Neal Jotham, the leading light of humane trap research and development, died in Ottawa on February 2, 2023. He was 88. In honour of his extraordinary contributions, we are reposting the following interview conducted by Truth About Fur in 2016.

***

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

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

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

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

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

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur.

TaF: So you got involved with the CAHT?

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

TaF: How did you go about raising awareness?

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

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

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

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

TaF: But the governments still weren’t involved?

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

TaF: How did trappers feel about your efforts?

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

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

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

TaF: So trappers associations supported efforts to improve traps?

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: And what happened to your film?

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

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

TaF: So what did the FPCHT research program achieve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: What are the main contributions of the AIHTS?

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

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

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

***

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

Raised by humans for more than 150 years, farmed mink are significantly different from their wild cousins and are now clearly domesticated, despite animal activist claims to the contrary. This is important because the claim that farmed mink are not domesticated, but rather are “wild animals kept in captivity”, sits at the heart of activists' critique of mink farming.

Activists argue that, because wild mink travel and hunt over large territories, it is impossible to satisfy their fundamental needs on farms. Therefore, they claim, mink farming cannot be humane or ethical, and should be banned.

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

But is it true that mink farmers are keeping “wild animals” in captivity?

To support their claim that farmed mink are wild, activists point out that they have been raised by humans for only a short time compared with cattle, chickens, pigs or other farm animals. As a result, they say, farmed mink maintain much of their “wildness” – often they can only be handled wearing gloves – and are “biologically unchanged”, so they can survive if released (accidentally or intentionally) into the wild, and can even interbreed with wild mink.

Let’s look more closely at each of these claims.

How Long Does Domestication Take?

It is true, of course, that mink have been raised by humans for much less time than many common farm animals. Mink were first bred and raised in captivity in North America as early as 1866, but the ancestor of our domestic chickens, the red junglefowl (Gallus gallus), was domesticated some 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in India and China. The domestic pig, derived from the Eurasian wild boar (Sus scrofa), dates from around the same time.

It is worth noting, however, that for most of their history, domesticated chickens, pigs, and other farm animals were raised mostly outdoors. The time these animals have been raised indoors, in more confined cages or pens, is not really that different from mink.

The more important question is how long is really required for an animal to become domesticated? And to answer that question, we must ask what domestication really means.

Animal scientists and biologists consider that domestication involves directional selection that produces morphological, physiological (or functional), and behavioural changes in the animal – changes that allow the animals to successfully adapt to husbandry conditions, and to better satisfy human needs.

Like other domesticated animals, selection for various traits in mink may be “active” (e.g., farmers selecting breeding pairs to develop new fur colours, or to produce larger animals with more fur per animal), or “passive” (e.g., physiological or behavioural changes that emerge because mink are no longer subjected to the natural selection pressures of finding food and mates, or avoiding predators).

Selection Brings Changes

Following are some of the changes observed in farmed mink that show they have, in fact, undergone a process of domestication through active and passive selection.

CHANGES IN SIZE AND PHYSIQUE

Such changes are a common result of domestication. For example, chihuahuas and bulldogs are very different from wolves. Similarly, farmed mink can be twice the size of wild mink – the result of many generations of selecting for larger animals that produce more usable fur per animal.

CHANGES IN FUR COLOUR

Many domesticated species of mammals and birds show a range of fur and feather colouration that is either rare or unknown in the wild. Wild mink are usually dark brown, but farmed mink have been selectively bred for a wide variety of consistent colour phases, ranging from pure white to jet black. Paler-coloured mink also tend to be larger than darker strains, and more docile.

CHANGES IN MUSCLE AND FAT FORMATION

Farmed mink have more subcutaneous fat than their wild cousins. This fat is rendered into mink oil, for waterproofing and conditioning leather. The increased fat appears to be a secondary effect of selecting for larger animals.

PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES

Farmed mink are fertile over a longer period than wild mink, and they also have larger litter sizes. Wild female mink produce an average of two to three kits, while farmed mink average five to six, and sometimes as many as 12. Farmers sometimes select breeding stock for larger litter size, but there is evidence that the (passive or active) selection for less aggressive behaviour (“docility”) may also result in increased fertility and larger litters.

