Sharon Firth and her late twin sister, Shirley, are legends in Canada for their feats as cross-country skiers. Their lives were rooted in living off the land, and today Sharon champions the cause of bringing natural fur back to Canada's Olympic uniform, not seen since their first games in 1972. Image: Canada Post.

Gliding stride-by-stride across the frozen ice and snow of the Northwest Territories. The sting of frigid -30°C air filling your lungs with each gasp as you ski on, mile after mile. Your legs and arms burning like fire as you push yourself. Just you, alone, fighting against the pain of fatigue, battling a darkened winter sky and the elements of nature.

It’s not something everyone can do or even imagine. But it’s exactly here that Sharon Anne Firth found her calling. It’s where she traces her life, from a child on the trapline with her family, to Olympic glory around the world, and now, all the way back again. All the way back home.

Sharon Anne and her twin sister, the late Shirley Firth, also an Olympic cross-country skiing legend, were born two minutes apart in Aklavik in the Northwest Territories, on the last day of 1953. They were two of 13 brothers and sisters.

Sharon Anne is Gwich'in, a group of Dené indigenous people that have lived in the Arctic from Alaska to the Northwest Territories since time immemorial.

Considered the hub of the McKenzie Delta, Aklavik had it all at the time: about 800 residents, along with a hospital, post office, radio station, and of course a Hudson's Bay Company store. But in 1959, with fears growing that the town was sinking into the river, many residents were shipped off to nearby Inuvik, including the Firths.

The demise of Aklavik, as it turned out, was greatly exaggerated. While government was busy pushing people out of the town, a committee led by A.J. “Moose” Kerr fought back against the relocation. And in the end, the town was saved. In more ways than one.

“Today the motto for the town is ‘never say die,’ which makes a lot of sense,” Sharon Anne says laughing.

Love for Nature, Skiing

The Firth family lived a traditional lifestyle including fish from the river and lakes, the wood and stone materials around them, wild game from the forests and tundra, and furs from the trapline.

But the people of the north don’t just want to survive, they seek to thrive. And so it was that in 1967 teenagers Sharon Anne and Shirley had their date with destiny. While in a residential school that brought in children from upwards of 63 communities, they were introduced to cross-country skiing.

The person who introduced them to the sport was none other than Norwegian skiing legend Bjorger Pettersen, who was running clinics in the north with a view to identifying possible talent and growing the sport nationally.

Sharon Anne and Shirley were naturals.

“As soon as we put on the skis we immediately fell in love,” Sharon Anne says. “The McKenzie Delta was really full of raw talent for things like snowshoeing and skiing. We are an endurance people, we love the long distances and we love being outside in all sorts of conditions. It’s who we are. It’s in our genes and our lifestyles.”

Pettersen certainly recognized the raw talent in his midst and the Firths, along with some other local athletes, were asked to enter into serious training. Sharon Anne recalls that they had to get permission from their parents first before committing. That permission was granted and the training began immediately with some, well, unusual challenges.

“Coaches would put the training program on the wall each day and we would be running across the tundra to train,” she recalls. “We would run for hours, and of course, before we began, they reminded us that there was no berry-picking while we were out training!”

Off to the Games

The training, combined with the talent, paid off. And quickly.

After first laying eyes on skis in 1967, just five years later, Shirley and Sharon Anne, then just 18 years old, were faced with a prospect almost too big to fathom: competing at the Winter Olympics in Sapporo, Japan.

But even then, things would not come easy for the twins.

Shirley fell ill and landed in hospital. Her illness was such that she was told she should not only forget about making it to the Olympics, but about competitive skiing altogether. But when you come from a town whose mantra is “never say die”, you don’t throw down the skis and quit.

“I visited her every day in hospital after I was done training, and the more I went to see her, the better she got. She was very strong-willed. She decided she was going to get out of the hospital, get back on her skis and fight to make the Olympics - and that’s exactly what she did. And so we both went to Japan,” Sharon Anne recalls proudly.

The Firths were the first Indigenous women to wear the Maple Leaf and represent Canada at the Winter Olympics. There was a huge sense of pride and accomplishment, but also pressure.

“Shirley and I pushed ourselves, we fought hard, and trained like you would not believe,” Sharon Anne says. “We were representing ourselves and our country, but also Indigenous peoples. We had gone from the trapline all the way to the Olympics. This wasn’t just about us and sports and competition. We were athletes and role models, and we knew it.

Having real fur on our Canadian Olympic uniform, it was a sense of pride and also made us feel connected to our home even though we were halfway around the world.

“It was a powerful feeling in the starting gate,” Sharon Anne says, recalling there was one thing that gave her strength as she prepared to step into the games: fur.

“Having real fur on our Canadian Olympic uniform, it was a sense of pride and also made us feel connected to our home even though we were halfway around the world.”

In all, Sharon Anne would represent her country and her people at several national and world championship skiing events, and at four different Winter Olympics: Sapporo 1972, Innsbruck 1976, Lake Placid 1980 and Sarajevo 1984.

She retired in 1985 and faced a question many elite athletes do after years of structure and training and planning, and strictly regimented living: now what?

For Sharon Anne, the answer was simple. She would go home.

Back to the Northwest Territories

“I knew I had to go back to the Northwest Territories,” she says. “I was raised on the trapline and on the land; it was what I knew, what I loved. Hunting, fishing and trapping and living a life in nature, with nature.”

She moved back to her home territory and settled in the capital, Yellowknife. Her first job was at Expo 86 in Vancouver, working with young people relaying to them the amazing life she had led. In the years that followed, she worked for the government, and the honours and accolades worthy of a trailblazing athlete of her stature have flowed appropriately.

She is a member of the Order of Canada, and more recently, the Order of the Northwest Territories. She is a member of the Canadian Museum Ski Hall of Fame, Canada’s Sports Hall of Fame, Banff Sports Hall of Fame, and NWT Sports Hall of Fame. She has received the Queen’s Golden and Silver Jubilee Awards, a National Aboriginal Achievement Award, and an Honorary Doctor of Laws Degree from the University of Alberta, and has been named an Adjunct Professor University of Alberta, School of Public Health.

Recently Sharon Anne and Shirley were immortalized when they were added to the Women in Winter Sports stamp series from Canada Post that includes themselves along with other sporting legends Nancy Greene, Danielle Goyette, Clara Hughes and Sonja Gaudet.

Champion for Natural Fur

And now you can add a new title to Sharon Anne’s lengthy résumé: a champion for natural, sustainable fur.

As a person who has lived from the land for a great part of her life, and who understands the positive impact of natural fur in rural and Indigenous communities, she has a new mission: to give Olympic athletes a choice to be able to wear fur at the Winter Games just like she did.

“Natural fur is my passion,” she says. “I was raised on the land, we always had the very best of things from the land including our furs. People in the south go to the mall or grocery store to get what they need, we go to the land or the trapline.”

She says fur is part of the Canadian cultural fabric, but also part of the ecological landscape.

“As a people we understand management and balance in nature, we never take more than is needed, and we use whatever nature gives us. It’s pure and natural,” she says. “Hunting, fishing and trapping unites us all across this country, it always has.”

Fur is Canada ... I’d like to see athletes be able to wear natural fur at the Olympic Games, to feel the connection to their culture and country the way I did.

And for a young teenager, standing in the starting gate at her first Olympics in a country she had only ever read about, fur was something else. It was part of the theme that has permeated Sharon Anne's life.

Fur was, in a way, home.

“Fur is Canada,” she says. “So yes, I would like to see athletes have a chance to experience what I had as an Olympian. I’d like to see Canadian athletes be able to wear natural fur at the Olympic Games, to feel the connection to their culture and country the way I did.”

"Never Give Up"

Shirley Firth, meanwhile, got married in 1984 and lived in France for many years. But she too stayed connected with her home as she worked with universities and Canadian Embassies in Europe promoting the Northwest Territories and its people.

