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

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

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

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

TaF: Did you come from a fur family?

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

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

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

TaF: So did you begin to question your vegetarianism?

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

TaF: So how did you begin working with fur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Judo of Selling Fur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the most frustrating aspects of the current fur debate is the lack of any real facts or serious analysis in most media reports and public discussion.

For years, activists have circulated images of injured animals to support their claim that fur farming should be banned. This is the logical equivalent of showing photos of gruesome car crashes to argue for the elimination of motorized transport. But pictures speak louder than words - especially in a 164-character universe. So fur is often associated with animal cruelty, with little understanding or recognition of government regulations, industry standards, and all the scientific work that’s been done over the past 40 years to promote humane practices in the trade.

SEE ALSO: Calling PETA: US fur farming is strictly regulated.

More recently, anti-fur campaigning has spawned an even more simplistic “ethical” argument: we shouldn’t use animals for fur because we now have man-made textiles to keep us warm. Conversely, because no animals are killed (at least not directly) to make synthetics, faux is now frequently dubbed as “ethical fur”.

Vegans Say We're Evil

This line of thinking (or non-thinking) has been encouraged by the recent wave of militant veganism, promoting the notion that any use of animals is morally indefensible. According to this emerging vegan doctrine, if those of us who continue to consume meat and other animal products are not outright evil, we are certainly guilty of moral sloth for failing to recognize the impact of our actions.

This line of argument was evident in a recent opinion piece published in La Presse, Quebec’s most important daily newspaper. Teacher and children’s writer Annie Vintze acknowledged that fur is warm and beautiful, and that she herself once would have worn it without question. Recently, however, her adult daughter made her understand that wearing fur makes us “complicit in animal suffering”. If we’re not ready to kill our pet dogs and cats for fur, she asks, why is it okay to kill coyotes and foxes?

SEE ALSO: 5 reasons why wearing fur is not like wearing your pet.

Vintze counselled patience with those of us who have not yet seen the light. Rather than criticism, she suggests, fur wearers need gentle encouragement to reflect upon the evil of our ways. What was most striking about her 600-word condemnation of fur was the complete lack of interest in, or consideration of, the real ecological and animal-welfare contributions of the modern fur trade. That there are non-animal alternatives is assumed to be reason enough for rejecting fur.

In response, I sent the following letter to La Presse. It has not yet been published, but I thought some of the arguments might be useful next time you find yourself in a discussion about the ethics of fur.

SEE ALSO: Is it ethical to wear fur? from the website of Truth About Fur.

*  *  *

Fur – An Ethical Choice!

Response to "Manteaux de fourrure complices de la souffrance animale"

While acknowledging that fur is beautiful and part of our Quebec winter heritage, Annie Vintze argues that we should no longer wear it because we now have synthetic materials to keep us warm, materials that don’t involve the killing of animals.

A review of the facts, however, suggests that fur is still an ethical choice for those who care about protecting nature.

Fact: Many fur animal populations must be controlled even if we didn’t use fur. Coyotes that provide fur trim for our parkas are rapidly expanding their range and numbers across North America. They are the main predator of lambs and calves on farms, and are now attacking pets and even people in cities, a clear sign of overpopulation. Over-populated raccoons spread rabies; beavers flood property, roads and fields; muskrats undermine stream banks; and the list goes on.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap, from the website of Truth About Fur.

Fact: We have changed the natural environment in many ways, so now we must take responsibility for maintaining a balance between wildlife and available habitat. Keeping wildlife populations within the limits their habitat can support helps to ensure more stable and healthy wildlife populations. But if we have to kill some animals, surely it is more ethical to use their fur than to waste it?

Fact: Most wild species produce more young than their habitat can support to maturity. Trapping is strictly regulated to ensure that we use only part of this natural surplus. This is an excellent example of “the sustainable use of nature”, a central conservation principle promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Fact: Canada is the world leader in research to develop humane trapping methods, work that provided the scientific basis for the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS).

SEE ALSO: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping.

Fact: Fur is now also produced on family-run farms. Farmed mink and foxes are fed left-overs from our own food production, the parts of chicken, pigs, and fish that we don’t eat. The animals’ manure, soiled straw bedding, and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers to restore the soil - completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

Fact: Farmed fur animals receive excellent nutrition and care; this is the only way to produce the high quality of fur for which North America is known.

Most important from a consumer perspective, fur is remarkably warm, durable and long-lasting. Unlike most clothing, a fur coat can be restyled as fashions change. And fur is biodegradable: after decades of use, you can throw it into the garden compost.

By contrast, the synthetics proposed by animal activists are generally made from petroleum, a non-renewable, highly polluting, and non-biodegradable material. Recent research is revealing that these synthetics leach micro-particles of plastic every time they are washed - plastic that passes into our waterways and marine life, and is now even being found in bottled water.

Some people, of course, choose not to use any animal products, even for food. This is a matter of personal choice that we all can respect.

But for the 95% of Canadians who eat meat and believe that humans do have a right to use animals - so long as this is done responsibly and sustainably - fur is not only warm and beautiful, it is also a responsible and ethical clothing choice.