CHANGES IN BRAIN SIZE

It is well known that the brain volume of domesticated animals is generally smaller than in the wild animals from which they are descended. This can range from a reduction in volume of about 14% in domesticated ducks and guinea pigs, to as much as 25-34% in sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, and ferrets. Similarly, when corrected for body size, the brains of farmed mink are about 20% smaller than those of their wild cousins. The heart and spleen of farmed mink are also smaller, which had also been observed in other domesticated animals. Reduced brain volume and other changes are likely the result of the removal of natural selection forces including the need to find food and flee predators.

CHANGES IN BEHAVIOUR AND TEMPERAMENT

While most farmed mink must still be handled with gloves, they are considerably less fearful or aggressive than wild mink – as anyone who has visited a farm can attest. When we enter a barn, most mink will come to the front of their pens to see who’s there; they show curiosity rather than fear or aggression. While farmers have selected mink mostly for size, fur colour and quality, and sometimes for litter size or maternal instinct, there is also a degree of active and passive selection for tameness. This is because highly fearful or aggressive animals do not thrive in a farm environment, are more difficult to handle, and may not reproduce as readily. The codes of practice for raising mink in both the US and Canada include provisions for selecting against fearfulness and abnormal behaviours (sterotypies). Increased fertility, larger body size, reduced brain volume, and certain paler colour phases are also correlated with increased tameness.

Animal Activist Arguments

This brief summary shows that farmed mink clearly exhibit a number of morphological, physiological and behavioural traits commonly associated with domestication. But what about the issues animal activists raise to argue that farmed mink are not domesticated?

For example, take what happens when animal activists raid a mink farm and release the animals. Usually they remain close by and are easily recaptured, if they are not killed by passing cars first. But some can survive in the wild, and even interbreed with wild populations. Activists cite this as “proof” that farmed mink are really “wild animals”, but we know that cats, pigs, and other indisputably domesticated species are also able to survive, and breed, in the wild. Dogs, for example, can interbreed with wolves and coyotes.

Activists also claim that wild mink are agile (hard to handle), carnivorous, solitary, and shy in nature, and therefore not good candidates for domestication. However, other carnivorous animals – like cats and ferrets (a close cousin of the mink) – are also agile, solitary and shy in the wild, but have clearly been domesticated.

When pressed, activists argue that mink simply have not been raised on farms long enough to be domesticated. But the experiment conducted by Dmitri Belyaev and Lyyudmila Trut, in Siberia, famously demonstrated that selecting for just one trait – tameness – in farmed silver foxes was sufficient to produce dramatic physiological changes and dog-like behaviours in only 20 generations. Mink have been raised on farms in North America for about 150 years – that's 150 mink generations -- more than enough time for active and passive selection to have induced changes normally accepted as domestication, as summarised in this article.

What Scientists Say

Much of the information in this brief summary is taken from two scientific papers: “Is the mink domesticated?” by Prof. Eddy Decuypere [Physiology Research Group, Faculty of Bioengineering Sciences, Catholic University of Leuven, 2005], and, “The welfare of farmed mink as compared to other farmed animals, and the question of domestication of farmed mink”, by Prof. B.M. Spruijt, [Animal Welfare Centre, Veterinary Faculty, Utrecht University, 1999]. Those interested in this subject would do well to consult these papers, as well as the extensive scientific references they cite to support their observations.

Prof. Spruijt concludes: “Farmed mink are surely a domesticated species, as evidenced by certain defined characteristics of domestication present in mink, like changes in fur colour, physiology and behavior brought about by selection.” While acknowledging that ”docility” is one aspect of domestication that seems less pronounced in mink (and that he thinks is worthy of further research), he reports that “Given the relatively short history of mink breeding, the welfare assessment of farmed mink suggests that mink have adapted reasonably well to captive conditions,” and that “Compared to the welfare of other farmed animals, there is no reason to suggest that their level of domestication presents an unacceptable welfare problem.”

Prof. Decuypere similarly concludes that, “based on a number of typical domestication characteristics such as changes in fur colour, the lengthening of the mating season, the reduction in brain volume and behaviour changes, and by analogy to changes in these characteristics in animals known to us from time immemorial, the bred mink is unmistakably a domesticated animal."

It should be noted that while we have focussed on farmed mink in this survey, many of the same arguments for domestication – e.g., on-going selection for increased size, new colour phases, more docile temperament – can also be made for farmed foxes.