Sadly, Shirley’s life, though so full and amazing, was cut far too short. She passed away in April 2013.

But Sharon Anne's connection to her twin sister has never faded. “She is always with me,” she says. “She is always reminding me to never quit, never give up.”

***

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

Wearing fur is so prevalent in human culture that it has even reached our illustrations and animation, from comic books to cartoons. The cartoon fur-wearing character that is usually thought of first is Cruella De Vil from One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961). Although her fur coat and matching handbag emphasise her sense of high couture, she is far from the only one who wears furs in Toon Town!

A pioneer of cartoon fur was Disney’s Donald Duck, who wore a fur overcoat while singing "Jingle Bells" in Donald’s Snow Fight (1942). I guess he liked it so much that in Dumb Bell of the Yukon (1946) he decided Daisy should have her own. So obsessed did he become with this idea that he imagined a bear cub was Daisy in a fur coat and kissed it!

One that makes me giggle, especially this time of year, is the comic book Patsy Walker #105 from Marvel Comics. In "Her First Fur Coat!" (1963), Patsy is determined to wear her cartoon fur even though it's warm outside. “Every time I see a fur coat in a store window, it DOES something to me!" she says. "It just takes me out of this world!”

Another comic book fan of fur is Dr. Jean Grey who buys a white fur coat in the first series of X-Factor. She lost her old coat, so she goes shopping with Scott Summers, a.k.a. Cyclops. She tells the salesman that she wants to wear it right out of the store. When outside, she is enraptured by how soft and warm her cartoon fur coat is. She later gets in a snowball fight with Scott, still wearing her new fur coat, while calling herself "The Queen of the Icy North".

We already knew Wilma Flintstone liked fur because Betty Rubble mentioned to Barney, “when Wilma bought that fur coat”, in Hollyrock, Here I Come (1960). But of course the girls wanted more, so they set about trying to brainwash their husbands. “Every woman wants a mink coat. Your Wilma wants a mink coat," says Wilma to a sleeping Fred in Sleep On, Sweet Fred (1963). It almost worked too!

Some more recent fictional characters who are fashionable in cartoon fur can be seen in Frozen (2013). Notable are Elsa, Queen of Arendelle, in her fur-trimmed cape, and Kristoff the ice salesman in his leather-side-out fur-lined tunic.

Both How to Train Your Dragon (2010) and its sequel (2014) have casts replete in cartoon fur garments and trims. But I especially like how Astrid Hofferson wears her fur stole on top of her armour. It may not be practical, but it surely makes her attire more dramatic.

In computer animation, cartoon fur has evolved at an unbelievable rate. Just one of the smallest rodents  in Zootopia (2016) has more individual hairs than every character in all of Frozen combined, thanks to the software iGroom.

Fur, both physical and fictional, is here to stay.

And limited only by our imaginations.

The growing media and public interest in sustainability – especially among young people – provides an extraordinary opportunity for the fur trade.

To understand why, think about the vital role that stories play in our lives. Because story-time is much more than those precious minutes we spend with young children at the end of a hectic day. Stories define what it means to be human and are central to our success as a species. “Really?” you ask. Bear with me a moment and we’ll see why – and what this means for the future of fur.

Stories Are Our Social Glue

What’s special about humans is that we work together in large groups. Ants and bees also work in large groups, of course, but only in rigidly programmed patterns of behaviour. Humans are the only animals that cooperate with strangers in ways that can evolve to meet new challenges. And stories are the social glue that allows us to do this. They tell us who we are and what we are trying to achieve.

For much of our history, these stories were expressed in myths or religions. In a more secular age, societal identity and goals are often articulated in new types of stories: Nationalism, Marxism, Liberalism – and, more recently, environmentalism and animal rights.

For much of the 20th century, Western society was driven by a story about science and technology generating prosperity and continual growth. During this period, the story of fur was about warmth, beauty and status. Think glamorous movie stars wrapped in luxurious mink.

The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, in 1962, sounded the alarm that unchecked growth could threaten our very survival as a species. Carson’s landmark book launched the modern environmental movement and signalled the emergence of a new story: Earth could no longer be seen as a treasure chest to be looted, but rather was a garden to be protected as if our lives depended on it ... because they do!

With the environmental movement came concern that wildlife populations were being depleted. But while biologists know that the destruction of natural habitat is the most serious threat to wildlife, a good story needs clearly identified good guys and bad guys. Hunters – once admired in American frontier mythology – were clearly the bad guys in this new scenario, portrayed as violent and cruel.

Protesters were the good guys, the valiant protectors of Mother Earth. Through the 1960s and '70s, Greenpeace and dozens of other new organizations emerged to protest the commercial hunting of seals, spotted cats, and other charismatic species – garnering international media attention while generating millions of dollars for a lucrative new protest industry.

The good news is that this media attention helped to rally financial and political resources to address some real conservation and animal-welfare concerns. By the early 1970s, seal hunters received training and quotas were introduced to prevent overharvesting. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), in 1975, ensured that leopards and other vulnerable wildlife populations were not threatened by trade. And by the late 1970s, the world’s first science-based humane trap-research program was established, with support from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian government, and the fur industry.

But these important achievements did not end the protests. As documented in my book Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy (CBC, 1985), the campaigns against seal hunting actually intensified, especially after Greenpeace brought Brigitte Bardot to the ice in 1977. Greenpeace’s Bob Hunter observed that this juxtaposition of sex and violence made the seal hunt an irresistible media story. Protests against fur trapping also gained momentum, at the same time as fur prices and sales were hitting record levels through the 1970s and '80s.

The persistence of anti-fur campaigning after the real conservation and animal welfare issues were addressed is explained, in part, by interests. With hundreds of protest groups – and thousands of professional activists – raking in millions of dollars from well-meaning supporters, there was little incentive to say, “Mission accomplished, let’s go home.”

Equally important, however, was the emergence of a new story: animal rights. With the publication of Australian philosopher Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, this new story made a radical break with traditional conservation and animal welfare objectives. It questioned the right of humans to use animals at all. This new story is summarized in PETA’s mission statement: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

This new animal-rights story allowed activists to completely ignore the fur trade’s achievements. Sure we now have research, government regulations, and industry codes of practice. But what does any of this matter if, as Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Bernard Rollin, and other animal rights philosophers argued, it is simply wrong to kill animals for human use?

The use of animals is morally indefensible, these philosophers argued, because we have options. So while the lion must kill to live, humans can thrive as vegetarians. Similarly, there is no justification for using fur (or wool, leather, or other animal products) because we now have synthetic materials to keep us warm. And this is where the story gets interesting. Or rather: the stories. Because another story is now emerging – environmental sustainability – and this new narrative has very different things to say about the ethics of using fur.

Landmark Document: Our Common Future

The concept of sustainable development was coined by the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) – the Brundtland Commission – published in book form as Our Common Future, in 1987. This landmark document recognized that humans are part of nature and depend on natural resources for our survival; we cannot “leave nature alone”, as protesters demanded. The real environmental challenge is to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In layman’s terms this means living on the “interest” that nature provides, without depleting our environmental “capital”. So, whenever possible, we should use renewable resources (plants, animals) rather than non-renewable resources (petroleum-based synthetics). And we should use these resources sustainably, i.e., no faster than nature can replenish the supply.

Thirty years after the publication of the Brundtland Commission, sustainability is finally gaining traction. Companies of all sorts are rushing to promote their products and services as sustainable. Sustainable lifestyles are the new cool. What many have not yet understood is that sustainable use is very different from the no-use doctrine promoted by anti-hunt protesters and animal rights philosophers. While fur and other animal products are morally indefensible from an animal rights perspective, they are the way to go when looked at through the lens of sustainability.

A flagrant example of this misunderstanding is the recent claim by CEO Marco Bizzarri that Gucci would stop working with fur to demonstrate their “absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business.”

SEE ALSO: Fur-free Gucci policy contradicts company's "sustainability" claims

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused?

