The number one threat to all wildlife in North America is loss of habitat. Let me explain why I feel it necessary to stand on this statement, in the context of trapping wolves in Canada.

Habitat and carrying capacity - these are unavoidable issues that need to be addressed by all those involved in this controversy, from industry to agriculture to municipalities, conservationists, wildlife protectors, and everyone in between.

Wolves are at the top of the food chain in many of our forested regions in this country. The regions that they are utilizing as habitat are sometimes unable to sustain the population as wolves continue to produce offspring.

My heart lies in addressing what I believe is the real issue. In discussing wolves, I’d like to begin with population dynamics.

Habitat and Population Dynamics

Using the example of a pack of seven wolves, the adult females could birth seven pups in the spring. The mother cares for the pups during their early weeks of life, and the male goes out to hunt and returns with food, so she can concentrate on raising the pups. The entire pack is involved with the raising of the young. The mortality rate is lower than other wildlife because of this.

The habitat they are ranging in could be from 100 to 250 square miles depending on the available food in that habitat.

If all seven pups survive and are healthy, they will reach the size of their mother by the end of the fall season and coming of winter.

That means that the winter that follows the spring birthing, there will now be 14 wolves in that pack. The need for food for this pack will have doubled in less than a year.

So now we have seven pups that will be trained how to kill in order to survive and be an integral part of the pack. This is in one year and the math shows the results after five years is enormous for the same habitat and food source. Some may break away, some will die, but this is the top of the food chain with no predators that are preying on the wolf.

I want to be clear on this point: letting nature take care of itself by allowing it to sort itself out, like nature used to do in generations past, is no longer a viable and responsible option. It is imperative for us to take responsibility to manage the over-population of the wolves.

Nature will cull the numbers through disease, starvation, etc., but as one who has spent the better part of my life involved in wildlife control, it is not a humane thing to witness. If any animal is going to die then it has been my job to see that it is done humanely and as quickly as it can be done.

It then becomes quite obvious that the numbers of wolves in excess of the carrying capacity of the habitat, these animals will need to be removed.

Public Perception

There is a void in the public perception, and an idolizing of wolves that is not helping to protect, but instead is a hindrance!

The simple fact remains contrary to many people’s understanding, we have wiped out so much habitat throughout North America, that this type of population growth will have an astounding effect on the prey species. I’ve seen the results upon horses, lambs, elk calves, moose, deer, caribou, bison and domestic pets.

Where suitable habitat exists, wolves have lived in close proximity to livestock for several years, with little predation issues. But, how long in any area before the growth number of the wolf packs exceeds the available habitat and food source causing livestock and predation problems?

It’s an obvious fact something must be done to control population levels. The most important thing for us to consider is this! There is a need to work together to ensure that if there is a culling process taking place, it should happen in the most humane and effective method available.

Trapping – Viable Option?

Trapping is often viewed as a hated solution to population controls, but under the humane trapping standards, utilizing modern equipment, it still remains as one of the best options. Performed in the winter months, when the young are not being nursed, the pack numbers have peaked since the summer and the carrying capacity will now have more pressure on it. The fur will not be wasted and can be a resource to be utilized.

It is an industry that, through provincial wildlife laws, takes the approach of removing the surplus of furbearers, many of which will not find enough suitable habitat in the winter months to survive. This is a simple fact and has enough data and documentation to show a very successful program that continues to be a key element in the health and survival of these animals.

I believe that is something to be proud of as wise use of management!

I can think of no country in the world that does not trap. They may have stopped fur trapping but it still continues and is then called "wildlife control" or "animal damage control" which must be done, to control over-population of species as they continue to produce more offspring than the habitat can sustain. These animals are not used for anything and are treated as vermin and are incinerated or treated as trash. This is not true wildlife management. We are better than this. The carcass of that animal is used by trappers and taken back out to the land to feed other carnivores. The fur is prepared and shipped and sold to be tanned and used.

There is no “nice part” of the dying of any living thing and nothing works perfectly, but we have come a long way and Canada continues to be the world leader on humane trapping standards. There are many pictures circulated throughout public media showing the mistakes made by untrained individuals and just plain carelessness causing suffering and pain, but as a professional I can assure you this is not the norm.

Carrying Capacity

Human encroachment into wolves' habitat results in conflict that is unavoidable. So, we have created the problem, and we need to take responsibility to manage it. Wolves are predators, and whether we want to view the destruction or turn away from it, will not make it go away.

It is sometimes difficult for some to consider their lifestyle in relation to loss of habitat for wildlife. We are all consumers by the way we live. We may not eat meat but if we use toilet paper, magazines, books or newspapers, or if we buy lumber to build a bird house or picnic table, we are supporting a lumber industry, which is taking out habitat.

If we use oil, gasoline, plastic etc., we are supporting an oil industry that is wiping out habitat. The point being here that we are all in this together. Nature is not something separate from us and it never will be. We can’t survive without it.

