential rather than how they ended up coming to me.

TaF: Did you come from a fur family?

PP: Not really, we were farmers. My father’s family were French-Canadian dairy farmers who came to Massachusetts from Quebec early in the 20th century; I am now living on a small piece of my great-grandfather’s farm. My mother was brought up in Greenwich, CT, 30 minutes from New York City. This mixed background gave me a sense of duality and engendered a respect for diversity and different ways of life. From childhood I wanted to make a difference in the world. I studied International Relations at Boston College and then worked in organizational management at MIT. Pursuing a Master’s in Peace Studies in Europe for a change of perspective, I then married a Dane; it was in Denmark that I first became aware of mink farming, which caught my attention because I had two pet ferrets at the time.

TaF: Is that when you became interested in working with fur?

PP: It wasn’t that simple. I was a vegetarian in Europe -- my response to growing awareness of the need to control our consumption of resources, and my desire to reduce violence in the world. I also thought that wearing synthetics was the way to be gentle with the planet – until a Danish furrier (Jane Eberlein of Samarkand) made me re-think my position on oil-based fabric including faux fur. I also came to understand that vegetarianism is not really natural for humans. And that fur is the result of 200 million years of R&D by nature to produce the ultimate way to keep a body warm and dry.

TaF: So did you begin to question your vegetarianism?

PP: Eco-systems sciences made me realize that cows and other herbivores recycle plants that humans can’t digest, but herbivores also need predators to maintain a balance. Humans are omnivores, and we have a role to play. It’s fine to be a vegetarian, but hypocrisy is rife in many ways: cats are carnivores, so to keep a cat you elevate your love for your cat above the lives of the animals that provide its food. Industrial soy production is destroying habitat. We’re all compromised, but I believe we should be as respectful as we can to the animals that feed and clothe us, and work together to bring compassion to sourcing from nature. Even my view of peace has evolved; I realize now that peace isn't a final goal or end-state, it’s a skill set to learn: we can only strive to manage conflict with compassion and consideration.

TaF: So how did you begin working with fur?

PP: When I came back to the States, I was trying to change careers and travel less while raising my daughter. I was struck by how many animals I saw by the side of the road -- you don’t see so many in Europe – and it got me thinking: here was a wonderful natural resource that was being wasted.

A local taxidermist named Tom White – The Rustic Moose – taught me how to skin and flesh. He helped me buy my tools and explained how the auctions and prices and the industry worked. I was also incredibly inspired by Mark Miller, in Boston, who continues to produce in the US; I give them a lot of credit for that! Moyle Mink & Tannery and USA Foxx & Furs have both been super kind and helpful regarding tanning - and attending the ILOE fur show was an inspiration regarding technique, Zuki in particular. I'm heartened that sheared beaver looks so much like mink, given how few wild mink, and how many beaver, I find.

I began making fur accessories for friends and neighbors, and people loved them. Suddenly the local media picked up my story, and next thing I was on Nightline, and even the BBC came knocking. I was not ready and it was quite a shock! I set up my website and that’s how I now sell most of my creations.

TaF: Your company is Peace Fur, and you have sometimes been quoted calling your products “ethical fur”.  What do you think about mainstream trapping and fur farming?

PP: I consider myself to be part of the North American fur industry, full stop. Calling my products ethical – which could suggest others were not -- was as self-defeating as when we first named our company Petite Mort Fur, a play on words with the French euphemism for the female state after love-making! As a farmer who eats meat I have no problem with hunting or trapping when it's done with compassion.

Trappers have been on the front lines of conservation and the rebound of furbearers in North America. Trapping is also critical for controlling overpopulation, or invasive species like nutria in Louisiana, or possum and rabbit in New Zealand.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

I also respect farmers who work hard to provide their animals with excellent care; I eat meat and participate on our local agricultural council to ensure my food is compassionate. I know that farm-raising mink is a way to produce consistent, high-quality fur at a reasonable cost, while providing a range of natural colours, which means less dyeing.

From an animal-welfare perspective, it’s important that farmed mink can be humanely euthanized on the farm; they don’t have to be transported to distant slaughterhouses. Nonetheless, many potential clients aren’t comfortable with the idea of raising animals in cages; for these people, accidental fur provides another option. At least half of our customers have never worn fur before.

As a Peace Professional, I know better than to criticize other people’s choices. Some people prefer wild fur, some prefer farm-raised – and now Peace Fur provides a third option that can open new markets for the industry. I think there’s lots of growth potential here and I'm eager to share what I've learned. It's a big country and I can't pick up every raccoon, fox and coyote!

TaF: So do you think that others could be following your example?

PP: Absolutely! There are a growing number of us already and I've had designers reach out for wholesale. It is estimated that as many as one million animals are killed on our roads every day. That’s more than 360 million animals each year. I think it’s reasonable to suppose that, say, 50 million of those animals may provide quality fur. That’s a good portion of total world fur production today.

I believe accidental fur can attract a whole new generation of fur lovers, because it makes so much environmental and ethical sense to not waste this wonderful material. 