Of course, none of this will satisfy activists who subscribe to the extreme “animal rights” philosophy. For them, animal welfare concerns like those raised by the domestication debate are just a smokescreen, because they know that most people do not share their belief that humans have no right to use animals at all, for any purpose.

The claim that farmed mink are not domesticated animals is just the latest Trojan Horse that animal activists are wheeling out to insinuate their no-animal-use agenda onto consumers, the media, and politicians. Like so many activist claims, it is not supported by the facts.

***

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

A major new public opinion poll shows that, despite decades of aggressive and misleading activist campaigning, most Canadians are still fine with wearing fur and other natural clothing materials -- but are increasingly worried about the environmental costs of petroleum-based synthetics that activists love to promote as “vegan”.

The survey of 1,500 Canadians was commissioned by the Natural Fibers Alliance, and conducted in August 2022 by Abacus Data, a leading public affairs and market research consultancy.

SEE: Canadian Public Opinion on Mink Farming and Fur Use, and Public Opinion on Fur & Mink in Canada. By Abacus Data, August 2022.

The research completely contradicts animal activist claims that fur is no longer socially acceptable. In fact, two-thirds (65%) of Canadians believe that wearing fur is acceptable so long as the industry is well regulated and animals are treated humanely. Only one in five (21%) of Canadians do not agree – with just 10% saying they “strongly disagree”.

More than three-quarters (77%) of Canadians also believe that wearing fur is a matter of personal choice – putting the lie to activist claims that the public supports their call for fur bans. (Politicians take note!)

Seven in ten (71%) Canadians also agree that warm clothing is a necessity in many countries, and that natural fur is a sustainable warm clothing choice.

It is fascinating to see that, despite years of activist propaganda against mink farming, 35% of Canadians have a positive view of the sector while 25% are “neutral”, and only 21% have a negative view – of which only 10% are “very negative” – about mink farming. (18% feel they don't know enough to form an opinion.)

Encouraging for Mink Farmers

Mink farmers will also be encouraged to learn that younger people tend to have a more positive view of their sector: 41% of 18-29-year-olds have a positive view of mink farming, compared with 35% of 30-60-year-olds, and 25% of those over 60. Again, these findings completely contradict activist claims that the future is theirs.

Strong pluralities of Canadians also believe that the mink farming sector supports rural communities (41%; versus 8% who disagree); that it is environmentally sustainable (38%; versus 12% who disagree); and that it takes care to maintain animal health and welfare (37%; versus 16% who disagree.) About one in five Canadians are “neutral” about these questions, while the balance don’t feel they know enough to state an opinion.

More broadly, this study completely debunks activist claims that the public is buying into their no-animal-use, vegan agenda. Despite all the hype we see these days about vegan products and vegan menu choices, 96% of Canadians are still open to eating animal products like eggs and dairy, while 90% think it’s OK to eat meat. So much for the vegan wave!

SEE ALSO: What Is "Vegan Fashion" and How True Is the Hype? Truth About Fur.

Consumers Worried by Synthetics

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-JC8HmyTRdg

Three-quarters (74%) of Canadians also say they are comfortable with people wearing clothing or accessories made from leather, fur, wool, down, or other animal-derived natural fibres. (15% are “not too comfortable” with such choices, while only 7% of Canadians say they are “not at all comfortable” with animal-derived clothing materials.)

In fact, it is not fur or other animal-derived natural clothing materials that have consumers worried, but petroleum-based synthetics. 83% of Canadians are concerned that such synthetics – now in more than 60% of all our clothing – don’t biodegrade. 86% worry that synthetic fibres pollute our waterways and poison aquatic life. 83% are concerned about microplastics in our food and water.

SEE ALSO: The Great Fur Burial. Truth About Fur.

Because of such concerns, most Canadians (87%) now feel we should strive to use fewer synthetic fibres in our clothing (58%), or phase them out completely (29%).

Two-thirds of Canadians, in fact, now believe that “fast fashion” is contributing to an ecological crisis – and 60% of consumers feel that an environmental fee should be applied to all non-renewable clothing materials, because of their impact on the environment!

Again, completely contradicting activist claims, most consumers (77%) believe that natural fur is a more environmentally sustainable clothing choice than synthetics. Nearly two-thirds (64%) also believe that fur is a more socially responsible choice, while 59% consider fur to be a more ethical choice than synthetics.