There is a direct link between our choices to buy more and more stuff, traveling less distances to get it, and habitat that is being lost at an alarming rate. Less destruction of habitat is an absolute if you are going to preserve the current wolf population dynamics.

ALSO BY ROSS HINTER: WILDLIFE CONTROL EXPERT OR TRAPPER? WHO YOU GONNA CALL?

Final Thoughts

As always, knowledge and understanding are powerful tools. In such an emotionally charged time in human history and love of wildlife, those that hate the wolves and those that love the wolves will need to find a balance of true and clear knowledge of what is really taking place.

This includes a full understanding of loss of habitat. Instead of wasting so much time and money arguing about who is responsible, we would better serve the preservation of the species by collaborating together to find viable solutions that work long term. The money in this effort would then be well spent.

We have taken the habitat and continue to do so, therefore we are responsible to manage the population in the most humane and ethical manner available to us.

This is the sensible approach to a very heated conflict and one that is going to continue to make headlines.

My life as a professional trapper has proven to me what an important resource Canadian trappers are, both to the academic and scientific community, along with both provincial and federal government departments and conservationists at all levels.

Ethical trappers are the front line of conservation and will continue to be a valuable tool and play a key role in the welfare of our furbearing wildlife.

FOLLOW ROSS HINTER'S "BUSHCRAFT - LEARNING HOW" ON:

Hair density has always fascinated the fur trade because the densest furs are also the softest and most luxurious. Before the advent of modern conservationism, this meant that the densest furs were prone to over-harvesting. Today, we have learned from past mistakes. Trade in the densest fur of all is still restricted, but the animal's recovery is considered a great conservation success. And due to a remarkable story in the history of farming, the second-densest is abundant and readily available.

To appreciate what makes fur dense, let’s set a baseline: human hair. And because human hair varies depending on ethnicity and hair colour, we’ll choose the densest of all, a pale blond(e).

A blonde’s fine hairs average about 190 per cm2, varying depending on the part of the scalp. That's almost double Afro-textured hair, the least dense.

Now step aside blondie, and make way for that benchmark of luxury, mink.

A mink’s hair density varies by season and body part. Also, farmed mink is denser than wild, and a dressed pelt is denser than a live animal. But as a guide, a dressed, farmed pelt has about 24,000 hairs per cm2. That’s 126 times denser than the thickest human pelage!

Impressed? Well hold on. Prepare for furs so dense and soft that words to describe them are hard to find. Like talcum powder, perhaps?

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

Chinchilla

Animals with the densest furs live where climates are cold, humid and windy. Size also matters; because small mammals are more vulnerable to heat loss, they generally have denser fur.

And so we find ourselves in the high Andes, home of the long-tailed Chinchilla lanigera and short-tailed Chinchilla chinchilla. Being small and nocturnal makes them elusive. They're also very rare. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies both as "critically endangered".

We can blame the “tragedy of the commons” for that. Though the term was coined for what happens when no one owns common grazing land, it also played a role in the historic fur trade.

Spanish explorers first sent chinchilla pelts home in the 16^th century, but it wasn’t until the late 19^th century that Europeans developed an insatiable appetite for them. Populations collapsed, prices soared, and by the early 20th century a peasant trapper could feed his family for a month with just one pelt - if he could find one!

Only late in the day, in 1910, did the range states of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru unite to ban the trade, but effective enforcement was still decades away. Extinction seemed inevitable.

Farmers to the Rescue!

And then the cavalry arrived, in the unlikely form of fur farmers.

It all began with Californian miner Mathias Chapman who, in 1923, was allowed by Chile to take 11 live chinchilla home for breeding. (It took him three years to trap them!) Ten survived the trip and one gave birth en route.

Chapman originally planned to breed pets, but he switched to fur farming. Today, chinchilla farms are found from Canada to Argentina, and in many European countries, and almost all their stock are believed to descend from Chapman's original 10.

Farming of animals can help conserve their wild cousins. By meeting demand, it reduces pressure on wild populations, as in the case of mink and fox. But it can also encourage illegal hunting and provide a cover for smuggling - the fear with tiger farming.

In the case of chinchilla, farming didn't just help protect wild populations, it probably saved them. And even if most chinchilla now live in pens and eat hay and pellets, there is absolutely no chance of them going extinct!

Dense Is Desirable

So what is all the fuss about with chinchilla fur? Hair density. No other terrestrial mammal comes close.

Hairs grow from organs called follicles which, in humans, are densest on the forehead – about 290 per cm2. Chinchilla have as many as 1,000.

Then there's the number of hairs per follicle. Hairs grow in tufts, with 1-3 (rarely 4) sprouting from each human head follicle. But a regular chinchilla has about 50 hairs per follicle, while a show “chin” (as pet owners call them) may have 100.

That means a regular chin has 50,000 per cm2 - double a farmed, dressed mink pelt, and 263 times more than our human blonde. So dense is a chin's fur that it's said fleas and ticks can’t penetrate it, and if they could, they'd suffocate!