When animal activists pressure designers to stop using fur in their collections, or politicians to ban the sale of fur products in their cities, we rarely consider what society would lose if we turn our backs on fur.

Activists claim that fur is a frivolous luxury; that no one needs to wear fur anymore. But fur is a natural, sustainable and responsible clothing material. And we will lose a lot more if activists are successful in vilifying fur.

Let’s take a look at what we lose as a society if we allow animal activists to dictate the discussion about fur:

1. Fur Craftsmanship – a Remarkable Heritage

This issue is close to my heart because my paternal grandfather was trained as a furrier by his father, in Paris, before coming to Montreal as a young man, in 1913. My own father also worked his whole life in the trade. So I am saddened that there is so little recognition or respect for this remarkable heritage industry. In this age of impersonal mass-production, fur is one of the few clothing materials that are still hand-crafted, by skilled artisans. Specialized knowledge and skills are needed to select, cut, sew, and assemble fur pelts to produce a beautiful garment or accessory. These skills have been maintained and perfected through centuries, passed down from parents to their children.

When I bring someone into a fur atelier, even people with experience in the apparel industry cannot believe that anyone is still doing this sort of meticulous hand-work. Fur craftsmanship is a wonderful example of the sort of authenticity many hipsters and others are seeking today. Fur apparel and accessories represent the marriage of human creativity with the beauty of natural materials.

The fur artisan’s skills and knowledge are part of our cultural history and heritage; they should be valued and protected - like world heritage sites and endangered species - not vilified, especially at a time when such handicrafts have become so rare. Like the wanton destruction by the Taliban of giant Buddhas carved into the mountainside at Bamiyan, in Afghanistan, or the burning of ancient libraries in Timbuktu by Islamic insurgents, the misguided scapegoating of centuries-old fur skills shows a complete lack of understanding and respect for our cultural heritage and the diversity of human experience.

2. Fur Trappers – True Stewards of the Land

If ever you’re in a plane that crashes into the northern wilderness, you’d better hope there’s a fur trapper aboard, someone with the skills and experience to provide food and keep the rest of you alive. We all care about nature, but most of us now live in cities and depend completely on complex distribution systems for our needs. Trappers are among the few who still go into the bush, alone, with only their knowledge of the land and animals to maintain themselves. Trappers are, in fact, our eyes and ears on the land; they are the ones who can sound the alarm when nature is threatened by industrial pollution or poorly planned development. It is trappers who inform logging companies about the location of eagle nests and other important habitat, so they can be protected. It is trappers who call in government wildlife biologists when they spot problems. At a time when we claim to care about protecting nature, we should respect the skills and knowledge of those who still live close to the land.

SEE ALSO: Trapping and sustainability.

First Nations and other trappers do not need lessons about respecting nature from urban activists! But activists have easy access to city-based journalists, and have mastered all the tricks to attract media attention. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk says, “We’re media sluts; we didn’t invent the game, we just learned how to play it!” With hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from well-meaning urban supporters, this flourishing new protest industry has painted trappers as exploiters or enemies of nature, a complete falsehood. In fact, the well-regulated modern fur trade is an excellent example of sustainable-use principles promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

In simple terms, trappers take part of the surplus that nature produces every year. Only abundant furbearers are used, never endangered species. By taking part of the natural surplus, trappers help to smooth out population “boom and bust” cycles, maintaining more stable and healthy furbearer populations. Unfortunately, trappers live far from the media centres, and their voices - the voices of the true guardians of nature - are rarely heard.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap.

3. Fur Farmers – Supporting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities

Thanks to more efficient practices, farmers now represent barely 2% of the North American population, compared with about 33% in 1900 - a demographic shift that poses challenges for the viability of rural communities and services. Fur farms provide needed employment, especially because mink and foxes can be raised on small parcels of land, and in regions where the soil is too poor or the weather too harsh for most other forms of agriculture.

Farm-raised mink and foxes are fed left-overs from other animal production, the parts of chickens, pigs, fish and other food animals that humans don’t eat. The manure, soiled straw bedding, and carcasses of the fur animals are composted to produce high-quality natural fertilizer to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle.

The farm-raising of fur-bearing animals, which began in North America more than 120 years ago, also provides an efficient safety valve to reduce pressure on wild populations. And with careful selective breeding and excellent care, North American fur farmers have developed a remarkable range of natural colour ranges in mink and fox, reducing the need for the dyes needed with most textiles. Not least important from a social perspective, most fur-bearing animals are raised on family-run farms.

Natural, Renewable, Recyclable, Long-Lasting, Biodegradable

Fur craftspeople, trappers and farmers – together with fur buyers, processors, and a range of other specialized workers – maintain skills and knowledge that are part of our cultural heritage.

None of that would matter, of course, if animal species were being endangered or abused. But the modern fur trade is now conducted responsibly and sustainably. Trapping is strictly regulated by state and provincial wildlife departments, to ensure that only abundant furs are used, never endangered species.

North America is also the world leader in humane trapping research and development – work that provided the scientific basis for ISO standards, best practices, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Mink and fox farmers follow codes of practice to ensure excellent nutrition and care for their animals; this is the only way to provide the high-quality fur for which North America is known internationally.