TaF: So do you see opportunities for growth in the North American fur trade?

PP: I do, because our society is beginning to understand that fur is a natural and biodegradable material. Synthetics are not. We are choking the world with plastics, and we have to change. Our challenge as an industry is to show that we are not only sustainable, but also compassionate and respectful of the animals we work with. Certainly, with Millennials having more pets than babies, it's a perspective we should be aware of. People feel fur and think of the animal now, so showing respect in sourcing helps them feel proud of their furs.

Attracting new customers will also help to raise prices – which is important, because no industry can be sustainable if producers cannot make a living. Now that I understand how much work is involved in producing a fur pelt, it frustrates me they can be sold for so little. I believe that Peace Fur can help to increase understanding and appreciation for fur and the fur industry.

And maybe there's a bit of destiny at play, because there is a rich fur heritage in my family name: The House of Paquin was a fashion design and marketing powerhouse in Paris, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Jeanne Paquin was a courageous innovator and the first major female couturier. I like to think that I am also an innovator who can help the North American fur industry grow and thrive for the next century. The fur is already quite literally at our feet.

SEE ALSO: Roadkill salvage: When to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. By Furbearer Conservation.

***

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

Most of our TruthAboutFur blog posts discuss the environmental and ethical implications of fur production, because critics of the industry have focused on trapping and farming. But the fortunes of the fur trade also depend on a wide range of fast-changing business and marketing issues. Today we explore one of the most important of these “downstream” challenges: selling fur at retail.

We hear lots about how quickly retail is evolving, especially with the game-changing explosion of social media and on-line sales, but most fur purchases still involve the personal interaction of a consumer with a bricks-and-mortar retailer. And while the “service business” (remodeling, repairs, cleaning and storage) is important for most fur retail operations, on-going success still depends upon selling new products.

But, while many retail furriers have invested considerable time and money to modernize their stores, very few have paid much attention to refining their own skills in the subtle art and science of selling.

Most furriers are very qualified to evaluate the quality of the products they sell, and many are skilled fur artisans in their own right, capable of repairing, remodeling or even creating a full fur garment in their back-store workshops. These skills were learned from experienced master furriers - usually a parent or relative, sometimes a former employer - and this training was treated very seriously. But selling was usually taken for granted as just something one did, and for many years that was good enough. No longer.

In today’s difficult market, it’s important to make the most of every sales opportunity; every person who walks in the door is a potential customer. (We will discuss ways to attract more consumers into the store in future article.) So how can we improve our selling skills, especially at a time when the normal challenges of fur retail have been complicated by animal-rights campaigning?

Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss selling strategies with an accomplished retail furrier who, while he prefers to remain anonymous, was happy to share some of his tricks of the trade.

SEE ALSO: The future of fur retailing: New challenges, new strategies.

The Judo of Selling Fur

TruthAboutFur: Most fur shops now also sell shearling, leather, raincoats, cashmere, and other products. A wider product selection brings new customers into the store but does not always translate into new fur sales. How do you deal with consumers who express concerns about buying fur?

Retailer: First, it’s important to understand three fundamental principles of human psychology:

1) Logic, reason, and education (or information) make us think. But it is emotions that make us act.

2) Never contradict a customer and never use the word “but”, because that means that you disagree with what they are saying.

3) It is very difficult to counter an opinion with logic. It is usually more effective to address opinion-based objections with emotions.

TaF: So how do you apply these principles to someone who expresses concerns about buying fur?

Retailer: This consumer is trying to communicate something. If you deny what they are communicating - for example, by saying they don’t have their facts straight - psychologists say you will probably only reinforce their objection. None of us likes being told what to think or do! It is much more effective to flip the context of their objection. This is very much like judo, where the opponent's strength is used against himself. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the first step is to acknowledge that you understand their concern - that you agree - in order to channel that objection to a more productive outcome.

TaF: Can you give us some concrete examples of how you would apply this philosophy to selling fur? For example, let’s say a customer comes into the shop looking for a shearling, but refuses to try on a lovely mink stroller you propose because, she says, her children are against fur.

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has a lot more to lose than fashion.

Retailer: Well, in that case, my first response would be: “It is very good that your children have their own opinions; you've clearly raised them to think for themselves. Now, do your children sometimes make choices you don’t agree with?” Silence. The customer will then usually chuckle and respond: “Well, yes ... of course.” At which point I will say: “So, surely you have the right to make your own choices too, then, even if the kids don’t always agree, right? Now, let’s  try this nice little jacket, just to see how you like it ...” More often than not, the customer will now agree to try on some furs, because you have confirmed her right to make her own decisions, rather than contradicting what she told you. It seems simple, but it makes all the difference.

TaF: Interesting indeed. So let’s try this again. How would you respond to a customer who says: “You just don’t see much fur in the streets nowadays.”

Retailer: My first response would be: “You’re right. Most of the furs we sell now are less conspicuous; fur can now be worn everywhere, for all sorts of activities. The styles we sell now are not what most people think of when we say ‘fur’. Let me show you what people are wearing today ..."  And you start with a nice plucked mink jacket.