"Soft Gold"

Amazingly, there is fur even denser than chinchilla - so dense it drove men to endure the harshest conditions nature could throw at them, far from home, for more than 100 years. This was the Great Hunt!

In the early 18th century, Russian fur traders found themselves on the Pacific shores of Siberia. Drawn by a cornucopia of desirable furs, notably sable, they had spent 150 years opening up Russia's vast eastern territory.

Now they took to their boats in pursuit of fur so dense, and so valuable, it was known as "soft gold": sea otter.

SEE ALSO: AMAZING FACTS ABOUT FUR: DRESSING FOR THE ARCTIC

Starting from the Kuril Islands, the traders island-hopped across the North Pacific, harvesting one otter population after another, plus highly profitable hair seals they found along the way. The otter trade in Alaska boomed, and then the traders headed south. There they were joined by adventurers from all over North America and Europe in the great California Fur Rush.

The moniker "soft gold" was deserved. In 1775 otter pelts sold in the Russian port of Okhotsk at up to 30 times the price of sable. In the 1880s, a pelt brought $165 in London, but by 1903, as supplies dried up, made a staggering $1,125.

Thankfully the ground-breaking North Pacific Fur Seal Convention of 1911 put an end to seal otter fever by imposing a moratorium on the hunt. But was it too late? Perhaps fewer than 2,000 otters remained. Could they ever recover?

Yes they could! Sea otters have rebounded in two-thirds of their historic range, and are today cited as a great success story in the annals of marine conservation. As a precaution given the lesson of history, IUCN still classifies them as endangered, but Alaskan fishermen are now complaining the population is growing so fast, they've become a pest!

Exempted from the hunting ban, Alaskan coastal communities are also building a highly regulated trade in sea otter handicrafts and garments.

So what is it about sea otter fur that's so alluring? You know the answer already: density. Not even chinchilla compares.

Sea otters need superb insulation because, unlike other marine mammals, they have no blubber. And unlike that other four-legged marine mammal, the polar bear, they don't leave the water unless they absolutely have to. Imagine, swimming in the North Pacific, 24/7, in winter. Unless you have inches of blubber, or are a halibut, it's almost inconceivable.

And that's why sea otters have the greatest follicle density of any mammal, and hair density that ranges from 100,000 per cm2 on the legs and chest up to 400,000 on the sides and rump.

At its upper range, that’s four times denser than the finest show chin, 16 times denser than a farmed mink, and 2,105 times denser than our human blonde. That is dense fur!

***

FURTHER READING

Alaskan native Peter Paul Kawagaelg Williams, founder of Shaman Furs, is in a special position to bring sea otter to the international fashion scene. By Vanessa Friedman, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2016.

In its 2014 Sustainability Report, fashion brand Hugo Boss said that it was planning to stop using farmed fur in its collections from Autumn/Winter 2016 onwards. According to Bernd Keller at the company, its sustainable corporate strategy should take precedence over the “fast and simple route to success”. Like many companies, it has realised that global consumers are demanding a more sustainable approach to business.

I completely agree that sustainability should take precedence over short-term corporate goals and applaud Hugo Boss for thinking that way, but I would respectfully disagree that moving away from farmed fur is a good method for accomplishing it.

Fur is actually one of the most sustainable materials that apparel brands can employ. Fur farms recycle food waste from other industries and can provide organic replacement for chemical fertilisers, while natural fur garments usually last 20-30 years or more and are regularly brought to furriers for remodelling, which extends their life considerably. And at the end of its life, natural fur will degrade quickly and naturally.

Globally the environmental aspects of fur are strictly regulated in accordance with national legislation. These guidelines cover the handling and distribution of manure and the use of chemicals. This means that the regulated fur industry sets the best standards in the world when it comes to the environmental impact of this type of farming.

Artificial fur, on the other hand, is far from the "safe alternative" some lobbying groups might have us believe. Fake fur, comprising polyacrylates, requires the extraction and fractionating of petroleum, its subsequent conversion into fibres and mass manufacturing into products. These are not only incredibly energy intensive and damaging to local ecosystems, but also produce extremely unpleasant chemical compounds.

Plus, fake fur garments are very much "disposable fashion" and will rarely be kept for more than a couple of years – after which they end up alongside plastic bags on rubbish tips, where they could remain for centuries.

But perhaps most importantly, I’m concerned that Hugo Boss is not respecting consumers’ choice and ability to decide for themselves. Have the vast majority of its customers in regions like Europe and Asia said they don’t want fur products and stayed away in droves? Its most recent global earnings figures would probably suggest otherwise.

SEE ALSO: 5 REASONS WHY FUR IS A GOOD FASHION CHOICE

Also, its 2014 annual report noted that Hugo Boss “has been in dialogue with several animal and consumer protection organisations for many years, to continuously improve in the area of animal welfare”. We certainly welcome intelligent and informed debate on the topics of sustainability and animal welfare.