SEE ALSO: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping.

Above all, fur is a natural, renewable, recyclable, long-lasting and ultimately biodegradable clothing material. After many decades of use, a fur garment or accessory can be thrown into your garden compost where it will return to the soil. By contrast, fake furs and other synthetic materials promoted by animal activists are generally made from petroleum, and are not biodegradable.

Simply put, most synthetics are another form of plastic bag. Troubling new research is revealing that these synthetics leach micro-particles of plastic every time they are washed - tiny plastic particles that are now being found in marine life and even in bottled water. Such synthetics may not be expensive to purchase, but they are very costly for nature and wildlife.

A sustainably produced, long-lasting and biodegradable natural clothing material. A rich heritage of increasingly rare craft skills. Support for rural and remote communities, and the responsible use and conservation of nature. The more closely we look, the more we understand how much we have to lose if we allow misinformed “animal rights” campaigns to turn designers, consumers and political leaders against North America’s founding industry.

***

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

After pressuring a number of designer brands to stop using fur in their collections, animal activist groups that seek to impose a vegan lifestyle on everyone are now lobbying politicians to ban fur sales in San Francisco, Los Angeles and several other cities.

While a few big brands did recently announce that they'd be dropping fur – causing much excitement in activist circles – about 70 percent of top designers were still showing fur in their most recent Fall/Winter collections.

Fur “bans” are equally illusory. Vegan activists love to cite West Hollywood as the first US town to declare fur sales verbotten, but they neglect to mention that the sale of wild fur apparel and accessories remains completely legal there. In fact, a California court has determined that municipalities cannot ban the sale of wild furs even if they want to, because wildlife management is under state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the “fur ban” proposed for San Francisco would also exempt sheepskin because, well, I guess they like their Uggs in California.

More important than this hypocrisy, however, is the troublesome reality that anti-fur campaigning actually works against environmental sustainability at a time when this is becoming a societal priority – especially in California.

The sustainable use of renewable natural resources is a keystone of conservation policy, as promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). And, guess what? The modern fur trade is, in fact, an excellent example of the responsible and sustainable use of nature. This is the story that animal activists don't want the public to hear.

SEE ALSO: Fur is a sustainable natural resource.

The truth: Wild furs are taken from the naturally-produced surpluses of abundant furbearer populations, never from endangered species. This is assured by state, national and international regulations.

The truth: Some wild furbearers would have to be culled even if we didn’t use fur. Coyotes are the number one predator of lambs and calves, and are now attacking pet dogs and cats – and sometimes even people – in cities across North America. Raccoons, foxes and coyotes must be controlled to protect ground-nesting birds and endangered sea turtle eggs, and to prevent the spread of rabies and other dangerous diseases. Overpopulated beavers flood roads, homes, fields and forest habitat. And the list goes on.

So given that we have to cull these animals, surely it is more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

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

Fur Farming – Nothing Is Wasted

But what about farm-raised furbearers, you may ask? Farmed mink are fed left-overs from our own food production – the parts of chickens, pigs and fish that we don’t eat and would otherwise end up in landfills. The mink manure, carcasses and soiled straw bedding are composted to produce valuable organic fertilizers, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. Nothing is wasted.

Farmed mink also receive excellent nutrition and care; this is the only way to produce the high-quality fur needed to compete in international markets.

SEE ALSO: Facts about fur farming.

Natural Fur vs. Fake Fur

Above all, fur is a natural and long-lasting clothing choice. In this age of fast-fashion, a good mink coat is often worn for 30 years or more. Fur apparel can also be taken apart and completely restyled as fashions change, or recycled into accessories. And after many decades of service your fur can be put into the garden compost where it will biodegrade and return to the soil. This is true environmental sustainability.

The fake furs touted by animal activists, by contrast, are generally made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, and will not biodegrade. Troubling new research, moreover, is showing that fake furs and other synthetic materials can leach micro-particles of plastic into waterways (and the food chain) every time they are washed. This is not good for animals or nature.

Freedom of Choice Under Threat

The increasing use of fur for trim, accessories, vests and other smaller pieces makes fur more accessible than it has ever been. This may explain the urgency of recent anti-fur campaigning, because if it was true that no one wanted to wear fur anymore – as activists claim – there would be no need to ban fur sales.

Perhaps this is what frustrates animal activists: most people do believe that it is morally acceptable to use animals for food, clothing and other products, so long as this is done responsibly and sustainably.

Question: What do animal activists do when, despite all their propaganda, young designers and consumers continue to choose fur? Answer: They try to take away their right to choose!

And this brings us to another serious problem with recent activist calls for municipal bans on fur sales. No one forces animal activists to wear fur or leather, or to eat meat or use any other animal products. So what makes them think they have the right to impose their personal beliefs on everyone else?

This issue goes far beyond the debate about fur. Most people in North America came here to have the right to make their own decisions. That fundamental freedom should not be taken for granted, or given away lightly, whatever your personal feelings about using fur or other animal products.