Sustainability vs Animal Rights

The importance for the fur trade of the impending clash between these two powerful stories – sustainability and animal rights – should not be under-estimated. Most of the time, most people – and societies – drift along without questioning the fuzzy ideas that guide our actions. But when conflicting stories collide, we must stop and think. As sustainability crashes into animal rights, the fur trade will finally have an opportunity to tell its story.

The new International Fur Federation video comparing the sustainability of fur and synthetics is a good example of how this contradiction can be promoted. The website FurIsGreen.com is another.

A recent story in the influential British tabloid, The Sun, demonstrates the power of this clash of ideas to spark a new sort of discussion about fur. The headline stated: “Why Kim’s fake fur is worse for the environment than Kourtney’s real one.”

“For decades we’ve accepted the notion promoted by animal rights campaigners that wearing or buying real fur is ethically and morally bankrupt. ... Yet recently a more complex and nuanced view has emerged, backed by experts in the fur industry, that suggests faux fur could, in fact, be worse for the environment than the real thing,” reported The Sun, citing the International Fur Federation, Fur Commission USA, and other sources.

The problem is that faux fur is made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. Furthermore, recent research is revealing that clothing made from petrochemical synthetics leaches microfibers of plastic into the environment every time it’s washed. These microfibers do not biodegrade; they are carried into waterways, enter the food chain, and are now being found in the digestive tracts of marine life. Real fur, by contrast, is biodegradable and doesn’t cause these problems. And real fur can also be restyled and recycled, providing decades' more use than synthetic “fast fashion” apparel.

SEE ALSO: The great fur burial: How fur biodegrades after one year

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing

If sustainability can provoke this sort of serious reflection in a British tabloid newspaper, it can do it anywhere. And sustainability has strong support from the scientific community; animal rights does not. Not least important, young people are particularly interested in sustainability – after all, they will be here longer! All this suggests that the sustainability story is likely to become increasingly influential.

In recent years, animal activists have worked hard to portray fur as a flagrant example of the reckless exploitation of nature: “killing innocent animals for greed and vanity.”

As a more serious understanding of environmental sustainability takes hold, we now have an opportunity to rewrite the story again – and this time fur will finally be recognized as not only warm and beautiful, but also a celebration of the marriage of human creativity with the responsible and sustainable use of nature’s bounty.

The fur story is about to become much more interesting!

***

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

Animal-rights activists argue that we are not morally justified to kill animals for any purpose, and certainly not for products they consider to be non-essential, such as fur. But this view of morality may say more about the activists' understanding of society, of nature and of their own unique place within the big scheme of things than it does about people who produce or wear fur.

This thought came to me just before Christmas during a moving performance of Handel’s Messiah, by Montreal’s Metropolitan Orchestra and Choir with star conductor Yannick Nézet-Séguin. Handel’s magnificent oratorio was premiered in Dublin, in 1742, under the direction of the composer; the beautiful libretto by Charles Jennens (1700-1773) is drawn from Old and New Testament texts.

"All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned every one to his own way."

– Isaiah 53:6 (from libretto of Handel’s Messiah)

The music is transcendental, but my thoughts returned to more earthly matters as the choir sang the verse: "... we have turned every one to his own way." Nine words that neatly sum up the guiding philosophy of modern Western society.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not romanticizing the time when the individual was required – often ruthlessly – to conform to the demands of family, clan, nation or religion. But the fact is that we, in our privileged Western societies, have ventured into uncharted waters: for the first time in human history, individual freedom and personal fulfilment are widely considered to be the most important goals, the ultimate "good".

We no longer accept that our marriage partners be chosen by our families, or that what we eat and how we behave be dictated by tradition or a parish priest. Today, each of us claims the right to make our own decisions. The individual is king.

What does this have to do with the radical shift in thinking proposed by animal-rights philosophers? Maybe a lot. Because, above all, believers in animal rights assert that the rights of each animal must be recognised as inviolable. It is the individual animal, not the population or species that is important, according to this view. And this has far-reaching implications. Let’s see how.

Livestock and Humans Depend on Each Other

Most of us believe that humans have a right to use animals for food and other purposes, so long as animal populations are not diminished and species are not endangered. This is known as “sustainable use”. In other words, we eat chickens, but we don’t eat them all. Individual chickens are killed and eaten by individual humans – who will, in turn, one day themselves be eaten by worms, bacteria and other organisms – but both chickens and humans continue. In fact, with North Americans annually consuming some three billion chickens, and billions more eggs, one could argue that both chickens and humans are now very dependent on each other for survival.

A concern for animal welfare complements and deepens our sustainable-use values by acknowledging the individuals involved in this species-level symbiosis. The fact that individual animals die to provide for our needs implies, we believe, a responsibility to protect these animals from unnecessary suffering. In this sense, “animal welfare” seeks to balance the interests of groups and individuals.

The animal-rights philosophy, however, makes a quantum leap: the interests of individual animals are suddenly all that matter. According to animal-rights theorists, the individual chicken’s will-to-life is morally non-negotiable and irrevocable, no matter how useful their proteins may be for the health and well-being of humans – or, for that matter, for the survival of chickendom.

In other words, the animal-rights doctrine perfectly reflects our celebration of the individual in modern Western societies. And perhaps this explains, at least in part, why the animal-rights philosophy has considerable appeal in Western societies, especially among younger people.

Of course, our glorification of the individual is far from universal. Even today, most people live in societies where the individual has less autonomy, where their dependence on the group is more explicit. The moral force or “truth” of animal-rights arguments probably seem less evident in such societies.

And isn’t the dependence of the individual on the group a fundamental reality in all human societies? We live in cities, speak languages, use technologies, and have our spirits lifted by music that were all created by others, often people who are no longer with us.

Rights Not Rooted in Nature

A more profound challenge to the “truth” of the animal-rights philosophy comes from the fact that nature doesn’t show much consideration for individuals. In nature, individuals are short-lived and expendable; it is populations and species that continue.

This ecological truth does not diminish the importance of respecting human rights, but it reminds us that such rights are not rooted in nature or universal truth; they are created by human societies.

What is rooted in nature, however, is the dependence of all animals on other species – especially for food. Like it or not, only the living cells of other organisms can provide us with sustenance. No philosopher or activist can change this fundamental fact of our existence.

Nature is not moral or immoral, it just is. But humans do develop codes of morality, precisely because we live in groups and need each other. Without moral codes we would indeed be lost sheep. But if the animal-rights insistence on each animal’s irrevocable right-to-life is not defensible, what moral code regulates our use of animals?

Our Morality Towards Animals

When it comes to our relationship with animals, our moral code includes four main precepts. Two have already been mentioned: we should use only part of the surpluses that nature provides (“sustainability”), and we should protect the animals we use from unnecessary suffering (“animal welfare”). The other two moral precepts governing our relationship with animals are that we should not use animals for frivolous purposes (“important use”), and we should use as much of the animal as possible (“no waste”).

SEE ALSO: Why fur is the ethical clothing choice.

As I have explained in a previous article, the modern fur trade does respect all four of these important moral precepts. The use of fur, when it is responsibly and sustainably produced as it is today, is indeed morally justifiable, because it balances the needs of species and individuals in a way that is consistent with the way our world really works.

It is animal activists who are lost, who “have turned every one to his own way”, because their fundamentalist philosophy considers only the individual. In fact, as the great humanitarian and animal lover Albert Schweitzer once wrote: insisting that we harm no other life is not a solution to the moral problem that living beings kill and eat each other to survive – it is pretending that there is no problem.

In the world of fashion, the headlines keep on coming about a confused Gucci following the announcement that it would be dropping fur in the name of "sustainability". Truth About Fur tries to explain how Gucci could so misunderstand the meaning of "sustainability", while Fur Europe has produced a graphic explanation of the sustainability of "Circular Fashion" that hopefully Gucci can comprehend.