So I would like to conclude with a request to Hugo Boss. If you’re genuinely keen on sustainability and truly eager to engage in dialogue with interested parties, get in touch with us at the International Fur Federation. Moving away from fur may net the brand some short-term headlines, but it may cause more harm than good in the long run. And the long run is what sustainability is really all about.

The European Union recently announced that products made from seals hunted by Inuit people can continue to be sold in the EU despite the 2009 ban that prevents the importation or sale of all other seal products. It is impossible to imagine a sealing policy that would be more hypocritical and anti-democratic.

Canadian sealing is a sustainable use of a natural resource carried out by licensed, well-trained sealers under the rules and regulations of the government of Canada, which have been developed based upon both population science and humane killing techniques. In 1971 a quota management program was established for the Northwest Atlantic harp seal stock, and the population is estimated to have grown since then from 1.8 million to the 5.9 million, according to the IUCN. World-wide the population is close to 8 million, with "All known stocks ... increasing in number".

Despite the comments of the animal rights groups, the world-wide markets for seal products (food, Omega-3 fatty acids, oil, fur, leather) continue to exist. They exist but are inaccessible because the decades-old animal rights propaganda campaigns have co-opted (bought?) politicians in the EU, the USA, and other countries to deny their citizens their democratic right to choose to buy seal products.

Even in its stronghold of North America, surveys suggest the animal rights philosophy (i.e., no animal use) is adhered to by less than 3 percent of people. And because of this lack of popular support, animal rights groups can only further their agenda by using their multi-million-dollar war chests to lobby politicians to pass laws denying citizens their right of choice: anti-democratic to say the least. Like autocrats throughout history, it seems that these wealthy activist groups don't trust individual citizens to do "the right thing".

Hypocrisy Everywhere

The World Trade Organisation enquiry found that the “seal ban” was against its rules, but in the interest of protecting the “morals” of EU citizens the ban would stand: thus buying into the animal rights propaganda that killing seals is immoral. An interesting decision given that many countries within the EU continue to kill seals legally in the Baltic and North seas.

The USA continues to allow harvesting of northern fur seals in the Pribilof Islands, creating an exemption to its own Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), despite the fact that the IUCN lists the species as "vulnerable" and cautions that the Pribilof stock "has experienced a significant, steep decline in recent years." Yet it bans the importation of Canadian seal products under the same MMPA, despite the fact that the harp seals killed have never, ever been on any reputable list (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, for example) of endangered or threatened species. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.

SEE ALSO: 5 REASONS WHY I SUPPORT THE CANADIAN SEAL HUNT

Inuit "Exemption" Almost Racist

Animal rights groups constantly make pious, politically correct statements that they are not against Inuit sealing. For decades, Inuit organisations (including the Inuit Circumpolar Council, or ICC, which represents Northern Aboriginal communities around the world) has rejected this “exemption” as being meaningless, based in a colonialist mentality, and little short of racism.

Thousands of rural Canadian citizens are directly and indirectly employed in the sealing industry earning a living for their families. Sealing is part of an annual mosaic of income for rural Canadians whose money is derived from a number of individual activities that in total provide a livelihood that enables them to live in their communities. The same thing applies to Canadian farmers, ranchers, trappers, hunters, and so on: the only difference is the species killed. Few rural Canadians have the luxury of a guaranteed annual salary.

SEE ALSO: AMAZING FACTS ABOUT FUR: DRESSING FOR THE ARCTIC

Animal rights groups keep on about a “buyout” for those in the sealing industry. A one-year buyout? A two-year buyout? Or an annual buyout till all those involved have died? For whom? For sealers, plant workers, truckers, diesel suppliers, insurance agents, garment manufacturers, artists, artisans, grocery suppliers, gun and ammunition stores, vehicle sales people? For all or only some of them? Will they pay the many millions involved? No. These American-headquartered multi-million-dollar groups want the Canadian tax payer to subsidize their ridiculous views.

Resource Use Is Not Disneyland

"Baby seals"? The use of the word "baby" is simply an anthropomorphism, the Bambi syndrome, designed to influence and upset urban people who have a total disconnect with the sources of their food, clothing, medicines and other objects of daily use. The seals killed are fully weaned, are independent of their dames, and are on their own to survive or not: this is nature, not Bambi in Disneyland.

Death by gunshot or hakapik is instantaneous as found by innumerable studies by independent vets from Canada, the USA and the EU. The only negative studies have been bought and paid for by animal rights groups. The reality is that no animal-killing is pretty: it is by nature ugly. But pretty and ugly are not synonyms for right and wrong or good and bad. Sealing is simply an outdoor abattoir without the offal problems of land-based abattoirs (dumping it in landfills) because what we cannot use we leave on the ice to return to the eco-system as food for birds, marine mammals, fish and crustaceans: ecologically correct and green.

Travesty of Fiction Over Fact

The reality of the 50 years of animal rights propaganda has been the diminution of the incomes of thousands of Canadian citizens while these American-headquartered groups have collected hundreds of millions of dollars from people who think they are supporting animal care and conservation. One group alone generates contributions close to $100 million annually.