It was a crisp, bright morning in early April when I set out for my first lesson in Spring muskrat trapping. I had agreed to meet my trapper friend in the village of Saint-Charles, on the Richelieu River, about a half-hour north-east of Montreal. A plaque in front of the small town hall recounted the role of this picturesque spot during the 1837 rebellion by French Canadian “Patriotes”, including their defeat here by British troops on November 25 of that year.

Pierre arrived a few minutes later and I threw my gear into the back of his mud-splattered truck, beside a large white plastic bucket of traps and another containing several muskrats he had taken earlier that morning. As we headed out of the village and away from the river, houses quickly gave way to large fields and the occasional barn. On each side of the road were wide drainage ditches, with a foot or two of Spring melt water running swiftly through a few remaining patches of snow and last summer’s dry, flattened rushes – prime muskrat habitat.

Pierre was driving slowly and then he stopped, pointing out a tiny flash of orange tape, a marker he had left, barely visible in the dry weeds beside the gravel road. He climbed out of the truck and clambered down the embankment in his hip waders, and I watched as he felt about in the weedy stream. A moment later he straightened up to display a sleek, wet muskrat in his rubber-gloved hand. He then showed me how the rotating-jaw trap had struck directly behind the rodent’s skull, killing it instantly – much like a large mousetrap.

Pierre was using two models of quick-killing trap, both tested and certified for use under provisions of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). And who better to demonstrate the efficient performance of these devices than my friend Pierre Canac-Marquis, the long-time coordinator of the Fur Institute of Canada’s humane trap research and development program? He has always considered animal welfare concerns as a top priority in all trapping activity.

SEE ALSO: Fur Institute of Canada champions humane and sustainable fur production.

Pierre had recently retired from his career as a furbearer biologist with the Quebec wildlife department where, among other notable achievements, he led “Operation Raton”, a multi-year, multi-million-dollar program to contain the advance of rabies in raccoons spreading north from the US – an important story to be told in another blog post. But he continues to coordinate the FIC’s world-leading trap-research program, and he remains an avid trapper.

“It’s a passion,” Pierre explained. “It’s certainly not for the money; I’ll be lucky to get four dollars a pelt for these rats. But the farmers are happy we’re here, because muskrats undermine the stream banks with their burrows. That speeds erosion and they lose large strips of farm land along the drainage ditches,” he said, pointing out a large burrow entrance, half-hidden among dry reeds in the stream bank. This of course represents a major loss of income to these farmers.

“And over there, they raise horses,” said Pierre. “If a horse steps onto a part of the field that has been burrowed by the muskrats, they can sink right through and break a leg.”

And muskrats – like all rats – are very prolific.

Muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus)

With a gestation period of 28-30 days, and females sexually mature at six to eight weeks, muskrats can breed year-round, producing five or six litters annually in the southern US. In Canada, they usually produce two or three litters of six to nine kits. Natural mortality is also high, and research has shown that harvest rates of 60-75% are sustainable. Primarily herbivores, muskrats eat the shoots, roots, bulbs and leaves of all sorts of aquatic plant, but cattails, also called bulrushes, are favoured. They will also eat some crops (carrots, corn, alfalfa, soybeans) and sometimes clams, mussels and small fish.

Weighing 2-3 pounds (1-1.4 kg), and measuring 16-24 inches (40-65 cm) in length, muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus, as biologists know them) have large, yellowish teeth and long, naked tails. More interesting from a fur-trade perspective: muskrats have very dense, waterproof underfur covered by long, glossy-brown guard hairs, to protect them in their semi-aquatic environment. Because of its warmth, abundance, and relatively low cost, muskrat fur was very popular through much of the 20th century. Often it was sheared and dyed to imitate more expensive furs, and sometimes marketed under more glamorous names like “Hudson Seal”.  Today, muskrat is still a popular fur to make warm and lightweight winter hats, notably for the Canadian Mounties (RCMP) and other police forces.

“Once, I had parked my truck by the side of one of these country roads and when I climbed back up the embankment there were two Quebec Provincial Police officers waiting for me,” said Pierre. “They didn’t recognize my vehicle and were wondering what this suspicious guy was doing down there. I pointed to their heads and explained that I was harvesting fur for their new hats! They were fascinated. Like most people, they had never thought where their fur hats came from.”

We spent the next few hours navigating the back roads, checking traps. Pierre had added a modern twist to this traditional art: many of the trap locations had been punched into his GPS, making them much easier to find. Sometimes the traps were empty, but more often we added to the collection in the back of Pierre’s truck.

When we completed his round, we swung by St-Charles-sur-Richelieu again to pick up my car, and I followed Pierre for one last stop, 20 kilometers away at a raptor rehabilitation clinic in the town of St-Hyacinthe. The clinic is supported by the University of Montreal’s Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, and the Quebec Union for the Rehabilitation of Raptors. Injured birds of prey are sent here from all over the province and beyond. The clinic also has the educational objective of assisting in the training of hundreds of veterinarians in the field of wildlife medicine and wild bird rehabilitation.

The technicians at the raptor clinic were pleased to see Pierre, but their feathered charges were more interested in the contents of the big sack he carried from the truck: carcasses from muskrats Pierre had skinned the previous days.