Meanwhile, Vogue (UK) magazine ran a doting one-sided interview with confused Gucci's new handler, the Humane Society of the US. The big question now is whether Vogue and Gucci understand HSUS's true agenda, which is not animal welfare but animal rights. One man, Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri, must know what's going on since he used to work for vegan designer (and killer of silkworms) Stella McCartney.

Can we now look forward to Bizzarri, cheered on by HSUS, phasing out leather, shearling, and python farmed by Gucci's parent company, Kering, in Thailand?

Protest Season

November is the time of year when anti-fur protesters kick into high gear, but with the concerns of historical protests (sustainability and animal welfare) having been addressed (at least in the view of the fur trade), Truth About Fur asks whether the current crop are now rebels without a cause.

Meanwhile Stella McCartney's dad, Beatle and animal rightist Paul, turns out to be a Canada Goose fan. Perhaps he didn't get the memo about the stink activists are kicking up outside Canada Goose's new London store, for using coyote trim on its parkas stuffed with goose down. Campaigners have also been targeting Canada Goose's New York store, among them one Jabari Brisport. Who? Brisport is running for office on New York's City Council, and, if elected, will fight to ban fur sales in the city.

Another pop star who doesn't seem confused at all is Pretenders vocalist Chrissie Hynde. The committed vegetarian calls the modern-day animal rights movement "tyrannical", adding: "It’s almost on the verge of polarising people rather than mobilising them, because people have this almost messiah or jihad complex: if you don’t do it the way we want you to, we’ll kill you."

Pest Control

Louisiana is known for its invasive nutria, and now the "swamp rats" will star in an upcoming documentary, Rodents of Unusual Size. "Stopping the nutrias is mission: impossible," says one trapper. "The good Lord couldn't get rid of 'em." (Well, perhaps not impossible. They were successfully eradicated in the UK.)

Toronto, meanwhile, has two pests to deal with. It has more than enough raccoons, but now the city's Wildlife Centre wants to make trapping illegal in the city. Meanwhile, animal rightists (the other pest) are cranking up their efforts to destroy Inuit culture. The Guardian reports that the temperature is being turned up primarily over the eating of seal meat, but animal rightists also want to end the traditional deer hunt.

Animal activist pests in the US, who released 2,000 mink from a farm in Illinois in 2013, have had their sentences upheld and their appeal not to be branded terrorists under the law rejected.

And perennial pest Pamela Anderson had another hissy fit over Naomi Campbell's full-length fox coat, and sent Kim Kardashian a fake fur for Christmas. We're sure Naomi and Kim don't care what Pamela thinks of fur, but it's easy headlines.

Last but definitely not least – and not in any way related to pests – a special mention is in order for Maryland furrier Mano Swartz, who presented a veteran with 25 years of service with a mink coat valued at $8,000. The tradition of taking care of veterans goes back to owner Richard Swartz's great grandfather. Good job, Richard!

Anti-fur protesters today are an established part of our autumn scenery, like falling leaves or the southbound migration of Canada geese. But, in fact, all of the problems that originally triggered such protests have been addressed and resolved. So are the current crop of anti-fur protesters rebels without a cause? Or worse, are their protests now just a pretext for intolerance, a smokescreen for imposing on others a radical new form of militant vegetarianism?

Is it time to say “enough with the anti-fur protesting”?

A quick review of the history of anti-fur protesters raises serious questions about why they still exist.

Early Anti-Fur Protesters

Organized opposition to fur trapping began in 1925 when American adventurer and spy-turned-diplomat Edward Breck founded the National Anti-Steel Trap League after an encounter with a trapped bear during a visit to Nova Scotia. This was the peak of the “Roaring Twenties”, when raccoon, beaver and other wild furs were the rage. Fur prices were high and, with few government controls, fur-bearer populations were depleted in some regions. The two key themes of anti-fur protesting had emerged: concerns about the humaneness of trapping methods (animal welfare) and the need to ensure that trapping did not deplete furbearer populations (conservation/sustainability).

The Great Depression and World War Two swept away the exuberant fashions of the 1920s, and by the 1950s wild species represented barely 25% of North American fur sales. Concerns about trapping receded.

But in the 1960s – in an effort to expand the market beyond mink, Persian lamb and other classic farmed furs – the fur trade reintroduced wild species as “fun furs”, an initiative that received a major boost when Jackie Kennedy bought a leopard-skin coat in 1962. Ironically, this was the same year that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published, heralding the birth of the modern ecology movement.

Protest was in the air. In 1965, a film broadcast by Radio-Canada raised conservation and animal-welfare concerns about the northwest Atlantic seal hunt – a hunt that was then still little known and largely unregulated.

SEE ALSO: Ten lessons from 30 years battling animal rights.

And while trapping was now carefully regulated in North America, full international controls were not yet in place: the US Endangered Species Act would only be passed in 1969, while the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was not implemented until 1975. This was the context in which Cleveland Amory launched his Fund for Animals in 1967, and his first major campaign was against the use of fur from leopards and other endangered wild cats.

Celebrities, Media and Fake Fur

In his book Man Kind? Our Incredible War on Wildlife (1974), Amory recalled that his anti-fur campaign was sparked by a visit from a representative of fake-fur manufacturer E.F. Timme & Son. The company offered to give $200 and a fake fur coat to any “socialite” who would publicly denounce the wearing of furs from endangered species. Amory suggested that they up the ante to $2,000 and proposed the names of several well-known actresses who would decry the wearing of any wild fur. As members of his board, they could also be counted on to hand over the cash to his Fund.

With Doris Day, Mary Tyler Moore and others, the Fund for Animals became the first animal protection group to take a page from the ad man’s book and use “celebrities” to attract media attention. Long before Greenpeace brought Brigitte Bardot to the seal hunt (1977) and PETA promoted a string of models and B-list actresses to declare that they “would rather go naked than wear fur," Amory understood that “the medium is the message."

Amory also took up the animal-welfare side of the fur debate. The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping (CAHT) had sent him a seven-minute film they claimed was “filmed on the trap-line,” although it was later revealed that many scenes had been staged in a compound. It was called They Take So Long to Die, a line from an old National Anti-Steel Trap League poem. Amory sent the film to CBS Evening News, and on March 21, 1972, 20 million Americans watched animals struggling in leg-hold traps. Amory appeared on the program to demonstrate a quick-killing Conibear trap, which he presented as a more humane alternative.

It is important to note that Amory and the CAHT were arguing for more humane and sustainable trapping, not for a ban on trapping or fur use. The CAHT had made its film to pressure the Canadian government to seriously research improved trapping methods, and when the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping was set up in September 1973, the film was withdrawn from circulation. [For a full history of trap research and development, read our interview with humane-trap champion Neal Jotham.]

As legitimate conservation and animal-welfare concerns were being addressed, however, a new kind of anti-fur campaign was emerging.

Reformers Lose Their Way

The pioneering work of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping was taken up by the newly-formed Fur Institute of Canada, in 1983, and this continuing research has resulted in significantly improved trapping methods, trapper education, state and provincial regulations, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. But while the CAHT had withdrawn They Take So Long to Die, some of the footage was incorporated into Canada’s Shame, a new film produced by the Vancouver-based Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals (APFA).

While condemning the Fur Institute’s world-leading trap research program as a sham, APFA founder George Clements was unable to suggest how it might be improved when he was questioned under oath by the Parliamentary Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, on June 5, 1986. “If you are really serious, then I would really have to go back home and think about that,” Mr. Clements confessed. When another MP pointed out that “it is very easy to criticize and belittle certain things but [MP John Parry] asked if you had a game plan or a solution to this particular problem,” Mr. Clements was contrite: “I have been put in my place,” he said.

Now known as The Fur-bearers, the APFA has since abandoned any pretense of seeking more humane trapping. It now claims that “there is no such thing as a humane trap,” and calls for the complete abolition of “the commercial fur trade, including trapping and fur farms.”