To adapt Winston Churchill's famous turn of phrase, never have so many been so misled by so few for such nefarious reasons. For decades these groups have said nothing new, yet their comments are deemed “newsworthy”. They and their celebrity friends utter ridiculous comments and no journalists challenge them. It's a circus, a travesty of fiction over fact, and proof that hypocrisy reigns supreme. It is media manipulation of the highest order.

Propaganda is an insidious thing and unless countered by a free press prepared to ask the hard questions it will continue ad infinitum. It is time for individuals, politicians and media to remember the immortal line of Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

The anti-sealing story is the second greatest propaganda campaign of the last 85 years. Democracy is about the right of citizens to choose. History has shown us that when propaganda triumphs, democracy loses.

Nobody in the Canadian sealing industry wants people to buy their products if they do not wish to. Canadian sealers only want all citizens to have their democratic right to choose for themselves to use or not use seal products.

Animal rights is not animal conservation or animal welfare. The goal of animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the US (and its extension, Humane Society International) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, to name but two, is not to end sealing but rather to end man’s use - not just killing, but any use - of all animals for any reason. Read their mission statements. Seals are the tactic not the goal.

Anti-sealing is the epitome of George Orwell’s position in Animal Farm: all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

The animal rights anti-sealing movement may have won some battles but not the war. If it wins the war you will have to look around to see whom among you will be the next victim. The beef, pork, chicken or lamb producers? The trappers, hunters or fur farmers? The clothes manufacturer, shoemaker, auto manufacturer or furniture manufacturer? Anyone who uses animals for any purpose at all? You?

As the cold weather settles in for another few months, I cuddle in my small country home on the Bay of Fundy. I put on my beaver house-boots and my wool sweater and thank Mother Nature for offering me all I need to keep us warm.

Living in a remote community on the Fundy shore, I am awed by the highest tides in the world. Surrounded by nature and silence, I bow to the sea which brings fish and clams to my table, and to the forests that supply firewood to keep my house cosy and wildlife to complement the seafood

My sewing skills make it possible to make clothing and accessories that will keep us comfortable.

Living in harmony with this environment, I relish a dream come true after fantasizing about it through all those years of living in some of the mega-cities of the world, a world surrounded by cement and pollution and so reinvented by humans that they can forget where they come from and who they are.

Real Meaning of Sustainability

I was introduced to fur design by professional furriers and artisans who put their skills at work to produce beautiful garments from a natural and renewable resource. Working in the Northern regions of our beautiful country, I’ve discovered the real meaning of sustainability of our natural resources.

I am thankful to the organizations who oversee good management and a respectful attitude toward our natural resources.

I am disappointed by negative and false information still spread by some organizations, sadly giving real environmentalism a bad name while imposing hardship on real people. At a time when “anti-bullying” and other forms of negative behavior are topics of public interest, we should wonder if this sentiment should perhaps apply here.

SEE ALSO: AMAZING FACTS ABOUT FUR: DRESSING FOR THE ARCTIC

Be Strong, Be Proud

While attending a recent event where I was able to display my creations, I was overwhelmed by the interest of people asking questions about the different furs in my booth, and reaching out to touch them. Often I heard the comment: “I am nervous about wearing furs ... someone might attack me on the street”.

I reply that they should be strong and be proud of wearing creations from the natural world. Every time I wear my fur coat, people come to me wanting to know what it’s made of and often comment on how beautiful it is.

Meanwhile, as I’m looking out the window at the ice moving with the tides, I am sewing and transforming a seal pelt from a vision into a beautiful garment.

We are the people of the fur trade and we will be silent no longer! That is the new rallying cry of our proud and historic trade, and it's long overdue.

It is hard to believe that the debate about fur has been raging for a full half-century – and a bit troubling to realize that I witnessed it all!

And while it is great to see all the fur on fashion runways and in the streets this winter, we still have a way to go to repair the damage caused by 50 years of activist lies, to reassure consumers that fur is produced responsibly and ethically.

Spotlight on Sealing

It was in March 1964, that a film on Radio-Canada, the French-language network of Canada’s public broadcaster, rocketed the northwest Atlantic seal hunt into the media spotlight for the first time. No matter that the shocking scenes of a live seal being poked by a sealer’s knife (“skinned alive”) would later prove to have been staged for the camera. (1)

In the 50 years that followed, the modus operandi of a lucrative new protest industry was refined: shocking images of questionable origin, celebrities to attract media attention, and emotional fund-raising campaigns that generated piles of money to drive more campaigns.