SEE ALSO: Top 5 tasty furbearers: Muskrat stew and more.

After a quick tour of some of the magnificent raptors being cared for in the facility, I said “bye” to Pierre and headed back down the highway to Montreal.

As Pierre said, the dozen muskrats we’d collected that morning wouldn’t bring him more than $50 at the next auction – not much for the time spent setting traps, checking them, skinning muskrats, and stretching and drying the pelts. But more important, he’d helped with the rehabilitation of some magnificent birds, and assisted some farmers and ranchers in protecting their land and animals, contributing to the "joie de vivre" of this heritage rural community.

Not bad for a morning’s work, all in all!

Over the past months, several prominent designer brands have announced that their collections will henceforth be "fur free". Animal activists have been quick to claim this as signalling a fundamental shift in societal values, the emergence of new ethical marketing principles, and the imminent demise of the fur industry. On closer examination, however, the brands’ decisions look more like a big helping of cynical risk management, with a dash of marketing spin.

Let’s take a closer look.

Using Animals for Clothing

The most common reason cited by designers for dropping fur is concern about killing animals. Donatella Versace, for example, was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to kill animals to make fashion. It doesn’t feel right."

This can be a legitimate ethical decision, especially if you are a vegan and don’t eat meat or use any animal products. But most of us do eat meat and wear leather. And most “fur-free” designer brands – including Versace – continue to use leather ... and shearling, which is simply a fancy name for sheep fur.

One justification for this apparent hypocrisy is that leather and shearling can be seen as by-products: “the envelope that dinner came in.” If we are killing cows (or sheep) for meat, the argument goes, we might as well use the leather (or shearling) too.

Underlying this argument, of course, is the belief that eating meat is necessary – a notion that vegans and animal-rights groups like PETA do not accept.

But there are other problems with this justification for shunning most furs while embracing leather and shearling.

First, most designer brands continue to use leather that does not come from food animals, such as python and alligator.

Second, sheep are not the only furbearing animals that are eaten by people. Rabbits come quickly to mind. But beavers, muskrats and other wild furbearers are also used for food by First Nations communities and others across northern Canada. Raccoons and opossums are eaten by trappers and their families in the US. Animals not eaten by people are returned to the bush where they feed other wildlife. And while we don’t eat farmed mink, their carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilisers that restore the fertility of the soil – to grow soybeans for Ingrid Newkirk’s tofu stir-fry. Nothing is wasted.

SEE ALSO: Top 5 tasty furbearers: Muskrat stew and more.

Clearly, the argument that using leather and sheepskin (or shearling) is more ethical than using other furs does not stand close scrutiny.

Sustainability

Another argument for shunning fur was recently proposed by Gucci CEO, Marco Bizzarri; he claimed that being “fur-free” is a way to promote sustainability.

Unfortunately for Mr. Bizzarri, fur is more sustainably produced than most of the alternatives.

The wild-fur trade is highly regulated, nationally and internationally, to ensure that we use only a small part of abundant populations; never endangered species.

Some furbearers are so abundant that they would have to be controlled, even if we didn’t use fur. Over-populated beavers flood homes, roads, fields, and forest habitat. Coyotes are the main predators of lambs and calves, and are now attacking pets and even people in many regions. Raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other dangerous diseases. And the list goes on.

But if we have to cull these animals, surely it is more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

Fur farming is also highly sustainable, because farmed mink are fed left-overs from our own food production – the parts of fish, cows and pigs that we don’t eat. Farmed mink are champion recyclers, producing a natural clothing material, mink oil (for protecting leather) and other valuable products (including the best eye-lash fillers ever!) from food industry wastes that would otherwise clog landfills. As explained above, they also provide natural fertilisers to replenish the soil, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. This is true sustainability.

By contrast, the fake furs and other synthetic materials that animal activists claim have rendered fur unnecessary, are generally made from petroleum – a non-renewable and highly polluting resource.

Perhaps Gucci should take another look at its sustainability policies?

SEE ALSO: Sustainable fur: Global campaign highlights benefits of real fur over plastic fake fur.

Warm, Beautiful, Long-Lasting and Biodegradable

When evaluating ethics and sustainability we must also consider how products are manufactured, used, and eventually disposed of. Fur scores remarkably well on all these criteria.

Fur pelts are “dressed” (preserved) using benign chemicals (e.g., alum salts, which you can put in your bath), because the fur and hair follicles must be protected. This is a much gentler process than leather tanning, where the goal is to burn away the fur hairs. And fur is often used in its natural colours, avoiding the dyes required for most textiles.

Fur garments and accessories are individually crafted by skilled artisans using heritage techniques; they are not mass-produced in sweatshops.

Fur is also a remarkably long-lasting material: a good-quality mink coat will often be worn for 30 years or longer. As styles (or your body mass) change, a well-made fur garment can be taken apart and completely restyled, or handed down to daughters and nieces to be worn vintage. Old fur coats are also recycled to make vests, accessories, or even pillows.

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

Finally, after many decades of use, your old fur can be buried in the garden where it will quickly biodegrade.