SEE ALSO: Is It Ethical to Wear Fur? Truth About Fur.

Important Lessons

Bottom line, this new research provides some important lessons for the fur trade, the fashion industry, consumers, politicians, and the media:

1. The Fashion Industry: Designers, manufacturers, and retailers should listen to their consumers. Contrary to activist claims, most Canadian consumers do want to buy and wear fur, leather, wool, and other animal-derived products, so long as they are produced responsibly and sustainably. In fact, consumers today are more comfortable with responsibly produced animal-based clothing products than they are with petroleum-based synthetics.

2. Politicians: This research puts the lie to activist claims that Canadians want mink farming banned. In fact, more Canadians have a positive impression of mink farming than a negative impression, and more believe that the sector respects animal welfare and environmental sustainability. The research also completely debunks activist claims that the public want the sale of fur products banned. Quite the contrary, an absolute majority of Canadians believe that it is morally acceptable to use fur, and more than three-quarters believe that wearing fur should be a matter of personal choice. (The father of the current Canadian prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, once famously said that “the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”.  It’s time to remind politicians that they shouldn’t be in our clothes closets either!)

3. Consumers: Those who appreciate its warmth, comfort, and beauty can wear fur with confidence, knowing that most Canadians agree that wearing fur is morally acceptable, environmentally sustainable, and a matter of personal choice.

4. Media: With this research at hand, journalists should stop giving a free ride to fraudulent activist claims that “consumers no longer accept that wearing fur is ethical”, or that “80% of Canadians want fur farming banned.” This research shows clearly that it is petroleum-based synthetics that have Canadians worried, and that most think that fur and other responsibly-produced animal-based clothing materials are a better environmental choice.

5. People of the Fur Trade: This research provides a powerful and timely response to anti-fur propaganda — but it is only useful if it is seen by others. It is up to people in every sector of the fur trade – trappers, farmers, designers, manufacturers, and retailers – to make sure this important information is widely circulated. Share this summary with your local and regional politicians. Use these statistics to respond whenever you see activist lies reported in the media — and to reassure customers, friends and neighbours.

Charles Dickens’ classic novel A Tale of Two Cities begins with the wonderful sentence: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” This describes very well the situation of the fur trade today. Clearly the industry has been seriously damaged by decades of activist bullying and lies. At the same time, the growing public concern for protecting the environment provides a golden opportunity for the fur trade: when it comes to responsibly and sustainably produced clothing, fur checks all the boxes. We have long known this, and now we have the statistics to prove that many Canadians understand it too.

It’s now up to everyone in the trade to share and promote this important news!

SEE ALSO: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the First Round of Negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty. By Olivia Rosane for EcoWatch, Dec. 9, 2022.

***

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

Fur is under attack like never before. Hardly a week goes by without news of some brand dropping fur, or a jurisdiction proposing to ban its production or sale. This tsunami of negativity fuels a self-reinforcing cycle: As major retailers (Saks, Neimans, Holt Renfrew) stop selling fur, successful brands (Canada Goose, Moose Knuckles, Mackage) have less incentive to stand up to relentless activist pressure – and, with less business at stake, it becomes harder for politicians to resist activist pressure for production or sales bans. Worse, the barrage of negative news can create the false but potentially self-fulfilling impression that “society” has decided it is no longer ethically acceptable to wear fur.

This cycle of negativity cannot be broken with the fur trade always on the defensive. Our rational and reasonable responses to fur ban proposals or fur-free brands – if we get a chance to respond at all – are buried deep in media reports where few people see them.

Two proactive fur trade initiatives are the International Fur Federation’s sustainability and FurMark campaigns. Both programs include important communications and consumer-reassurance tools. But, alone, they are not enough to push back the tsunami now engulfing our industry.

What is desperately needed is a bold strategy to move the North American fur industry off the back foot and into attack mode. We must aggressively reclaim control of our own story, to support designers, retailers, and politicians – and to give consumers the “social license” to buy and wear fur.

A Strategic Approach

For much of the 20th century, movie stars and other celebrities provided an extraordinary media profile for the romance and glamour of fur. But while Jennifer Lopez, Madonna, Rihanna and other celebs continue this tradition, many others now choose to avoid the controversy that activists have created around fur. We can’t expect celebs, or brands, or anyone but ourselves to fight our battles.