Markets for sealskins were weakened (with a US import ban in 1972 and a partial European ban in 1983), but the newly formed International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was soon pulling in $6 million annually – more than 3,000 Canadian sealers made risking their lives on the ice floes each Spring. Greenpeace and other groups jumped onto the gravy train, with help from Brigitte Bardot. (2)

In the 1980s – with wild furs more popular than they had been since the Roaring Twenties – the protesters turned their newly-honed media, fund-raising and political skills against trapping (3), a campaign that resulted in the European Union banning jaw-type “leg-hold” traps, in 1997. No matter that traps used in Europe were untested or that other methods used there to control wildlife (e.g., poisoning muskrats in Belgium and the Netherlands) had far-reaching animal-welfare and environmental consequences. Canadian diplomats were told: “Don’t worry about your scientific studies, don’t you understand that this is about politics?”

While campaigns against sealing and trapping continue, the anti-fur focus has now shifted to calls for a ban on fur farming – but the tactics are the same.

Absent: Voice of the Fur Trade

Throughout this debate, one voice was conspicuously absent: the voice of the people whose livelihoods and reputations were being attacked. There are several reasons for this, including the imperatives of modern media, where confrontation is “news” and “celebrities” are irresistible. Hunters, trappers and farmers, moreover, do not live in cities where most journalists are based, so they are rarely heard.

The structure of the fur trade itself – small-scale, decentralized and artisanal – also made it difficult for the industry to muster an effective response. And it didn’t help that those closest to the media and consumers – retail furriers – have little knowledge of production issues. Asking a furrier about trapping standards makes about as much sense as asking a seafood chef to explain fisheries management policy.

All this is about to change. After 50 years of turning the other cheek, the fur trade is finally speaking out more effectively. Under the banner “Truth About Fur”, fur farmers, trappers, biologists and veterinarians are setting the record straight.

Animal Activists Scrambling

The reaction of animal activists is revealing. Used to having the soapbox to themselves, they are scrambling to block or discredit the industry’s voice. I have experienced this personally.

When we refute lies or misinformation on-line, it doesn’t take long before a cyber-bully tries to shut down discussion. Rather than risk having their dogmatic beliefs shaken by facts, they shoot the messenger. Typical attacks include: “He’s paid to write this, don’t listen to him!” “He’s a fur industry troll!” Recently I was called “a sock puppet”.

SEE ALSO: MINK LIBERATION : 5 FACTS THE ALF DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

I suppose it is better to be a sock puppet than a marionette, which would mean that someone was pulling my strings. But the bad news for these cyber-bullies is that we are not puppets. We are the people of the fur trade, and we will be silent no longer.

If the vicious lies and slanders leveled by activists against the fur trade for the past 50 years were directed at any other group in society, they would be denounced as hate crimes. It’s time that animal activists were exposed for what they are: intolerant bullies with little understanding of modern environmental thinking.

Aboriginal (or other) trappers do not need lessons about respecting nature from urban activists. Mink farmers do not need lessons about caring for animals from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). The fur trade is not a crime against nature; it is a prime example of “the responsible and sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, a principle supported by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and every other environmental authority. These are some of the facts that are documented by Truth About Fur.

It is encouraging that close to 500 international designers now include fur in their collections, compared with only about 40 in the early 1990s. And it is wonderful to see people of all ages with coyote and fox trim on their parkas this winter. But it is especially satisfying to know that, whatever people choose to wear, the fur trade’s story is finally being told by the people who live it.

* * *

1) Alan Herscovici, Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1985; Stoddart Publishing, 1991), p. 74.

2) Herscovici, p. 70.

3) Herscovici, pp. 117-162.

Ontario trappers have launched an exciting new campaign to inform the public about how they protect people and property by responsibly managing wildlife populations.

“We are trying to reach that 80% of the population that simply does not know what we do or why and how we do it,” says Robin Horwath, General Manager of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation (OFMF).

OFMF’s posters carry a bold headline stating that, "Trappers Manage Wildlife While Protecting People!" This message is accompanied by three large photos of forest land under water and a road closed by beaver flooding.

For more information, the posters direct people to the Ontario Fur Managers’ website at www.Furmanagers.com.

Street-Level Ads

The campaign over Christmas featured large posters in two major Ontario malls, one in Ottawa’s Bayshore mall and one in Toronto’s The Path mall. In March, the campaign will shift to street-level advertising in Toronto and ads on six Ottawa buses.

“Last year, I saw some street-level info ads about the oil sands and I thought: that’s what we’ve got to do; we’ve got to get out there and tell our own story!”

“People are intelligent, but they can’t make the right decisions if we don’t give them the facts,” says Horwath.

Of course, a few posters will not change the world on their own, at least not immediately. But imagine if trappers’ councils across North America did the same thing!

Does trapping of wildlife endanger species? Truth About Fur asked Ryan and Minette Kole, certified nurses and trappers from British Columbia, Canada:

"That’s pretty well impossible with today’s strict, government-regulated trapping seasons and other rules.

"As trappers, our goal is to maintain stable and healthy wildlife populations; we don’t want to deplete our own resource - that would put us out of business!

"The real threat to wildlife today is not regulated hunting or trapping, it is the destruction of the wilderness areas by industrial activity - and trappers are the ones who are out there monitoring what's really happening out in the bush, sounding the alarm and working with logging companies and government to protect that natural habitat."