From Leg-hold Traps to Fur Farms

As the popularity – and prices – of fur reached record levels through the 1970s and 1980s, protest activity intensified. Large, rowdy, anti-fur demonstrations became a common sight in many cities. And even when fur prices and sales retreated with the crash of the stock market in 1989 and the economic recession that followed, the protests – and political lobbying – continued, with leg-hold traps as the main target.

As they did with the seal-hunt, activists zeroed in on the European Parliament as a weak link in the political chain. The European Economic Community had banned the importation of furs from young (whitecoat and blueback) seal pups in 1983, although there was no conservation or animal-welfare justification for doing so. In 1991, the EEC adopted Council Regulation 3254/91 which “prohibits the use of leg-hold traps in the Community and the introduction into the Community of pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species originating in countries which catch them by means of leg-hold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international humane trapping standards.”

Anti-fur activists thought this meant the end of the wild-fur trade, because “international humane trapping standards” did not exist at that time. But they were wrong. With the implementation of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards in 1997, it became clear that animal-welfare concerns about trapping were being seriously addressed, much as conservation and sustainability problems had been addressed by national and international regulations in the 1970s.

In response, anti-fur protesters shifted their focus to fur farming. Over the past decade, activists have released a series of undercover videos to bolster their claim that mink and fox suffer on fur farms. In fact, a wide range of government regulations and industry codes of practice ensure that farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care. Farmers have every reason to abide by these codes, because there is no other way to produce high-quality fur.

But in commercial-scale production, there will always be a few sick or injured animals; farmers often keep these in a special section of the shed where they can be easily observed and cared for. But activist videos don’t explain that. Nor do they explain that mink will appear agitated when disturbed in the middle of the night by strangers carrying cameras and bright lights. And as if that were not enough, the camera can always focus on manure under the pens (where it is supposed to be), or the voice-over can ominously inform us that these animals are being “raised in small cages” only to be "slaughtered and skinned for their fur.”

Rebels Without a Cause?

As this quick history reveals, the original anti-fur protesters were motivated by legitimate animal-welfare and conservation concerns. Over the past 50 years, however, these concerns have been addressed. Trapper training, new regulations, and continuing scientific research ensure that trapping in North America is now conducted responsibly and sustainably. Farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care, as required by government regulations, industry codes of practice, and the demands of a highly competitive international marketplace.

In fact, anti-fur protesters are no longer driven by real conservation concerns. Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature do not protest the fur industry because they do not consider it an environmental problem.

And anti-fur protesters are not really driven by animal-welfare concerns either. Animal-welfare groups (like the CAHT) that accepted the responsible use of animals but worked to improve the humaneness of trapping, have been superseded by media-savvy “animal rights” groups, like PETA. And while PETA distributes videos that it claims show animal-welfare abuses – and it will always be possible to find a bad apple somewhere – its publicly-stated objective is the elimination of any use of animals, even for food or vital medical research.

But when 95% of the population still eat meat and wear leather, it is disingenuous to claim that it is immoral to use fur that is produced responsibly and sustainably.

So the question remains: Is there still any justification for anti-fur protesters doing what they do? Is protesting against fur now just a way to attack "the establishment", or a smokescreen for promoting a radical “animal-rights” agenda? Or perhaps they have simply lost their way.

As American philosopher George Santayana said so succinctly, “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”

It has been some 35 years since I began promoting the ethical credentials of the fur trade and denouncing the fallacies of animal-rights extremism. As a pro-fur warrior, I have had many odd and interesting encounters, some of which you may find amusing. Following are a few memorable moments, in no particular order.

After the publication of my book Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy, in the mid-1980s, I was often asked to address groups of livestock producers and others who worked with animals, to explain the new challenges posed by the emerging animal-rights movement. To help my audiences understand the animal-rights philosophy, I liked to throw out a challenge: Why, I asked, do we think it’s “OK” to kill and eat a cow, for example, if we don’t think it’s acceptable to kill Charlie, sitting there in the first row, even if we sneak up on him while he’s sleeping so he doesn’t feel any stress or pain?

The question invariably produced a chuckle, and it got them thinking. But it didn’t faze one old cowboy who had been tasked with thanking me for my presentation to a group of Western Canadian cattlemen. “By the way: the reason it’s OK to eat a cow but not Charlie,” he said, turning to look at me with a sly grin, “is because the cow has its eyes on the sides of its head.” What he meant, of course, was that predators – including tigers, owls ... and humans – have eyes in the centre of our faces, to provide the bifocal vision needed to accurately evaluate pouncing distances. Prey animals generally sacrifice such precision for a wide-angle view of approaching danger. I was supposed to be the communicator, but that weather-beaten rancher summed up a central dilemma of the animal-rights debate in just a few words.*

Touching Moments

Some of my encounters have sounded a more touching note. I will never forget the young Inuit woman in tears after I brought her to an animal-rights lecture, she was so hurt by the way her people’s hunting traditions were denigrated. A dairy farmer’s daughter also cried as she told me how it felt to be labelled “cruel” by friends at school because of her father’s work: “My father who trudges out to the barn yet one more time before going to bed, even in the most bitter cold, to be sure ‘his girls’ are comfortable for the night!”

And then there was the Newfoundland hunter who thanked me for my writing because “it’s good to know that someone out there understands who we really are, our way of life.” And the Cree trapper who read Second Nature, footnotes and all, through a long winter season alone on his northern trap-line.

Each of these encounters, and many more like them, has rekindled and reinforced my determination to expose the cruel impact of misguided animal-rights campaigning.

And Absurdities

Other incidents had a more absurdist twist. Like the time I was invited for a media tour in England. Because of concerns about Animal Liberation Front violence – particularly nasty in Britain at the time – my hosts had taken security precautions. My name was registered at the chic West Kensington hotel only as “Incognito”. I didn’t think anything of it until that night when I phoned the front desk for a morning wake-up call. The receptionist confirmed the hour I had requested and then asked, “Will there be anything else, Mr. Incognito?” I assumed she was being ironic, until she added, “By the way, is your name Italian?”

Equally absurd, although certainly more disturbing, was my encounter with Richard Adams, of Watership Down fame. When not writing about the secret life of rabbits, Adams was an animal activist who travelled to Canada to protest the seal hunt in 1977, and enjoyed a brief and turbulent stint as president of the RSPCA. When I met him in the late 1980s, Adams was campaigning against the fur trade in the United States, and I was asked to debate him on Boston television. He refused to shake my hand when we were introduced before the broadcast ("I wouldn’t shake hands with Hitler," he explained), but I stole his thunder – and precious minutes of live television time – by sticking my hand into a soft-catch fox trap “on camera” while explaining why his claims about cruel trapping were misinformed and outdated.

The best was yet to come. After the TV debate, we were invited for an in-depth interview by a Boston Globe journalist. She offered Adams the opening salvo, but he ignored her as he busily perused a sheaf of notes. After I explained a few facts about fur, she turned to Adams again. Still not a word. So I was able to explain a bit more. And then more. Until, suddenly, as the journalist reported in the next day’s paper, Mr. Adams gathered up his papers, stood up without a word, and left the building.

I saw Richard Adams one more time, a few days later, at a New York television studio where we were scheduled to debate again. I was waiting in the Green Room when Adams walked in and informed the producer that he would not appear on the program if I was there too. The producer asked him why? “Because he’s insane,” Adams replied. “We have lots of insane people on New York television,” the producer assured him. Adams left. He had made a calculated decision, I realized: he was scheduled to speak at dozens of US colleges and would be interviewed by many journalists over the next ten days – alone. Why share the limelight with someone who actually knew something about trapping and fur farming?

Postscript: A few years later, a rabbit cull was organized on the Isle of Man, a tax haven where Richard Adams had fled to protect the fortune his books had generated. An enterprising journalist decided that it would be interesting to ask the famous rabbit author for his thoughts about the cull. “You have to remember that my book is fiction,” said Mr. Adams. “In real life, rabbits are a pest.” Or as Mr. Adams told another journalist: “If I saw a rabbit in my garden, I’d shoot it.”