TaF: Very nicely done. So how about a customer who says: “I’ve heard that many fashion brands have stopped selling fur. It is not really socially acceptable to wear fur these days."

SEE ALSO: The truth about "fur free" designer brands.

Retailer: I would answer: “I understand what you mean. Fashion companies are often changing direction, for all sorts of reasons. We saw the same thing in the early 1990s, but within a few years most designers had fur back in their collections, presented more creatively than ever -- that's when we started seeing more sheared furs and a wide range of new fur accessories. It's true that some companies tested the water with fake furs last year, but that sparked more serious discussion about the environmental impact of petroleum-based synthetics and fast-fashion, and now we can already see the industry preparing to change direction again. After all, fur is the most durable and recyclable natural clothing material you can choose. Lightweight, warm and comfortable too. Try this piece, for example ..."

TaF: Do you still see cases where it’s the husband who is discouraging his wife from buying fur?

Retailer: Not so much any more, times have changed. But when that happens, I ask the husband: "Sir, I understand that you want your wife to look and feel good, whatever she buys, right?" Normally he'll answer, "Yes, of course." So then I will validate his answer: "Because if she buys something she doesn't really like, she probably won't wear it much, will she? So what’s important is to buy something she really likes and will feel good wearing, right?" - a statement no modern husband can deny. And then I lock in his agreement with: "That's why you should go with this lovely fur jacket, if that’s what makes your lady feel good, don’t you think?"

TaF: Let’s try one more. How do you handle a customer who asks if you will buy her old coat, because she doesn’t wear it anymore?

Retailer: Again, I will begin by agreeing with her: "I understand perfectly that you do not want to wear this coat as it is now, Madame. No one would want to wear it like this.” Confirming her opinion; then pivoting: “The good news is that the fur itself is still in very good condition. You know, I could take this apart completely, clean the fur, and re-cut it into a young, contemporary style. Then you will have a lightweight, modern coat you can really enjoy ...” And you show her some examples of what can be done!

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

TaF: Thank you for this. I am sure that our readers will find your approach useful. Any last thoughts?

Retailer: At a time when fur retailing is under pressure from competing products and services - not to mention on-line sales - it is more important than ever to hone our selling techniques, to maximize the potential of every consumer who comes into our shops. I hope some of these tips help others, and it would be great if retailers reading this would send in their own experiences and techniques. By sharing ideas, we can all do  better!

* RETAILERS:  Share your own tips about selling techniques that you find effective, in the "Comments" section below, or send them to us at [email protected].

A recent trip to the United Kingdom allowed me to conduct some unscientific research on common preconceptions about this damp and chilly nation. Are the natives really as fixated on Brexit as media reports suggest? Is opposition to fur as strong as we're told? And is veganism truly sweeping the land?

The UK is the spiritual home of the animal rights movement, so it’s not surprising that it also hosts some determined anti-fur campaigners. In 2000, England was the first country to prohibit fur farming (largely symbolic because there were so few farms), and now activists want to ban all fur imports. To this outside observer, the future of fur in the UK was looking grim before my recent visit. Now, I’m a little more optimistic.

OK, I’m not strictly an outsider. I’m English. But I’ve spent almost no time there for 20 years, so a month-long stay over Christmas gave me the chance to see whether my preconceptions based on media reports and hearsay matched reality.

As my plane touched down at London Heathrow on a dark and foreboding 4°C evening, my main preconceptions, of course, concerned Brexit. Did people really talk about nothing else? And, more to the point, was it fair to say that mere mortals could make no sense of this complex mess?

In close second place was my preconception about the likelihood of some sort of fur import ban. A campaign to this end got a lot of media coverage last summer, buoyed by a bevy of celebrities and stories of fur-vendors and wearers being harassed on Instagram. The Conservative government nixed the idea of a ban, but the main opposition party, Labour, was unsurprisingly more receptive, and with the political scene in turmoil (Brexit, again!) who knows what could happen?

My third preconception was that all the stories I’d been reading about veganism sweeping the UK must be exaggerated. Omnivores like myself tend to believe that veganism can never become a major trend, but what if we’re wrong? Ethical vegans (as opposed to the dietary variety who just think veganism is healthy) tend to share animal rights beliefs, so if vegan numbers were really swelling, the UK might become less fur-friendly than ever.

It was time for some first-hand observations.

Fur-Trimmed Parkas Everywhere

My first objective was to see for myself how much fur was on the street.

This totally informal survey took in two quite different areas: London’s West End, with all its foreign and often well-heeled tourists, and a sampling of towns and villages across the county of Kent. From growing up in the region, I expected to see a smattering of mink and fox jackets in London, but very little in the way of full-fur garments elsewhere. And I was right. The southeast of England has never been a big fur market.

But here’s the news! Everywhere I turned, from London’s ritzy Piccadilly Circus to the tiny village of Downe, Kent, where my parents live, fur-trimmed parka hoods were everywhere. Trendy folk were wearing them, but so too were school kids, pensioners with grocery bags, and tough guys with workman boots. In an impromptu high-street survey in the coastal town of Folkestone, I estimated half of all Christmas shoppers were wearing them.