A major challenge for the fur industry, of course, is that we lack the human and financial resources required to mount the large-scale advertising and PR campaigns that bigger industries use to manage such problems. Instead, we should take a leaf from the activist handbook: We must start using the news media to carry our messages, by providing “stories” that journalists cannot resist.

PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once said: “We’re media sluts. We didn’t invent the game, we just learned to play it.” PETA understands that the media are content-devourers. Journalists need stories, lots of stories, the more sensational the better, and activists learned to provide them.

It’s time for the fur trade to generate more newsworthy stories of our own. And because the fate of the fur industry does not interest most people, the trick is to show how anti-fur campaigns actually threaten the interests and welfare of Joe (and Josie) Public.

The good news is that a strong “Fur Fights Back” campaign can become a media story in itself. This approach was road-tested when we launched Furisgreen.com, a decade ago. We “seeded” the campaign with some billboards in major cities and a few paid ads in national papers, and the phone began ringing. Our claim that “fur is green” was so unexpected, that it was “news”. (Note: “Fur is Green” is now a registered trademark in Canada and the US, belonging to the Fur Council of Canada.)

The thing to understand is that it’s not the media’s job to broadcast our messages, no matter how intelligent or worthwhile they may be. Their job is reporting “news”. If we package our messages into a “campaign” that provides a new perspective on a controversial and timely issue, the media will report on it – especially if we include an emotional element. And remember: despite how discouraging media coverage of our issues can be, most journalists are not animal activists. Activists have just done a better job playing the media game.

The “Stories”

So what kind of fur stories might be exciting enough to be considered “newsworthy” by journalists? Here are a few ideas to start the ball rolling:

1. Anti-fur campaigns undermine wildlife management programs that protect property, livestock, and human health. Wildlife biologists and trappers should warn the public that over-populated raccoons (and other species) can spread rabies and other dangerous diseases. Increasingly abundant coyotes prey on livestock, pets – and now sometimes even attack humans. Over-populated beavers can flood homes, roads, and natural habitat. Raccoons, foxes, and other predators kill ground-nesting birds, sea turtle eggs and young, and other endangered species. The truth is that wildlife populations will still have to be managed, even if we don’t use their fur. (Does a child have to die from a rabid raccoon bite before the important role of trappers is recognized?) If activists succeed in destroying consumer markets, then tax-payers will end up footing the bill for managing wildlife. Without the market incentive provided by companies like Canada Goose, for example, governments will have to reinstate bounties to manage coyote populations – as they did not so many years ago. So coyotes will still be killed, but they will be left to rot in the woods and the fur will be wasted. Is this really a more ethical treatment of wildlife?

2. Campaigns against mink farming are an attack on rural communities, the people who feed and clothe us. Mink farmers should encourage mainstream agriculture – including vets and scientists – to denounce the current attack on mink farming as the thin edge of an orchestrated activist campaign to undermine family farms and animal agriculture. The same activist groups that have long targeted the fur trade are now openly campaigning against eating meat and wearing leather and wool. While calling for full veganism, they also push for “reforms” that raise costs for farmers, to make animal agriculture less viable – but it is consumers who will pay the higher prices for meat, eggs, dairy, and other animal products. Mink farming is a small sector but plays a key role in the agricultural cycle: recycling wastes from other sectors (the parts of pigs, chickens, and fish that we don’t eat), while composted mink farm wastes provide valuable organic fertilizers to restore the fertility of the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

3. Anti-fur activists use Mafia “protection racket” tactics of harassment and intimidation to force brands and retailers to drop fur: “Do as we say or we will destroy your business!” This should be a concern to anyone who believes in democracy. Canada Goose and other brands are not dropping fur because consumers don’t want to buy and wear these products; our cities are full of young people wearing fur-trimmed parkas each winter. These companies stop using fur because store security and brand reputation costs become too high. Is this the kind of society we want, where aggressive minorities impose their beliefs with intimidation? Surely we all have a right to make our own decisions about the appropriate use of animals. This is not a “fur issue”; it is an issue that should concern all citizens, journalists, and politicians, whatever their feelings about fur!