Read an in-depth interview with Ryan and Minette on the Truth About Fur website, plus many more questions and answers about the North American fur trade, including:

• What types of fur are used in the fur trade?
• Is it morally wrong to raise animals just for their fur?
• What happens to the rest of a trapped animal when the fur is taken?
• Why is a fur coat expensive?
• How are farmed mink killed?
• How can we be sure that farmed mink are treated humanely in the United States?
• Why do we need foothold traps?
• How do we know only targeted animals are captured?
• Are the chemicals used for fur processing bad for the environment?
• ... and many more.

When I started trapping in 1959, it was a lot easier than it is now. Oh, sure, there’s more information and better equipment available these days, but it’s a lot more difficult to actually start trapping today than it was a half century ago.

Urbanization is one reason. The population of the United States has shifted from predominantly rural to predominantly urban, and fewer kids (adults, too, for that matter) live close enough to trapping country to make it work. I was a town kid too, but it was a small town, and my bike could get me beyond the city limits in five minutes. That’s often not the case today, and even where it is, today’s world isn’t the one I grew up in. Turning a kid loose on a bicycle before daylight isn’t such a wise idea in many areas.

Also, there’s the change in public attitude about hunting, fishing and trapping in general. According to the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, in my home state of Arkansas, which is less urban than many, only 301,000 residents hunted that year. That’s about 12 percent of the population. Trapping is included with hunting, and I’d be very surprised if 5 percent of those 301,000 folks trapped, but for argument’s sake, let’s say they did. That gives us a total of 15,050 trappers in my state, at most. There’s probably considerably less.

The situation is much the same elsewhere. When the percentage of active trappers is that low, it’s hard for somebody who wants to learn more about trapping to find anyone with similar interests. And when you can’t find anyone who shares your interest in something, guess what usually happens? Yep, your interest wanes, too, because it’s not much fun unless you can share it with someone.

Some Are Rookies, Some Trapped When Younger

That’s where us gray-whiskered veterans come in. Thirty years ago, I didn’t really have time to take someone under my wing on the trapline. I was pedal to the metal from Day 1 to Day Last, catching as many animals as I possibly could, because I had a houseful of kids and a dollar bill looked as big as a saddle blanket. Simply put, I couldn’t afford to take the time to help a rookie get started.

But now that’s not the case. I’m far from rich, but the crushing financial pressure is gone, and for Bill and me, the trapline is a more leisurely thing. Don’t misunderstand though. We still work hard, and we put up decent numbers for a couple of geezers, but neither of us is out there because our kids need shoes. And so we take interested folks on our line from time to time. Some are rookies just getting started, some are middle-aged guys who trapped when they were younger, and some are men and women who’ve never held a trap in their hands but want to see what it’s all about.

SEE ALSO: ONTARIO TRAPPERS PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY

The days when we have guests on the line are among the most enjoyable of the season. We usually don’t get as much done, because we’re answering questions and showing our guests what we’re doing and why. It slows us down, but we both enjoy it and are more than glad to do it. We’ve never discussed it much, but I think the reason Bill and I both enjoy having guests is that we’re helping promote trapping to non-trappers, either by helping a newbie get started or by showing a non-trapper first-hand that we’re not the bloody-handed barbarians the PETA folks make us out to be.

If you’ve never taken a kid, a beginning trapper or an interested non-trapper on your line, I recommend it. Not only will you enjoy it, but you’ll also be helping the cause.

The TV news item was about the upcoming duck season, and the soundtrack in the background was a recording of somebody blowing a duck caller. The calling wasn’t bad, but what ruined it for me was the film clip they were running to illustrate duck hunting.

They were filming a flock of coots.

Unfortunately, that sort of stuff is pretty common on today’s television and movie programming. Pay attention, and you’ll see it all the time. I bet I’ve watched a dozen movies where they show a flock of cranes or ibises or some other species that flies in a V formation, accompanied by an overlaid soundtrack of - you guessed it - goose music.

Things like this are laughable, but they ought to also serve as warning flags. Every instance should remind us that not everyone is as knowledgeable about things outdoors as we are, and that simple but profound fact can (and often does) come back to bite us. In fact, the general lack of knowledge of the public about nature might well be the biggest problem we trappers, hunters and anglers face.

Sure, there are plenty of other things for us to worry about - loss of habitat to urban encroachment, shrinking access to public and private land, decreasing recruitment of young people into the outdoor lifestyle we know and love. But at the end of the day, none of those things will matter if our legal right to trap gets taken away at the ballot box.

And slowly but surely, that’s what’s happening. This year, for example, there was a petition drive in Montana to get an initiative on the November ballot prohibiting trapping on any public land in that state. (See Toby Walrath’s piece in the November 2013 issue of Trapper & Predator Caller for more on that.) They failed to get sufficient signatures this time, but if this thing passes in the future, more than a third of Montana would be closed to trapping.