So you’re asking were they real or fake, and yes, the majority looked cheap and ill-kempt, and were almost certainly plastic. But as many as one in 20 looked spectacular, meaning top-notch fakes or real, and at least one in 50 was bona fide coyote. I don’t think that’s insignificant, especially in England at a time when animal activists are constantly claiming that real fur is taboo. They're wrong.

I saw no disapproving looks from passers-by at those sporting coyote, and I don’t believe that’s because anyone thought they were fakes. It’s not that hard to spot a real coyote ruff, particularly when it’s accompanied by a helpful Canada Goose logo. Rather, I imagined the wearers of cheap fakes were admiring the real McCoy enviously, wishing they could afford one of their own.

I don’t know whether this boom in fur-trimmed parkas will open the door to other furs (and shut down talk of fur bans for good), but it is clear that the look of fur - both fake and real - is now hugely popular and widely accepted in the UK. It was certainly a surprise that media reports had not prepared me for.

Fashionable Vegans

Gauging the popularity of veganism was another kettle of fish (to use a phrase PETA would rather we didn't). I just kept my eyes and ears open, and didn't have long to wait.

Whenever I go home, one of my first stops is my local pub, the George & Dragon, for a pint of bitter, a comforting reminder that no matter where in the world I pitch my tent I will always be English. Imagine my surprise, then, when I asked for a bite to eat and was offered the option of a vegetarian menu! I literally squawked and threw up my hands as if the barman had offered me a virus.

No, I don’t live under a stone and have even seen vegetarian menus in trendy eateries, but a good English pub is never trendy – or so I thought.

I soon learned that British diners are now thoroughly coddled when it comes to their dietary quirks. Many restaurants, stores and, yes, even pubs offer gluten-free vegetarian and vegan options, and a meat substitute called Quorn is all the rage. My own sister served Quorn “meatloaf” on Boxing Day, which I viewed with the same curiosity I normally reserve for unrecognizable roadkill.

For an expert’s analysis, I sat down with my old friend and sheep farmer Lizzie, who, virtue of two teenage daughters, has a finger on the pulse of all things trendy. When she informed me we were now in the month of Veganuary, I knew I was in for an eye-opener.

“Veganism has become terribly fashionable, for many of the wrong reasons,” she said. "The supermarkets have jumped on the band wagon and vegan food is everywhere - actually at the expense of vegetarian food.”

"People are increasingly being told about the damaging environmental effects of livestock production, and they believe that by becoming vegan they are helping to save the planet. But they are unaware that by rejecting meat and dairy products, their dietary fats now come from sources which contribute to the destruction of rainforests. 70% of UK farmland is under grass for very good reasons - agronomic and environmental. We are extremely well-placed in the UK to produce beef and lamb in a sustainable way."

So are all these vegans also animal rights activists, or at least sympathetic to the cause?

“There are a fair number of ethical vegans here, but only a few of them are animal activists. Most long-term vegans are calm and peaceful - they don't have the energy to be anything else. However, many of the new trendy vegans don't really care all that much about animals. It’s more to do with fashion, perceived health benefits, and their own woolly thinking born of a total disconnect with the whole concept of food production.”

And just to prove that Brits can’t stay off the subject of Brexit, she adds: “The one good thing that could have come out of Brexit would be leaving the Common Agricultural Policy. Sadly, we're going to bugger that up along with the rest of it. I'll be interested to see how long it takes these misinformed vegans to revert to meat-eaters once the food shortages kick in. I can't see them living on swede, a few stored potatoes and apples until the summer.”

Unscientific Conclusions

In North America, it is not uncommon for people to write off the British as a bunch of animal-rights fanatics. But, as in all things, we should be cautious about making generalizations about entire cultures, especially when our only sources of information are the media.

With that in mind, I now offer these unscientific conclusions from my recent month of field work.

First, and for me the most fascinating, most Brits don’t seem to hate fur at all, at least not fur-trimmed parkas. This suggests the future of fur in the UK may not be so bleak after all, especially if new products can be developed and marketed that cater to emerging trends and lifestyles.

Second, the overwhelming majority of Brits are still omnivores, but the rise of veganism is very real. However, this may just be a passing phase, and there’s no reason yet to assume that today’s trendy vegans will become tomorrow’s animal rights activists.

And last but most definitely not least, it’s true: just mention the word Brexit and everyone within ear-shot pulls their shoulders back, puffs out their chest, and delivers their 2 cents’ worth. They'll then admit they really don’t know what they’re talking about!

***

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

Though rarely seen these days, moleskin deserves a special mention in the history of the fur trade. This unique fur was once favoured by British high society, and at the height of its popularity gave value to a pest that was being trapped anyway, thereby satisfying a fundamental requirement of the ethical use of animals: minimisation of waste.

First some clarification: Moleskin, or mole skin, or mole fur, or simply mole, is the fur of moles, and where the fur trade is concerned, specifically the European mole (Talpia europaea). This may sound obvious, but a completely different fabric made of cotton is also called "moleskin", and is far more common these days.