Fake furs and other petroleum-based synthetics, by contrast, are not usually worn for many seasons (it’s not called “fast fashion” for nothing!), but – like other plastics – will persist in the environment without biodegrading.

Worse: troubling new research shows that these synthetics shed microfibers every time they are washed – tiny bits of plastic that leach into the waterways and are now being found in the intestinal tracts of oysters and other marine life. If we are concerned about animals and the environment, it is not at all clear that fakes are a wise choice.

The Truth About “Fur Free” Designers

So if it’s not really about ethics or sustainability, what should we make of these designers’ decision to drop fur? According to the Jing Daily, a leading digital publication on luxury consumer trends in China, a review of social media comments showed that many young Chinese luxury consumers believe the whole thing is a marketing ploy.

Stopping the usage of fur can help Gucci decrease their costs and increase their profits. And there is no benefit for consumers as they will not lower the price

Some suggested that the decision reflects Gucci’s down-market strategy: “Gucci has never been known for its fur products, and I don’t think its targeted consumers can afford fur,” said a WeChat user named “Maggie.”

Others thought the “fur free” stance was simply a way to boost profits at the expense of consumers: “Stopping the usage of fur can help Gucci decrease their costs and increase their profits. And there is no benefit for consumers as they will not lower the price,” a Weibo user named “Joey Zhenyi” wrote.

And some suggested that “the brand is just making a gesture,” and that a fur-free policy was a way for the company to “make it look sustainable”.

These young people are remarkably astute. After all, even Greenpeace, the leading environmental activist group, does not campaign against fur, because the modern, well-regulated fur trade is not considered to be an environmental problem.

But in a world where media-savvy animal-rights protest groups attract far more public attention than conservation scientists or biologists, dropping fur has become a quick and easy way to show corporate concern for ethics and sustainability, at virtually no cost.  In fact, these brands will certainly lower their security costs by not having to deal with activist protests.

It is no accident that the newly “fur free” designer labels have all acknowledged on-going “discussions” with Humane Society International or other animal-rights protest groups. These companies may or may not have been convinced about the virtues of the vegan agenda these activists promote, but they were undoubtedly convinced that they would face increasingly costly (and brand-damaging) protest campaigns if they didn’t drop fur. (Can you spell “protection racket?”)

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

So the real reasons why some designer brands have recently stepped away from (most) fur are probably a lot messier and less noble than they would like us to think.

Unfortunately, by encouraging more use of non-renewable, polluting, and non-biodegradable alternatives, these “fur free” brands are potentially doing more harm than good for animals and nature.

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

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

Stories Are Our Social Glue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landmark Document: Our Common Future

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

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

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

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

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

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused?

Sustainability vs Animal Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing

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

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

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

The fur story is about to become much more interesting!

***

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

Like any business, fur retailing has its challenges, and some would say the challenges have never been tougher. But could there also be exciting opportunities for furriers who figure out how to navigate the brave new world of retailing that is emerging?

Let’s first take a quick look at the challenges. In "The Death of Clothing", journalists at Bloomberg.com recently argued that the problems now plaguing apparel retailing go deeper than the ferocious competition from Amazon and other on-line retailers. The more profound problem is that consumers are spending less and less on clothing: “In 1977, clothing accounted for 6.2 percent of US household spending. ... Four decades later, it’s plummeted to half that.”

In part, reduced spending on apparel reflects the success of the industry in lowering costs through off-shore production, vertical integration and other competitive strategies. But the decline also results from more casual lifestyles. With about half of Americans now saying they can wear jeans to their professional offices, there is less need to buy separate wardrobes for work and play.

It is clear that “dressing down” also has an impact on the fur business. And the fur trade is also dealing with animal activists, aging retailers, under-financed businesses with too little money for advertising, and other serious problems.

Bricks and Mortar vs On-line

So where is the good news for fur retailers in this gloomy scenario?

For one thing, Baltimore, Maryland furrier Richard Swartz points out, even the industry's problems provide opportunities. "Unlike other businesses that have dwindled from lack of interest, the fur trade has received lots of attention over the last decades: attention has come from our opponents, as well as from fashion designers, celebrities wearing fur, and even the occasional large heist."

As leaders of Greenpeace used to say: "Who cares what they write about us, so long as they spell our name right?"

Three of the fur trade's traditional retail advantages also continue, says Swartz: "We are selling a blind item; we are selling many one-off items; and we sell services that not only generate cash flow, but also promote new sales and customer engagement."

In other words, bricks-and-mortar fur retailers have a certain degree of protection from on-line marketers because fur apparel is not mass-produced or standardized, so consumers must come into the store to try on a coat or jacket. And evaluating fur requires specialized training and experience; consumers rely on the furrier’s expert knowledge (and reputation) to ensure they are receiving value for their money. Not least important, fur apparel requires on-going in-store maintenance, including off-season storage, cleaning, repairs and remodeling, which brings customers back into the store at regular intervals.

But these protections alone are not enough to assure success. "I believe that the success of each individual retailer or retail group -- and indeed the retail trade as a whole -- will be decided by the degree to which they can reinvent themselves for today's reality," says Swartz.