4. Anti-fur campaigns threaten our health and undermine efforts to develop “greener” economies. The apparel industry is the second-biggest contributor to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. As the fashion industry confronts the tremendous waste caused by throwaway “fast fashion”, environmentalists say we should be buying less but better-quality clothing, and keeping it longer. Seen in this perspective, using fur makes more sense today than ever! Fur is, in fact, an excellent example of the responsible and sustainable use of renewable, natural resources, as promoted by the World Conservation Strategy. Where are activist campaigns leading us? Sixty percent of our clothing is already made from non-renewable, non-biodegradable petrochemicals; we now know these clothes shed vast quantities of micro-particles of plastic into our air and waterways – plastics that are now being found in marine life, and even in foetuses and breast milk. Cruelty-free indeed!

5. Anti-fur campaigns are insulting and unfair to people who live closest to nature: thousands of farm families, First Nations and other trappers, skilled fur artisans maintaining unique heritage craft skills, and many others. Activist campaigns are not a victimless crime! They attack the livelihoods, cultures, and reputations of real people – people who work hard and do not have the time (or inclination) to perform media stunts for publicity! These are decent people with families – not the monsters they would have to be if the things activists say about the fur trade were true. The sensationalist lies that activists shamelessly spread about the people of the fur trade would not be tolerated if any other race, religion, or lifestyle were so viciously targeted. Simply put: animal extremists have degenerated into politically-correct hate groups, with the people of the fur trade as their number one scapegoat. But intolerance and bullying are never cool; it’s time that anti-fur activists were called to account for their hate-mongering.

Reclaiming Our Story

Each of these “stories”, and others, should be delivered by the most credible and well-trained spokespeople we can find in the industry: First Nations and other trappers, farm families, skilled craftspeople. Women should be well represented, and young people who know how to get our stories out on Instagram and TikTok!

We should also remember that emotion trumps logic in the media. Activists have exploited this well, but fur people have emotions too. Activist campaigns are unfair and insulting to real people. They put people’s livelihoods and cultures at risk. And when they prevent trappers from responsibly managing wildlife, they put public health and safety at risk as well!

Not least important, anti-fur campaigning works against current efforts to improve sustainability in the apparel industry. And activist bullying tactics threaten democracy and our right to make our own ethical choices. These are not just fur issues, these are issues that should concern everyone who believes in a free and open society.

As this brief summary shows, the current attack on the fur industry is an attack on a range of important societal values and interests. But no one else will tell these stories if we don’t. It’s time for a coordinated fur industry communications strategy.

***

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

A troubling new trend among progressive legislators in the US is to virtue signal by proposing to ban the sale of natural fur products. Apart from the question of whether it is appropriate for government to legislate such personal choices, even a quick review of the facts suggests that progressives should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to ban it.

Unfortunately, the sponsors of recent fur-ban proposals in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and several other states have clearly not bothered to do their own research. Instead, they just parrot animal activist inaccuracies and even lies.

Scaremongering Over Covid

Fur-ban supporters are also guilty of scaremongering about the susceptibility of mink to Covid-19, claiming that mink farms are a threat to public health. Strict bio-security measures in place on all North American mink farms are one reason the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can state: "Currently, there is no evidence that mink are playing a significant role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to people."

As for the fear that a virus strain that showed up on mink farms in Denmark will lower the efficacy of vaccines, America's top infectious disease official is not too worried. "[A]t first cut, it doesn't look like something that's going to be a really big problem for the vaccines that are currently being used to induce an immune response,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was Chief Medical Advisor under President Trump and has stayed in the role under President Biden.

Bear in mind also that when there are outbreaks of swine flu (H1N1) or avian flu in chickens, we do not ban the sale of pork and poultry – although this is exactly what animal activists call for. Instead, farmers work closely with public officials to resolve the problems, just as US mink farmers have done with Covid-19.

Ignoring Positive Contributions

Fur-ban proponents also refuse to acknowledge the many positives of producing and wearing fur.

For example, they ignore the fact that farmed mink, as carnivores, eat by-products from human food-production – the parts of cows, pigs and fish that we don’t eat, expired cheeses, broken eggs – that might otherwise end up in landfills. Manure, soiled straw bedding, and other farm wastes are composted to produce organic fertilizers, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. And mink are raised on family-run farms, providing employment and revenue to support rural communities.