Moles have never been a great fit for the fur trade because they're so small – an adult measures only 4.3 to 6.3 inches long. The tiny pelts are cut into rectangles and sewn together into plates which are almost always dyed because natural colours are so variable, making it difficult to find a large number of matching pelts. The most common colour is dark grey or "taupe" (French for mole), but light grey, tan, black and even white have all been observed.

These plates are - or at least were - then made into coats or trousers requiring 500 pelts or more, the lining of winter gloves (fur side in), and a very soft felt for premium top hats. (Cheaper hats used rabbit while everyday hats used American beaver.) Above all, though, moleskin has always been associated with the fronts of waistcoats.

If you're undaunted by the labour involved in working with such small pelts, the result is unlike any other fur. The hairs are very short and dense, encouraging comparisons to velvet, while the leather, though quite delicate, is extremely soft and supple. But what makes moleskin truly special is the nap. The hair of other furbearers grows pointing towards the tail, hence the expression "to rub someone the wrong way." Moleskin, however, reacts the same whichever way you rub it, an adaptation believed to facilitate reversing in tunnels.

Royal Connections

Historically, moleskin had a following wherever moles were hunted as pests, and particularly in the UK. From at least as early as the 18th century, every parish in England employed a molecatcher who supplemented his income by selling the pelts. (There was no money in the meat, however. Theologian William Buckland [1784 - 1856], who famously claimed to have eaten his way through the animal kingdom, described mole meat as "vile", rivalled only by bluebottle flies.)

The moleskin waistcoat was ubiquitous, and a tragic event reminds us that even moles were said to wear them! In 1702, King William III, better known as William of Orange, was out riding when his horse, Sorrel, tripped on a molehill and threw him. He broke his collarbone, developed pneumonia and died, prompting his Jacobite enemies in Scotland to toast “the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat."

But the most interesting period in the history of moleskin was in the early 20th century, and centred on another British royal, Queen Alexandra, wife of King Edward VII. Queen Alexandra was a fashion icon with enormous reach who set several trends among society ladies, like choker necklaces, high necklines, and "summer muffs". So great was her influence that some ladies even copied her "Alexandra limp", caused by a bout with rheumatic fever, by wearing shoes with different-sized heels.

Details are sketchy but the story goes that in 1901, as moles were creating havoc on Scottish farms, Queen Alexandra ordered a moleskin wrap. Whether the Queen simply fancied a bit of moleskin or was an enlightened wildlife manager depends on who's telling the story, but the result was a huge boon. Demand for moleskin went through the roof, and Scotland's pest problem was turned into a lucrative industry. During the period 1900 - 1913, the average annual supply of European and Asian moleskins was estimated at 1 million, and it increased thereafter. At the peak of moleskin's popularity, the US was importing over 4 million pelts a year from the UK.

Rise and Fall of Strychnine

After World War II the popularity of moleskin declined, perhaps in part because pelts were in short supply. Traditional molecatchers were being displaced by industrial pesticides, notably strychnine, which was first synthesised in 1954. But this poison was soon raising animal-welfare concerns and in 1963 it was banned in the UK for wildlife management. Moles, however, were exempted, and until recently dipping worms in strychnine was still the main method of managing moles on British farms. And because strychnine kills moles underground and unseen, supplies of pelts inevitably fell.

But now the tables have turned and traditional molecatchers are making a comeback.

At the dawn of the millennium strychnine was already in short supply, and in 2001 the UK suffered an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. In a bid to stop the disease spreading, public rights of way across land were closed and molecatchers were banned from entering farms. Within a short time there was a mole population explosion to an estimated 40 million. Then in 2006, the European Union ruled that strychnine could no longer be used as a mole poison and the stage was set for the return of traditional molecatchers.

In short order, three organisations sprung up claiming memberships in the hundreds - the British Traditional Molecatchers Register, the Guild of British Molecatchers, and the Association of Professional Mole Catchers. (It's another story for another day, but all three are now engaged in a bitter turf war - pun intended - in the guise of arguing how to kill moles humanely.)

Moleskin Revival?

The UK has always been the spiritual home of moleskin fashion, a position cemented by its most illustrious endorser, Queen Alexandra. Two factors are against it making a comeback anytime soon though: animal rights activism (for which the UK is also the spiritual home), and the cost of labour involved in working with such small pelts.

That said, if another royal influencer could be persuaded to don a new moleskin cap, who knows where it might lead? If I represented an organisation with a high-fallutin' name like the British Guild of Honourable Molecatchers, I'd get one off to Kate Middleton right away. Not only does she wear fur, but  she's also a strong bet to be a future queen.

***

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

Responsible fashion, informed consumer choice, and the sustainability of fur are front-and-centre in two new fashion campaigns for Fall/Winter 2018-2019 from the International Fur Federation. In preparation for the global launch on September 3, TruthAboutFur’s senior researcher Alan Herscovici spoke with the IFF’s director of fashion, Jean-Pierre Rouphael, about these exciting new campaigns.