To profit from the new opportunities, in fact, retailers will have to learn new skills that allow them to run their businesses and market fur products in new ways.

Sharing the Fur Experience

One retail furrier who is exploring the potential of new technologies is Stewart Chadnick of Pat Flesher Furs, in Ottawa. He recently hosted 12 local bloggers for an exciting, hands-on fur experience in his store.

“We greeted the bloggers with a nice selection of wine and hors d’oeuvres while I presented a brief history of our store and an overview of the fur business. I had set up a big TV monitor and showed them the Fur Trade in Two Minutes Flat video from the home page of TruthAboutFur.com as an introduction. I followed that up with the new sustainability video produced by the International Fur Federation. The two videos answered many of their questions and stimulated some interesting discussion.

“After a tour of the store and vault, we took them into our workshop where we had prepared everything they needed to make their own fur pom-poms. We had a lot of fun and they loved it. Several were blogging right from the workshop!” says Chadnick.

All the bloggers posted very positive accounts of their visit, which resulted in several new customers coming into the store in the following days. Great, you may say, but how many furriers have the social media skills to organize a bloggers event? Chadnick is the first to admit that he doesn’t either.

“I know I will never understand social media well enough to use it effectively,” says Chadnick. “So my marketing agency set up our Facebook page and Instagram account. We meet weekly to discuss story ideas and what we’re doing, and they were the ones who made contact with the bloggers and suggested inviting them into the store. We all enjoyed the evening, the ladies had a great story to blog about, and after the event our page registered dozens of new followers. It’s win-win.”

Chadnick also produced a small brochure for the bloggers about why fur is an ethical choice, using information he took from TruthAboutFur.com.

“The website is a fabulous resource for retailers,” says Chadnick. “Everything we need for educating and reassuring consumers is there. And young people are very interested in our environmental story.”

Lessons for Fur Retailing

The bloggers’ event at Pat Flesher Furs provides a number of important lessons for retail furriers seeking success in today’s fast-changing marketplace:

• First, it shows the power of social media to reach out to young consumers who might otherwise not come into the store.
• Second, it shows the value of presenting fur as “an experience”, giving consumers an opportunity to learn about, touch, feel and even work with fur.
• Third, it shows that while the classic “fur story” of beauty, warmth, comfort and luxury will always be important, a new narrative is emerging that resonates strongly among younger consumers: the story of fur as an environmentally sustainable, long-lasting, recyclable, biodegradable, and ethical, natural material.

Retailing is changing, and the way fur is marketed is changing too, as I learned recently from a journalist researching retailing trends in Quebec. She told me that the furriers she had spoken with are selling more small pieces and accessories, and they are integrating a broader product mix, becoming more like outerwear stores or fashion boutiques. But she was impressed to learn that several now also make a point of promoting the environmental sustainability of fur as an important selling feature.

As consumers become more aware of the environmental problems caused by “fast fashion” and petroleum-based synthetics, the sustainability credentials of fur will clearly become more important …

And perhaps this is the best news of all as we plan for the future of fur retailing. Because as young people – and all consumers – become more aware of the environmental problems caused by “fast fashion” and petroleum-based synthetics, the sustainability credentials of fur will become even more important and appreciated.

In fact, the environmental benefits of using real fur may well be emerging as one of our most important “Unique Selling Propositions” (USP). After being so unfairly scapegoated for so many years, fur may finally be recognized as not only warm and beautiful, but also as an environmentally responsible and ethical clothing choice. Now that’s a powerful marketing story!

If you have ideas about new ways to market fur products at retail, please post a comment below; we’d love to hear from you.

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

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

"All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned every one to his own way."

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

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

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

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

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

Livestock and Humans Depend on Each Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights Not Rooted in Nature

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

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

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

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

Our Morality Towards Animals

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

SEE ALSO: Why fur is the ethical clothing choice.

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

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

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

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

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

Early Anti-Fur Protesters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celebrities, Media and Fake Fur

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

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

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

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

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

Reformers Lose Their Way

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

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

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

From Leg-hold Traps to Fur Farms

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

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

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

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

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

Rebels Without a Cause?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fur retailing season is beginning, and with it we can expect the usual flurry of fur protests. Despite decades of anti-fur campaigning, activists have generally failed in their efforts to push designers and consumers away from using and wearing nature’s most beautiful clothing material. Fur has probably never been featured in so many top designer runway collections, and fur has certainly never been used in a wider variety of products, from apparel to accessories to home furnishings.

But animal rights activists are not very interested in opinions that differ from their own, so the fur protests continue.

Sometimes, consumers are harassed and retailers are warned that their stores will be targets until they stop selling fur. (Can you spell Protection Racket?) A favourite new tactic is the store invasion (often called Direct Action Everywhere or DxE) where activists enter a shop, individually, posing as consumers, and then pull out posters and begin chanting slogans in unison. One or more protesters film the “action”, taunting shop owners and security staff who dare not push them towards the exit for fear of being slapped with assault charges. Another nasty new trick is to flood a retailer’s Facebook page with negative comments and reviews.