Montana wouldn’t be the first state where it’s happened, either. It’s already against the law to trap on public land in Arizona and Colorado, and trappers have been so restricted and legislation-crippled in states like California, Florida, Massachusetts and New Jersey that I swear I can’t understand why any trapper would live there.

Coots Instead of Ducks, Cranes Instead of Geese

The reason this has happened, and the reason it continues to be a threat, goes right back to that coots instead of ducks, cranes instead of geese thing - a widespread lack of knowledge in the non-hunting, non-trapping public about all things wild. Most of these folks aren’t necessarily against hunting or trapping. They’re not anorexic, wild-eyed vegans. They eat meat just like we do. Nor are they stupid. They just have no interest in hunting or trapping. That’s all. And so they don’t bother to learn anything about it.

But they care about wildlife in an abstract, feel-good sort of way, and that’s why they’re susceptible to the exaggerations, half-truths and flat-out lies the zealots on the bunny-hugger side of the fence keep throwing at them. For example, it’s true what the anti’s say, that the lion does sometimes lay down with the lamb. But what the anti’s always forget to mention is that the reason the lion does so is so it can more comfortably eat the lamb.

It’s up to us to stop this brainwashing of the non-hunting, non-trapping public, and the most effective way to do it is personal communication. Every trapper has many friends and family members who don’t hunt or trap. These folks would be more inclined to believe us than they would be to believe some complete stranger telling them trapping and hunting are evil. However, they won’t get our side of the story unless we tell them.

Are you doing that with your friends and relatives? If so, thanks very much, and keep up the good work.

If you’re not, you’re part of the problem.

On a recent Saturday I attended a small trapper gathering and I must say I always walk away from these events having learned a great deal.

Most years the big take-away is learning about the habits and activities of various furbearers and man’s attempt to catch them. Honestly, you can tip your hat to the bowhunter who ends their season with a nice new mount for the wall, but I will always have more respect for the trapper who knows the ins and outs of his passion so much that he can fill a pickup load of beaver … or coyote … or some other crafty, wary species.

Indeed, in the outdoors world for my money the accomplished trapper is the real rockstar deserving the utmost respect. This person has to know his sport so well that he can predict that a critter will step on a few square inches of a trap pan in order to achieve success. Certainly I’m not discrediting the hunter in any way. Instead, if you’ve never been closely aligned with someone who traps to learn what it takes … you’re missing a truly wonderful outdoors experience, in my opinion.

Now, some might say trappers do it for the money. To that I would say GET REAL! The money? Oh, sure there’s the money element involved with preparing and selling furs, but very few trappers I know make much more money then they end up spending on supplies, on gas to run their line … not to mention the hard work involved with catching and putting up fur in preparation for auction.

I’ve been a recreational trapper since the age of 15 so I know what it takes. Commitment. Ambition. Discipline. Positive attitude. Those are just a few of the many qualities that go into a successful trapper. And while money can help motivate a person to get out of bed each morning to check the lines … it simply does not very often make a living for many people.

As I watched Leon Windschitl from the Minnesota Trappers Association give his demonstration showing the finer points of fur handling, it suddenly occurred to me how much work is involved with trapping. First off, there’s the work phase where you need to outsmart the animal. Specialized tools, techniques and tactics might work in some areas, but then not in others. There’s no guarantee for success in trapping, just like there isn’t in hunting or fishing.

Now, some trappers might stop right there and simply sell the animal in the carcass to the fur house. I’ll admit, this is what I often do because my process for skinning and preparing is not a streamlined operation. Others, however, realize the work is only beginning. Skinning the critter (depending on your skill level) might take five to ten minutes or more. Then comes the fleshing and stretching aspect … not to mention the combing and cleaning that is often necessary to make the fur look its best. Even the stretching and the drying demands time and lots of attention.

All in all that $30 raccoon is hardly easy or quick money for the trapper’s pocket. As a trapper, to do things the correct way takes lots of time, patience and effort often when weather conditions are less than ideal.

Especially this year. Preliminary fur markets are looking somewhat depressed so trappers will likely have less competition on their lines. That also means less money in the pocket when the seasons end. Indeed, this year when you see trappers out tending their traps realize how this year more than others the folks setting steel in the river ways and fence lines are doing it for a true love of the sport … and not for a means to get rich in the pocketbook.

Yes, I have a lot of respect for trappers and the sport of trapping. Always have and always will.

A million people took to the streets around the world, last week, calling on their governments to take action on climate change.

Individuals are expected to do their bit too, which usually means giving something up: our gas-guzzling cars, meat (for those who see cows as methane-emitting monsters), and the list keeps growing …

What we don’t often hear is that you can keep warm and look great while fighting climate change ... by wearing fur!

Unlike most synthetics, real fur is not made from petroleum. For lots more reasons why fur is a great choice for those who care about nature, check out www.furisgreen.com. Also: Plastic Bags on Our Backs.

And for the truly dedicated eco-warrior, keep your furs on indoors and turn down the thermostat!

Heck, maybe you can even try going naked in fur! That should keep everyone happy!