TaF:  The IFF’s new consumer campaigns take a very innovative approach, combining beautiful fashion photography with a strong environmental sustainability message. Can you tell us about this?

Jean-Pierre Rouphael: At the IFF’s annual meeting last Fall, in Barcelona, the board decided it was time to promote the modern fur trade’s unique sustainability credentials. The anti-plastic movement was dominating mainstream media and people were talking about the environmental damage caused by plastic – which of course includes fake fur. It was the perfect opportunity to emphasize our "natural" story – the sustainability of fur.

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource.

Young people, especially, are increasingly concerned about how our lifestyles and consumer choices will affect the planet, so the timing is good. The challenge was how to tell this story in a fashion context. The solution we found is a two-pronged approach. One is a beautiful fashion campaign in Vogue magazine that incorporates our environmental message in the text. We call this campaign "Natural Wonder". And then we have a new digital campaign, called “Fur Now”, which centres on creative young people explaining in their own words why they love working with fur, and part of the conversation is about fur's sustainability.

NATURAL WONDER Campaign

TaF: Let's talk about the "Natural Wonder" campaign in Vogue first.

J-P Rouphael: "Natural Wonder" is a three-month exclusive campaign in Vogue, in six major markets – Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Russia and the USA – plus limited usage in China and Korea.

This campaign has been launched in Vogue's September issue, and will be followed by ads in the October and November issues, as well as on Vogue’s digital and social media platforms. The photography shows new fur creations by top designer brands, including Roberto Cavalli, Carolina Herrera, Oscar de la Renta, Fendi and others.

TaF: We notice that the fabulous photography is shot outdoors, not in a studio.

J-P Rouphael: Yes, the shoot was produced by the Vogue team, and we chose Dario Catellani to do our photography because he loves working outdoors, with landscapes and natural light. We felt that was important to reflect our message that fur is a natural product and a responsible choice.

TaF: And the message is clear, right from the bold headline: “Natural Wonder – Sustainable and beautiful, ethical and exquisite, the magic of fur is irresistible.”

J-P Rouphael: Yes, and the text that follows is also very direct. We explain that growing concerns about pollution caused by the production and disposal of plastics – like fake furs and other petroleum-based synthetics – make long-wearing and biodegradable natural materials, like fur, a better choice than ever. As we say in the text, “A fur coat is the ultimate refutation of the buy-it-and-toss-it ethos of environmentally destructive fast-fashion.”

FUR NOW Campaign

TaF: Now tell us about your second campaign, "Fur Now".

J-P Rouphael: The Vogue ads will be supported and complemented by a brand new "Fur Now" campaign that we are especially excited about this year. We have created eight fast-paced video stories featuring creative young people who are actively involved in the fashion industry. We will be featuring one of these video profiles each month, from September through December, and another four from February through May. But you can see all eight of these wonderful young creators on the IFF website now or right here on TruthAboutFur (see below).

TaF: It’s a very modern and engaging approach.

J-P Rouphael: Yes it is. These are real people and they express themselves in their own words. We intentionally did not script them; we just turned on the cameras and asked why they love working with fur, and that’s why the videos are so wonderfully sincere and authentic.

TaF: You have chosen young designers, artisans, and businesspeople working in different markets, in Europe, Asia and North America.

J-P Rouphael: Yes, some are new to the industry, and some are bringing new energy and ideas to multi-generational family businesses, like the charming 21-year-old Romanian woman whose grandmother started their store in Bucharest. There is also a British fashion blogger, someone who doesn’t work in the fur industry, but is nonetheless very interested in the environmental advantages of using natural materials like fur. These are authentic young voices that clearly demonstrate the dynamic creativity of our industry. And the fast-paced editing is also designed to speak directly to Millennials and Generation Z.

TaF: How will these "Fur Now" video stories be promoted?

J-P Rouphael: The campaign will be launched on Elle.com and HarpersBazaar.com through September and October. We will also have more than 40 print insertions in Elle, Harper’s, Cosmopolitan, and Grazia in the EU. There will also be a mailer to the Elle and Harper’s subscription lists. In all, this campaign will reach more than 100 million target consumers, compared to about 86 million reached by last year’s campaign.

TaF: An exciting campaign, indeed! Before we go, tell us a bit about yourself and what these campaigns mean for you personally.

J-P Rouphael: I have worked in fashion communications for the past 14 years, mostly with luxury fashion. I was born in Lebanon and worked for much of my career in Dubai, with clients including Valentino and Ralph Lauren. I moved to London a few years ago, and I am especially happy to be working with the IFF because I love fashion and fashion marketing.

Although I am experienced in promoting luxury, working on last year's "Fur Now" campaign was brand new to me. But touching and feeling fur, shooting it, and seeing how it uplifts any outfit and look, it became organic and easy for me to advocate and sell it through imagery and communication as a timeless beauty while still a modern-day luxury.

And, of course, we have an important story to tell about fur being the responsible choice for our eco-conscious times, especially as we become more aware of the environmental problems associated with fake fur. We believe that we have an extraordinary opportunity now to spread this very positive message about fur. That's why the slogan appearing on all our communications is: “Natural Fur – The Responsible Choice”.