They also fail to mention that half the fur produced in the US is taken from the wild, and from abundant species only. This way they avoid the awkward truth that many of these furbearers are so numerous that they'd have to be culled even if we didn't use their fur. Overpopulated beavers flood homes and roads; raccoons spread rabies and other dangerous diseases; coyotes are the main predators of young calves and lambs, and even pet dogs and cats; and the list goes on. Regulated trapping, as practiced in the US, helps to maintain more stable and healthy wildlife populations by smoothing out boom-and-bust cycles. And if we must cull some of these animals, it is surely more ethical to use their fur than to throw it away.

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

Finally, it is grossly misleading for fur-ban proponents to claim that alternative materials render the use of natural fur “unjustifiable”. Fake furs – and more than 60% of all our clothing – are synthetics, mostly made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. We now know that each time these synthetics are washed, they leach micro-particles of plastic into our waterways that are now turning up in marine life, drinking water, and even breast milk. Cruelty-free indeed!

Natural fur, by contrast, is produced responsibly and sustainably. Each fur garment is cut and sewn individually by artisans maintaining heritage handcraft skills. A well-made mink coat can be worn for 30 or 40 years or more, passed from mother to daughter and granddaughter. Unlike most clothing, a natural fur coat can be taken apart and completely restyled. And after decades of use, it can be thrown into the garden compost where it will biodegrade completely. Using natural fur makes more sense than ever at a time when environmentalists are saying we should buy better-quality clothing and keep it longer.

Scapegoating Artisans

So why do we hear so much anti-fur rhetoric? Despite its “luxury” image, the fur trade – from farmers to trappers to craftspeople -- is a small and artisanal industry that has been unfairly stigmatized and scapegoated. The fur trade is easily sacrificed by politicians bent on winning votes and raising funds, in the knowledge that it simply doesn't have the resources to compete with multi-million-dollar, media-savvy, “animal rights” lobby groups.

No one is obliged to wear natural fur – or, for that matter, wool or leather – or to eat meat or dairy. These are personal choices, and they are rarely black and white. For example, despite the growing popularity of vegetarianism, few of us actually go the whole nine yards, let alone become vegans. Instead, we may opt to become pesco- or ovo-vegetarians, meaning we still eat seafood or eggs. Others choose to buy organic beef, or free-range eggs.

As we navigate these choices, we want more information about the environmental and ethical implications of our decisions. In response, the International Fur Federation is launching FurMark this year to further enhance traceability and transparency about industry standards.

What is not appropriate is for legislators to impose such decisions from on high. Rather, it behooves them to actually meet with the people whose cultures, reputations, and livelihoods they are so blithely and unfairly attacking. Politicians who fancy themselves to be progressive may then find that they should be promoting natural fur, not seeking to arbitrarily ban it.

***

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

Quick to turn the misfortune of others to their own benefit, animal activists have jumped on reports about Covid-19 on mink farms in Europe (and some US states) to call for a complete ban on fur farming in North America. In media interviews and opinion pieces they are sounding the alarm that the SARS-CoV-2 virus mutated in Danish mink and, in some cases, was passed back to humans; this new mink-related strain could threaten the efficacy of future vaccines, they argue. Their fear-mongering received a boost when the Danish Government ordered the culling of millions of mink, citing the same concerns.

SEE ALSO: Covid-19 scaremongers wrong to pick on mink farms. Truth About Fur.

In fact, most public health authorities do not agree. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control issued a statement on November 12 in which it concluded that the overall level of risk to human health posed by SARS-CoV-2 mink-related variants is low for the general public, no different than other (non-mink) strains. (1)

World Health Organisation chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan said that “mutations [in viruses] are normal ... I don’t think we should come to any conclusions about whether this particular mutation is going to impact vaccine efficacy.” WHO spokesperson Dr. Margaret Harris added that some members of the international community and the media have misunderstood the threat level. (2)

Similarly, respected US virus expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “It does not appear, at this point, that that mutation that’s been identified in the minks is going to have an impact on vaccines and affect a vaccine-induced response.”  (3)

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) stated that “although several animal species have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, these infections are not a driver of the COVID-19 pandemic; the pandemic is driven by human to human transmission.” (4)

Preventative Measures

The OIE does not propose mass culling of mink herds, let alone an end to mink farming. Rather, it advises a range of preventative measures including human testing; infection prevention and control for workers; animal testing and prevention of spread from animals; and the development of preparedness and response strategies. These are precisely the precautions that US and Canadian mink farmers have implemented to protect their animals, their own families, and the public.