*NOTE: Some scientists now believe that human bifocal vision developed when our ancestors took to the trees, improving our ability to leap from one branch to another. According to this hypothesis, bifocal vision in this case did not make us better predators, it made us less-accessible prey! Subsequently, of course, it also made us much more effective predators.

***

The author is an internationally recognized defender of the fur trade. Raised in a fur-manufacturing family, he is the author of Second Nature: The Animal-Rights Controversy, the first serious critique of the animal-rights movement from an environmental and social justice perspective. Herscovici served for 20 years as Executive Vice-President of the Fur Council of Canada and is the creator of Furisgreen.com. He is now the senior researcher/writer of TruthAboutFur.com.

As of late, I’ve spent a lot of time educating about, as well as defending, the consumptive practices of hunting and fur trapping on the modern North American landscape. For the most part, the response I get from the public at large is positive, reinforcing, rewarding, and immensely up-lifting. There is something truly special about seeing the look on a kid’s face when they get to pet a real beaver hide, or the emotional tension leave a client’s body when you properly educate them on their nuisance wildlife problem. The ability to assume the role of a valuable steward to our region’s wildlife and a hands-on conservationist is spiritually satisfying – and much more rewarding than just playing the self-reliant woods-bum I initially intended for myself.

Of course it should also be noted that for someone with a pro-trapping stance on the internet and in the public eye, I get my fair share of nasty comments, vicious emails, aggressive pot shots, and at times downright childish accusations pertaining to my way of life and (on some occasions) the validity of my own mental health. All I have to say is sticks and stones folks, sticks and stones.

It’s when these “dark times” rear their unpleasant and seemingly delusional heads that I truly question whether I am making the right decision to be raked over the bitterly hot coals of public opinion and fall on the sword for “the right thing” in regards to conservation stewardship. Being a voice for conservation and self-reliance is a far cry from becoming a martyr. I would prefer to avoid becoming the latter.

Fur trapping in North America is a hot-button topic – one worthy of sitting side by side with issues like politics, religion, and climate change. The only difference is the rarities in which people feel compelled to discharge such fire-bellied hate as to call for your “extinction” for coming out as a Conservative or Liberal thinker.

To make a long story short, if you’re going to be outspoken about fur trapping or predator hunting in the 21st century, you had better get your facts straight, and more importantly, grow a thick skin.

Why Bother with Trying to Have a Voice for Something as Controversial as Fur Trapping?

I get the question all the time – occasionally from like-minded individuals. The short answer I’m accustomed to furnishing is “because I care.” I care about the natural world that has surrounded me for my entire life. I care about the health and populations of the wild critters I share this landscape with. I care about the impact the human species has on the rest of our natural environment; and I care about the direction it’s headed. I also wish to share my insight of years running a wilderness trap-line, share the knowledge of animal behaviors and traits, share my experience of self-reliance and reaping my own food or fur, and share my passion for an untouched forest canopy or riverbed void of human trash and pollution. To some, this would sound like a contradiction – but try to stay with me.

I’ve lived the solitary life of a recreational fur trapper for about ten years - keeping my activities (for the most part) undercover and off my lips in public settings. I trapped and skinned furbearers like beaver and muskrats, reported catch numbers and filled out yearly observation forms for the state Fish and Game Department. I alerted state biologists to environmental changes within my natural habitat, donated to conservation efforts, and purchased my licenses and firearms which aids funding to conserve these natural resources – I did it all without expecting anything in return, other than to be left alone and to see the wild landscape New England has to offer be conserved for the next generation of outdoorsmen and women.

It sometimes seems as though I was asking for too much – as the constant barrage of attacks on hunting and trapping from hordes of people who clearly “don’t get it” seem to boil up and over more and more every year. In other words, there are a lot of people in this country who can’t seem to grasp the concept of an individual being both concerned for the well-being of wildlife, and at the same time preying upon it.

Hopefully you’re starting to understand how frustrating it is to be so dedicated to wildlife conservation, play an irreplaceable role within said conservation methods, only to be met by your fellow man with a perception of nothing but blood lust and carnage towards helpless critters. Queue the pitchforks and rotten vegetable throwing. Frankly – it pisses me off; which is why I dedicate myself to write, educate and promote trapping.

Hunters and Trappers – the "OG's" of Conservation

In the 20th century, hunters and trappers introduced the idea of conservation. A form of wildlife funding which opened the door for concepts like the Pittman-Robertson Act, and the Teddy Roosevelt era of conservation awareness – the same conservation awareness we know of today. The people behind these ideas recognized hunting and trapping – for food and fur – as an integral part of properly maintaining our natural resources and the conservation efforts for our wildlife and wild places. We knew these places and their inhabitants deserved protection from man’s modernization and progression.

How sadly entertaining it is to see man’s “progression” being used today instead to kill off these very ideas; replacing conservation with a “hands-off” approach and vilifying the hunter and fur trapper as a “cowardice trophy hunter” rather than the obvious ally to said conservation ideas.

Ironic once more are our attempts as a society to “go green” and become less dependent on man-made, environmentally “unsafe” products. Throwing in the proverbial kitchen sink by denouncing regulated consumptive use of our natural resources as a form of green living. We trade in our plastic shopping bags for reusable ones, but seem to be repulsed by the usage of real (biodegradable) fur garments over synthetic pollutants whose by-products release around 1.7 grams of “microfibers” into our streams and rivers each washing cycle.

Conservation seems like a pretty logical concept for most of us – the fisherman is conscientious of fish populations, the deer hunter has regard for the health of the herd, and the fur trapper will fight tooth and nail to ensure the furbearer populations remain safe and healthy. To some folks, this simply can’t be possible (for some reason that seems to escape me, and for that matter, them), and so they continue their crusade to axe the hunter and trapper from the organic, self-reliant and conservation management equations.

Guilt by Association?

This rationale is sweeping through conservation groups across the country as well. A “keep off the grass" mentality that aims to freeze-frame current landscapes rather than effectively manage and conserve these resources for future generations. Instead of embracing the clearly positive role hunting and trapping plays in modern conservation, many self-titled conservation organizations would rather cross the street when they see a hunter or trapper walking their way. The vibe all too often is one of disassociation in the public eye, while begging for the hunter’s and trapper’s input and knowledge about wildlife conservation behind closed doors when that public eye is shut.

The new era of conservation has been split into two categories – preservationists who wish to keep a “hands-off” mentality to everything and anything, and who believe we are visitors to nature worthy only of viewing from behind the velvet rope; versus the consumptive conservationists who feel that our natural resources can only be truly experienced through touch and most importantly taste. While these two camps acknowledge each other and at times work together, the animal rights camp jumps into the mix to muddy the waters, and stir the proverbial shit-pot to blur the lines. It's truly an absolute mess.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

An example of what I’m trying to say lies right here in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire. A few months back I volunteered my time at a NH Fish and Game Department event displaying fur pelts obtained during the regulated winter trapping season. Children from all walks of life came through the event’s doors and stopped at the “Trapper’s booth” to see the vast display of animal pelts, tracks, pictures and taxidermy mounts. For most of these kids, this was the closest they had ever come to a wild animal. Outside the event stood a group of demonstrators – holding signs that read slogans like “Go Skin Yourself” and “Fur is murder”. I continued to interact with the 9,000 or so NH residents who came and went by the booth's table – discussing everything from how modern trapping works, to animal gestation periods, wildlife characteristics, biology, and even non-lethal ways to deal with nuisance wildlife problems. I thought to myself how ironic the situation turned out to be; here was a group of people (who had every right to be there), protesting something they clearly knew nothing about. Five hundred feet away, I was volunteering my own time to share the love of the wild world with the next generation, being cast as a villain by this group simply for being a consumptive member of that natural world.