FUR NOW Campaign Videos:

We’re used to hearing polarised arguments about fur, either strongly in favour or strongly against. But many people hold views that fall somewhere in between. One such person is fashion designer Jane Avery, from Dunedin, New Zealand, who is garnering attention for her work with just one type of fur, wild rabbit, under the brand name Lapin (French for rabbit). So is she pro-fur or something quite different? Let’s find out …

Truth About Fur: According to Lapin’s website, you specialize in “limited edition, bespoke and one-of-a-kind garments.” Can you describe some of your garments?

Jane Avery: The coats and jackets I have made to date are a combination of New Zealand wild rabbit fur and beautiful top-quality fabrics. When I started out with this concept three years ago I used appropriate fabrics to hand in my stash. I also had the opportunity to travel to India where I sourced heavy silk vintage saris and traditional embroidered woollen textiles. What resulted was a collection of one-of-a-kind creations. I also make limited-edition, made-to-measure bespoke pieces incorporating new fabrics such as 100% wools.

I live in a cold part of New Zealand and creating coats with exceptional warmth yet still retaining elegance and indulgence in gorgeous textiles is my aim. My original concept was to make garments using rabbit fur panels for yokes, collars, cuffs and upper shoulders. The furrier I work with prepares these for me. The fabric sections are insulated with a 50% cotton 50% wool batting so they can match the warmth given by the fur. The same goes for the insulated sleeves of Lapin bomber jackets which have rabbit fur bodices trimmed with leather.

TaF: Tell us about the production process. How many hours go into each garment and do your prices reflect this?

Jane Avery: There is a lot of hand preparation before the sewing machine gets involved. Because fur isn’t sewn with seams like fabric is, I turn in and hand-baste the seam allowances on the fabrics in order to create clean, secure edges to attach to the fur. It’s an example of slow fashion in action and it’s certainly not high tech. Some coats can take up to 50 hours to make.

It’s been an intense development process (I am essentially a self-taught sewer of over 20 years) and I’m quite the perfectionist. There’s extensive handwork tailoring and securing the inside of the garment before the coat lining is bagged out and the inner sleeve is hand-sewn shut. What results is a highly finished garment that’s as close to perfect as I can make it.

Of course this attention to detail and made-to-measure process is reflected in the eventual price of the garment. Also the quality of the textiles and the fact that the fur passes through the hands of my rabbiter, tanner and furrier before it gets to me puts Lapin pieces in a higher price bracket.

SEE ALSO: I'm an artisan designer: Fur and leather keep me warm.

TaF: Who are your clients?

Jane Avery: My clients to date have been people who recognise the skill and dedication in crafting a Lapin piece and want to invest in something special that, well cared for, will take them through many years of pleasurable wearing. It’s my hope that Lapin pieces will become heirlooms handed between generations. For the vintage fabrics I’ve been repurposing, such as the saris and woollen paisleys, this has particular resonance. I adore the concept of well-preserved, pre-loved antique fabrics being given new purpose and continuing their usefulness and beauty in companionship with New Zealand Wild Rabbit Eco-Fur.

TaF: Historically, before the expansion of fur farming made mink and fox more affordable, rabbit was called “the great imitator” because it could be treated to resemble mink, ermine, fox, beaver, and even seal. Do you take advantage of this versatility and how?

Jane Avery: The way I came to using rabbit was not because I wanted to imitate or emulate furs from other countries, but because I saw a New Zealand pest-resource that wasn’t being used to its potential. Of course I’m very open to experimenting and learning how I can manipulate this wild resource in a fashion sense. I do dye a proportion of the skins I use jet black, and I’m looking forward to being able to afford dying in other colours. For the integrity of the Lapin brand and message, which is to promote the use of this specific pest resource, I feel it is important for it to retain its own special identity.

Wild Rabbit Eco-Fur

TaF: The Lapin website says you use “responsibly sourced New Zealand ‘Wild Rabbit Eco-Fur’.” What do you mean by “responsibly sourced” and “Eco-Fur”?

Jane Avery: Lapin rabbit furs are harvested from the eradication catch of New Zealand high-country rabbiters. The responsibility these workers have, employed by high-country station owners, is to control the rabbit populations. If the rabbits are left unchecked, they reach plague proportions. Historically and to this day they destroy thousands of acres of grazing land and also the delicate native vegetation characteristic of the New Zealand sub-alpine landscape, such as tussock grass. They cannot be allowed to stay. This is an imperative of the New Zealand high-country environment.

The rabbits for Lapin generally die from a sharp shot to the head and are sourced at nighttime when their eyes can be seen shining in the beam of the rabbiter’s spotlight. To my mind this is as close to an instantaneous death with as little suffering as possible. It is responsible in that it deals with the problem skilfully and with respect to causing the animal the least suffering.