North American mink farms, like most animal agriculture, maintain biosecurity protocols to prevent the spread of infection from wildlife or other farms. These measures were immediately tightened when it was learned that mink in Europe had contracted Covid-19 from humans. Only essential personnel are permitted onto farms, and workers who feel ill must be tested for Covid-19 before coming into contact with the animals. Masks, visors, and gloves are used when handling mink. If Covid-19 is found on a mink farm, this must be reported to the state or provincial chief veterinary officer and public health authorities, who decide whether further measures are required.

“The European situation gave us lead time to put stricter biosecurity into place,” said Matt Moses, a Nova Scotia mink farmer and president of the Canada Mink Breeders Association. No cases of Covid-19 have been found on Canadian mink farms, and while some cases were recently found on US farms, they appear to have been rapidly and effectively contained.

Mink farming is also very different in North America than in Europe. While some 3 million mink are being produced annually on about 200 farms spread out across Canada and the US, in Denmark, more than 1,200 farms were producing over 17 million mink in an area smaller than Vancouver Island -- or less than one-fifth the size of Wisconsin. The risk of inter-farm contagion is clearly far lower in North America.

Meanwhile, the “Cluster-5” Covid-19 mutation found on Danish mink farms has not been detected since mid-September, and has “most likely become extinct,” the Danish Health Ministry admitted last week. (5)

Neither "Cruel" Nor "Unnecessary"

None of this has dampened the enthusiasm of animal activists who sense an opportunity to deliver a body blow to the fur industry. There is no justification for taking even the smallest risk, because fur farming is “cruel” and “unnecessary”, they argue.

Cruel? In fact, animal welfare is a priority on North American mink farms. Producers work hard to provide their animals with excellent nutrition and care, as this is the only way to produce top-quality fur.

Unnecessary? Fur today is a sustainably-produced, hand-crafted, long-lasting, recyclable, and ultimately biodegradable, natural clothing material.

By contrast, the fake furs and other synthetics proposed by animal activists are generally made with petroleum, a non-renewable and non-biodegradable resource. These synthetics represent about 80 percent of our clothing, and leach millions of micro-particles of plastic into our waterways each time they are washed; plastics now being found in marine life. Cruelty-free indeed!

Mink are raised on small, family-run farms, supporting employment in rural communities. Mink help to reduce waste: they are fed left-overs from our own food production, the parts of cattle, poultry, and fish we don’t eat -- by-products that might otherwise end up in landfills. Mink manure, straw bedding, and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers, replenishing the soil and completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

As for the new risks posed by Covid-19, mink farmers take their biosecurity responsibilities very seriously, to protect their livelihoods, their animals, and their families. Of course, no one is obliged to wear fur -- or leather, or wool; or to eat meat or dairy -- but that does not give activist groups the right to unfairly attack the livelihoods and reputations of North American farming families.

NOTES:

1) Detection of new SARS-CoV-2 variants related to mink. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, November 12, 2020.

2) What's the science behind coronavirus? BBC, November 9, 2020.

3) Dr. Fauci says it appears Covid strain from Danish mink farms won’t be a problem for vaccines. CNBC, November 13, 2020.

4) Questions and answers on COVID-19. World Organisation for Animal Health, updated November 27, 2020.

5) Danish government may exhume hundreds of thousands of dead minks and burn them. Washington Post, November 27, 2020.

***

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

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

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

1. Sustainability

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

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

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

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

2. Animal Welfare

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

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

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

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

3. Important Use

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

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

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

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

4. Complete Use

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

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

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

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

Inconvenient Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Politics of Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT YOU CAN DO

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

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

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

***

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mink Farms Not "Factory Farms"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Going Home at Last

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

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

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

His Own Workshop

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

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

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

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

Committed to Natural Materials

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: Where will you source this reclaimed fur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Made in Canada"

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

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

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

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

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

Giving Back to the North

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

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: Any final thoughts?

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: Tell us about some of those people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

TaF: Who runs this program?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TaF: How is this research and testing conducted?

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

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

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

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

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

***

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