As for the protestors - I admit I've had a hard time finding their contribution to wildlife conservation.

Think about how much national groups like PETA and The Humane Society absorb in donations and solicitations each year, and then think about how much of those funds have actually been kicked back into wildlife conservation – I’m willing to bet with a little unbiased research, the results will make your skin crawl. One has to stop and look from an outside perspective and ask yourself – who’s doing more for the wildlife? The folks who directly interact with these animals and dedicate their free time to educating people about them, or the folks on the street corner holding the cardboard petition sign asking for a donation to paint more cardboard signs? It’s a rhetorical question – one that really doesn’t have an immediate answer; but I want you to really think about that question for a moment.

You Can't Please Everyone

I often try to rationalize the thought process of people who come right out and attack my justifications for trapping. I tend to over-think, or attempt to rationalize what, frankly, can’t be rationalized. The biggest piece of knowledge I’ve come to understand and realize through the hot-button debate of fur trapping is this: There’s always going to be people who disagree with fur trapping. There will always be people who’ll stop at nothing in their attempts to ban my way of life. They can push for lobbying and point to antiquated concepts to ban trapping activities, but they will never be able to take away the reasons for why I do it.

The solid truth is that hunters and trappers have a vested interest in wildlife and habitat conservation. We depend on healthy wildlife populations and strong habitat to continue doing what we do. These activities elicit a diehard passion for sustainability, and compose a hands-on approach to conserving our natural resources. I am in no way suggesting consumptive practices like hunting and trapping hold all the answers for wildlife conservation, but they’re damn sure better than a cardboard sign.

FOLLOW JEFF TRAYNOR'S "LIVE FREE AND TRAP" ON:

FROM OUR WEBSITE: FUR PRODUCTION: TRAPPING

Spring is the time to put away your furs, and correct storage during the off-season is essential if you want to enjoy the warmth, comfort and beauty of your furs for many years. Storing fur coats and jackets is usually best done with a professional retail furrier, although there may be occasions when you want to store some items at home. (More on this below.)

If you own valuable furs (valuable financially or sentimentally), you should definitely store them professionally during the summer months. A good furrier will have a storage facility which is kept in a range of 50-60F (10-15C) and 45-55% humidity, which has been shown to be the ideal conditions for preserving furs. Most people store their furs through the summer months, and bring them home when the cooler weather returns in the fall.

Another reason for storing fur with a professional is that it provides an opportunity for your retail furrier to thoroughly inspect your fur at the end of the season. Small tears, missing buttons, worn spots or other damage can then be identified and repaired before they become bigger and more costly problems.

Your retail furrier is also equipped to properly clean your fur, removing oils (e.g., around the neckline) and small particles of dirt or grit that can damage fur follicles. Professional cleaning also restores the natural brilliance and beauty of your furs.

Just like you would service a car, maintain a house, or correctly clean and store silverware, caring for your furs will protect your investment and assure many more years of use.

Fur storage costs are usually based on the value of your garments. So storing a coat valued at $500 may cost as little as $32 (or $39, including a year-round insurance policy). At the higher end, a $4,500 coat might cost $86 for storage (or $133 including year-round insurance) – i.e., about the price of one decent cup of coffee per week. [Storage prices vary depending on rent and other costs in different regions.]

But what if you have vintage pieces that aren’t in top-notch condition, or other inexpensive garments, trims or accessories? Or maybe there’s no furrier in your area? Is it possible to keep your furs in reasonably good condition at home?

Unfortunately, it is near impossible to duplicate the controlled atmosphere of a professional fur-storage vault in your home closet. But here are a few tips to help protect your furs as well as possible in a home environment:

• Avoid storing fur in a basement, where it can be too damp. Too much humidity can result in a moldy lining.

• Ideally you want to store the furs in a place where there is no direct sunlight, and not too much heat. A bedroom is often a good choice, providing you don’t keep yours too warm.

• The furs need to hang freely and have a bit of air, so don’t try to stuff too many in a closet.

• Use a proper fur hanger, with shoulders, to preserve the shape of your coat.

• If you don’t use your furs frequently, or during the summer months, cover them with cotton garment bags or cotton sheets.

• Never store your furs in plastic; fur needs to “breathe”.

• Removable fur parka trims, scarves, or other accessories can be stored on hangers or in uncovered boxes in your closet.

Have you ever wondered how to recycle old fur? Remodelling is a great way to breathe new life into an old fur coat or jacket. Whether it is an old mink coat in pristine condition, or a vintage piece that has seen better days, most furs can be recycled in some way. Just see these before-and-after photos (above) of a coat remodelled by Natural Furs of Montreal.

Here are five things you can do with an old fur coat or jacket.

Recut into a New Shape

This could be something simple like shortening the coat to make it more modern, changing the sleeve shape or just taking off the sleeves to make a vest. Alternatively, you could attempt something a bit more dramatic, like recutting the piece entirely. Fur is unique in that a good coat can be completely transformed into something new using the "letting out" sewing technique that is exclusive to fur. Expect to pay $500 and up for a job like this, and make sure you choose a furrier who is experienced in remodelling and knows how to recycle old fur.

Make an Accessory

An old fur coat could make a great fur collar, scarf, or hat. We've also been told of someone who had an old fur turned into glove liners. My hands are warm just thinking about it. Depending on the complexity of a job like this, you are likely looking at $100 and up.

A Coat Lining

Furs look great on the outside but they also feel really good when they are inside a coat. Creating a coat lining with an old fur coat can be a great way to keep warm without showing off the pelts. This works especially well in rainy places; creating a raincoat lining out of an old fur coat means you will be warm and dry. You might be able to get a lining created for a few hundred dollars, but it will most likely cost over $500 if you are planning to recut the shape and do fancy finishings. This could be a DIY project if you have a coat that you aren't too precious about. Simply cutting off the sleeves, removing the lining, and turning the coat inside out could get you a pretty decent raincoat lining if you don't need something fancy. (I am going to try this over the weekend. Wish me luck!)

A Cushion, Blanket, or Seat Covering

This is normally what people suggest as a worst-case scenario. If your coat's skins are too dry to be turned into another garment, then making them into a cushion or blanket is a great alternative. Fur seat covers in your car would pretty much be the definition of "driving in style", and if you've got a baby with expensive tastes, you could try to recycle old fur into a baby blanket or stroller lining. My son had an old piece of beaver as the lining of his car seat and he was quite pleased!

Trinkets

If your coat is too old to turn into a garment, and too small to turn into a cushion or blanket, then you could try making a trinket with it. A fur corsage, piece of jewelry, or a teddy bear is a great way to use an otherwise un-usable piece of fur. This is also a great option for any left over pieces, if you decide to shorten a fur coat, for example, why not make use of the pieces that were cut off?

A few things to consider before recycling a fur:

The age of the garment matters. It needs to have been well taken care of and stored properly in order for the fur to be in good enough shape to be remodelled. A lesson for us all - proper fur coat storage does prolong its life!

Some new pelts are over dried to make them lighter. These ones may also not be idea for remodelling.

Coats that have been let out can sometimes be too weak for remodelling, but nothing is stopping you turning them into a nice throw.

Mink, beaver, and fox are great fur types for recycling, whereas chinchilla, weasel and muskrat have thin leather and are more difficult to recycle into garments.

Remodelling isn't just about cutting a new garment or item from an old fur, you can also dye furs or shear them. There is a world of possibilities!

I received a phone call the other day from a very frightened fur retailer. Two young women had come into his store while he was serving a customer and begun lecturing him about the evils of selling fur. He had tried to stay cool and asked them to leave, several times, but they kept at him until, finally, he lost it and said things he wasn’t proud of. They had filmed him too; now his outburst was on an activist website and his Facebook page had been bombarded with comments accusing him of being a sexist thug.