Lapin fur can be considered an "Eco-Fur" because by wearing it you contribute to restoring the natural New Zealand environment. It is a pest resource which means the rabbits are not being purposely bred for their fur. My creative philosophy for Lapin is to use as much as I can of what I have available around me. The rabbits are here and must be dealt with. Yes, there is tragedy in the deaths of these sentient beings, but I believe my view is one of practicality and realism. Wearing the fur of these animals can be considered a "woke" alternative to indulging in other furs, be they farmed or faux.

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

TaF: Most rabbit fur today comes from young animals bred for food, but the best pelts are said to come from adult wild rabbits that are taken in winter, when the fur is thick and even. Are you selective about the pelts you use?

Jane Avery: I am selective about the pelts I use. As a wild catch, it is variable in quality. I’m fortunate to work with a rabbiter who will grade the best pelts for me in the course of his work. The season here in New Zealand for optimum skins runs in winter from July to October when the chilly southerly winds are blowing into the New Zealand South Island high country. This means the rabbits have their winter coats on and are not moulting.

I like to use thick, fluffy furs with firm yet pliable skins suitable for construction in bomber jackets and structured coats. I also love the way many of the young doe rabbit furs are so sleek, smooth and floppy. These are great for scarves, capes and more unstructured styles. I am still experimenting with what is possible and learning so much every time I get a new batch of furs to work and create with.

So Does Rabbit Fur Shed?

TaF: Rabbit fur has a reputation for shedding easily, causing uneven patches in the fur. Is this reputation deserved, and are there ways to minimise shedding?

Jane Avery: The way to minimise shedding is to harvest during the winter when the animals are holding onto their fur for warmth. When I started out, I tested furs by continually rubbing and shaking them. My view is if you get them at the right time of year the shedding is tolerable.

Rabbit fur is what it is. It’s a natural resource and even with its reputation for shedding is a beautiful, practical material worthy of inclusion in high-end garments. Looked after well, it will look good and retain its warmth-giving properties for many, many years. It’s important to look after it properly such as being aware of not continually slinging leather bag straps on your shoulder or rubbing with car seatbelts. At least when it sheds you know the little bits are safely bio-degrading in the environment and not polluting the planet like the microfibres shed from synthetic “furs”.

TaF: Possums are also considered a pest in New Zealand. Is possum fur something you’d consider using?

Jane Avery: Lapin was founded on the notion of creating attention for the very under-utilised pest-resource of New Zealand wild rabbit. However it is just a name and I’m certainly not closed to using New Zealand possum fur as my business grows. From an aesthetic point of view, I like possum fur when it has been shorn down to a nice soft pile. As with rabbit fur, the creative possibilities with this pest, notorious for destroying our native forest habitats, are many.

TaF: Another source of fur which has a small but growing following is vintage furs which are remodeled and recycled. Is this something you would consider doing?

Jane Avery: I like the idea of repurposing vintage furs, and yes, it’s something I’m open to working with as my business develops. From my own wardrobe I wear a vintage chinchilla-rabbit coat which I found in a Salvation Army op-shop. It sheds like you wouldn’t believe so I’m banned from sitting in my son’s plush car seats when I have it on!

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

TaF: How do you feel about using farmed fur, such as mink or fox? An argument in favour of using farmed fur is that it takes pressure off wildlife populations, and in fact most of the demand for fur these days is met with farmed fur.

Jane Avery: Personally I would not use farmed fur for Lapin. It would be contradictory to Lapin’s essential message and philosophy.

I feel I am well enough informed about the whys and wherefores of fur farming and I understand the animal welfare standards are generally high, and in many cases higher than other industries exploiting animals for their meat and skin. As a sewer I also respect the tradition and craftsmanship of the fur industry.  But farmed fur is not something that I would purposely seek out as a product to work with.

I find reassurance in the fact that New Zealand wild rabbits, an introduced species, are essentially having a marvellous time living natural, free lives, eating and breeding in the great outdoors. At least when they meet their deaths at the hands of a rabbiter they are free, albeit in the wrong place in the world. If they were not an ecological problem in this country, I would not be exploiting their fur for fashion, nor would I seek out other furs … aside perhaps for possum.

TaF: North America has its own problems with invasive nutria as well as indigenous furbearers that cause problems if their populations are not managed. For example, muskrats destroy marsh habitats, beavers cause flooding, and coyotes prey on livestock and are expanding into urban areas where they prey on pets and bite children. Are you supportive of using these species for their fur, provided it is done sustainably?

Jane Avery: To me it’s all about context. The world we live in is so very different to the world of 150-200 years ago. Sure, North America has its problems with invasive species too, and certain situations demand certain responses. If it’s deemed these animals must be "sustainably" culled then it would be disrespectful not to make practical use of their fur.

With the New Zealand rabbits, the context is created by human history. The tragedy is that they were introduced to this country in the first place.

I believe anyone in the business of exploiting animals for what they can provide to humans should check their moral compass on a regular basis. We shouldn’t necessarily do things just because that’s the way we’ve always done them. Everything must be considered within its realistic context and with the good of the environment central to decision-making.

***

SEE ALSO: Inside a rabbit fur fashion designer's 10 sqm solar-powered eco cabin in Central Otago. This NZ Life.