“Am I finished?” he asked, shaken. “That’s not me, but they were so aggressive; honestly, I was frightened.” I told him to remove the threatening posts from his Facebook page – but to take screen-grabs first, for the record. I also advised him to make a police report about the women who had harassed him, and to ask the police to keep an eye on his store at night. (The windows of several fur stores in the same town were broken in the weeks that followed.)

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. An outerwear store that sells fur-trimmed parkas in Vancouver has endured rowdy protests several times a week for more than a year. Activists now often follow fur-wearers down the street, haranguing them. DxE (“Direct Action Everywhere”) activists invade department stores, intimidating consumers and thumbing their noses at store security. At the opening of new Canada Goose stores in New York and Toronto, protesters carried “F*ck Canada Goose” posters. (So much for compassion and intelligent dialogue!) “Fur police” recently patrolled the streets of Hamburg, Germany, lecturing fur-wearers and giving them “tickets”.

READ ALSO: "Meat of the Matter: Peace-loving avengers," by Dan Murphy, for Dairy Herd Management.

Fur is still a favorite target but any animal-based business can find itself under attack. An infuriating new tactic of animal rights activists is to blitz commercial Facebook pages with negative ratings and comments, as a Vancouver chef recently discovered when he added seal meat to his “sustainable and cultural foods” menu. (Ironically, activists often claim that the seal hunt is immoral because only the fur is used!)

Here are 5 reasons why animal rights activists are becoming more aggressive ... and why it will likely get worse before it gets better.

1. Aggression Works

Activists have learned that many retail stores – even those of large corporations – have a low tolerance for confrontation. Things were different when most furs were sold by furriers running multi-generational family businesses; fur was what they knew, and they defended it with passion. With fur now popular for trim and fashion accessories, it is sold in a much wider range of stores.

This is putting fur on more people than ever before, but it also makes retailing more vulnerable: if fur represents only a small fraction of your sales but generates 99% of your security and PR problems, caving in to PETA is a tempting option. Unfortunately, the message to animal rights activists is that threats and intimidation work.

2. Pop Culture

If you have seen a music video recently -- or follow much of what passes for political debate these days -- you understand that the vulgar, arrogant and often aggressive tone of animal rights activists (“F*ck Fur!”) is very much in tune with certain elements of contemporary culture. And because there’s no sign of popular culture becoming much more polite any time soon, we can expect the arrogance and aggressiveness of these activists to intensify too.

3. Animal Rights Activists Are Getting Frustrated

Cleveland Amory, founder of the Fund for Animals, began campaigning against the fur trade in the late 1960s, almost 50 years ago. Protests intensified in the 1980s and then, again, with the emergence of media-savvy organizations like PETA. The traditional fur coat was also challenged by more casual lifestyles and the availability of less expensive winter clothing materials.

But just when it looked like Western consumers were abandoning their furs, the trade reinvented itself. Suddenly fur is everywhere, not only on 70% of designer runways, but in the streets – as trim on coats and parkas, on handbags, vests, scarves and boots. As trim and accessories, fur is more affordable and is being worn by more young people than ever.

Like old-time Stalinists frustrated with the “false consciousness” of workers who didn’t support The Revolution, many activists have concluded that, if moral persuasion isn’t working, it’s time for more vigorous methods. “As long as they do the right thing, we don’t really care why they’ve done it,” says PETA executive vice president Tracy Reiman when asked whether companies give up fur to avoid harassment, rather than because they share PETA’s views.

4. Social Media Encourage an Escalation of Emotion

Animal rights activists have always used disturbing images, but mainstream media rarely broadcast the most gruesome of them. In the Brave New World of social media, however, the gorier the better. As PETA's Tracy Reiman says, “… we put out a video of rabbits that are having their fur ripped out, and everybody watches it.”

It is not hard to understand why normally compassionate people would be horrified by some of the images circulating on the Internet. If I thought these images really represented the fur trade, I would be against it too. So don't be surprised that some idealistic young people decide it’s time to take stronger action to end such (apparent) atrocities.

The anonymity of social media also encourages more radical and polarized opinions, in all types of politics.

5. “Animal Rights” Is a Fundamentalist Ideology

The previous four points provide ample explanation for the more aggressive tone of animal rights activists. A more troubling question is whether the “animal-rights” philosophy itself may inevitably lead to more aggressive behaviour.

Despite all the media coverage of PETA’s antics, few people – journalists included – understand the profound chasm separating traditional “animal welfare” values from the radical and comparatively new “animal rights” doctrine. Animal welfare refers to our responsibility to minimize suffering for the animals we use. Hopefully everyone reading this post agrees with this. Animal rights, by contrast, says that humans have no right to kill or use animals at all, even for food or important medical research.

A more troubling question is whether the “animal-rights” philosophy itself may inevitably lead to more aggressive behaviour.

But if we truly believe that killing and eating an animal is the moral equivalent of murdering and eating another human being, then how far should we go to stop such “crimes”? Seen this way, activists who become more aggressive or even commit illegal acts are not “going too far”; rather, they are reading their animal-rights philosophers correctly.

“Animal rights” -- like other fundamentalist doctrines -- does not allow for respect or tolerance of differing views. In this sense, the increasing aggression of animal rights activists is not an accident or an aberration. But if intolerance and aggression are the logical conclusions of “animal rights”, maybe it’s time we took a much more critical look at this radical new philosophy. This will be the subject of a future article.

A Visit from St. Nicholas

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all thro' the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
Full poem

Everyone believes in Santa, but few count themselves lucky enough to have seen him. For those blessed few of you, did you notice something odd? His red cloth jacket and pants, and black leather boots, were nowhere to be seen. He was dressed, from head to toe, in nothing but fur!

Something most Santa fans don't know is that his true appearance, and character, were not discovered until the early 19th century, with New York the centre of enlightenment.

Historically, Saint Nicholas was depicted as a stern holy man, and this tradition was exported to New York by Dutch colonialists. But a group of writers and scholars, led by Washington Irving in his 1809 book A History of New-York, began to question Santa's dour image. What they discovered would rock the world, and especially the Dutch. Christmas would never be the same again!

Far from being a mirthless humbug who punished naughty children with the rod, Santa was a jolly fellow who delivered presents down chimneys from a sleigh pulled by reindeer.

SEE ALSO: A Christmas allegory: Fake trees, fake fur

In 1823, Clement Moore of New York's Protestant Episcopal Church described Santa in more detail than ever before. In A Visit from St. Nicholas (aka Twas the Night Before Christmas), Moore said that Santa's "cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry," his beard was "white as snow", and his belly "shook like a bowl full of jelly". What's more:

He was dress'd all in fur, from his head to his foot

And why not? Given that Santa spends the whole night flying around in the dead of winter, fur is the logical choice.

Then along came Thomas Nast, "Father of the American Cartoon", who churned out so many depictions of Santa, he ended up making a book of them. Through the pages of New York-based magazine Harper's Weekly, he also had nationwide reach.

Nast's problem was that he had never seen Santa, and considered A Visit from St. Nicholas a work of fiction.

Like a young girl dressing her Barbie doll, Nast decided Santa needed a complete wardrobe. He might go for sheared fur, or no fur at all, but it was his red cloth outfits with Arctic fox trim that captured the public imagination. Though Santa has never been seen in such an outfit, we're now supposed to believe that's all he ever wears!

Well, now you know better :) Which leaves just one question: what type of fur does Santa wear?

Of course, no one knows what he prefers when at home, but as a reindeer-herder, reindeer fur seems an obvious choice. Nothing beats it for warmth.

SEE ALSO: Amazing facts about fur: Dressing for the Arctic

But early illustrators of A Visit from St. Nicholas chose to depict Santa in fur resembling muskrat. There are two reasons to believe they got it right.

Firstly, reindeer fur is very bulky, and therefore ill-suited to sliding down chimneys.

Secondly, muskrat was the most popular fur in New York at the time. Perhaps Santa was just trying to blend in!

Merry Christmas to all from Truth About Fur, and, of course, from Santa!