Following are some ways to protect your retail business from animal rights protests.

1. Use Early-Warning Systems

While fur protests can happen any time – especially during the fur season – the next big activist target date is “Fur Free Friday” (the activist response to “Black Friday”), which falls on November 24 this year. Google "Fur Free Friday 2017” to see if your town is listed. Or monitor the national Facebook page.

There are many ways to find out about protests that may be planned for your store. Animal rights groups are often headquartered on university or college campuses, and they find many of their foot soldiers there. So monitor university bulletin boards. It's even better if someone you know can join the local animal-rights group. Or simply keep an eye on the Facebook page of your local animal-rights group.

Not least important, your national fur trade association can provide a timely heads-up when trouble is brewing, or advice and assistance if your store becomes a target. Be sure you are a paid-up member of the Fur Information Council of America (323.782.1700; [email protected]), or the Fur Council of Canada (514-844-1945; [email protected]). They need your support so they can be there to support you!

2. Build Relations with Local Law Enforcement ... and Others

It is always best to build your relationship with local police before you need their help. It can be as simple as calling your local precinct and asking for a meeting with a commanding officer. Or speak with officers who patrol your street. Explain your concern that stores selling fur are often targets for protests or vandalism. Getting to know your local police can play big dividends: they can often warn you of up-coming protests, or keep an eye on your store at night, especially in the period before and after fur protests, a time when vandalism often occurs.

Not least important, police can be present during demos, to tone down rowdy demonstrators and ensure that consumers can access your store without being harassed. While police cannot “take sides”, they do have a mandate to keep the peace and prevent harassment or confrontation, which allows them to keep protesters a certain distance from your door. How they interpret this mandate often depends on what sort of relationship you have developed beforehand.

Remember always to file a police report about any harassment, threats, graffiti or other vandalism, no matter how minor. Take photos before scraping away graffiti from store windows or walls. And keep any threatening phone messages. Such incidents often precede more significant attacks. And these reports allow police to see patterns of radical activism developing, or to make a case with their commanding officers for devoting scarce resources to protecting your store.

You should also build bridges with your local business group or Chamber of Commerce, and with local politicians. Their support can help to ensure that the police will be there when you need them.

3. Secure Your Store

Most fur stores have good security systems to prevent break-ins and theft – insurance companies require them – but be sure you have security cameras and that they are functioning! Cameras surveying the inside of the store can help to identify protesters who enter your premises. Cameras facing the sidewalk can discourage vandalism.

One particularly nasty activist weapon is Butyric acid, a carboxylic acid that has an extremely powerful and unpleasant vomit-like odour. When sprayed under the doors of a store, at night, fur coats can be effectively ruined, as the smell is nearly impossible to remove. The best solution is prevention: ensure that there Is no way to spray anything under your doors or through keyholes or mail slots!

4. Prepare Yourself and Your Staff

Plan and discuss the procedures you will employ if there is a protest at your store. As a general policy, do not engage or argue with protesters; confrontation will only encourage them and could make the protest more "newsworthy" if any media are present. Never touch or push protesters.

Some retailers have rented large cube vans to park in front of their stores, blocking the protesters from the view of passing cars or pedestrians on the opposite sidewalk.

If you know in advance about a protest, consider hiring professional security: they have the knowledge and experience to handle protesters lawfully and effectively.

If you are subjected to repeated or abusive fur protests, you should consult a lawyer: there is a considerable body of labour law relating to the legal limits of picketing.

5. During Fur Protests

It is rare that protesters try to enter stand-alone stores (DxE invasions usually target shops in malls), but if they do, ask them to leave, and call the police. Do not try to expel protesters physically; it is very likely that you are being filmed, and any physical contact could result in criminal charges.

It can be useful to have someone photograph the fur protesters, for identification if needed, and to let them know they are being watched. But check first to ensure that this is legal in your town. And remember rule number one: you do not want to escalate tensions or provoke violence. It is usually better to suffer through the occasional fur protest quietly, rather than make yourself a target for more protests.

For those who would like to respond more actively, the Retail Fur Council of Canada has produced a new tool for retailers to use if they are subjected to a DxE store invasion. Click on the posters below to download, then print them out and hold them up behind chanting protesters or in front of their cameras, or display them in store windows during fur protests. Messages include: “Say NO to extremists” and “Defend freedom of choice!” Such tools should be used with caution, though; you do not want to escalate tensions or make yourself more of a target.

6. Dealing with Media

Media now usually ignore fur protests, especially in larger cities. If journalists do ask you to comment, it is usually best to refer them to your national association (FICA or the FCC). Your association professionals are trained and better prepared to speak with the media ... and they have no street-level store windows to break.

If you do want to say something, keep it simple and positive, and then suggest that the journalist contact your national association for more information.

Here are some examples of the type of media statement you can make:

• “If someone does not want to wear fur or leather, or eat meat, that’s their choice. But most people in our society think we do have a right to use animal products, so long as this is done responsibly -- as fur is. If you want to know more about that, you should speak with our national association; I will give you their coordinates.”
• “Everyone has a right to their opinions, but our business is doing very well. We are very proud to offer our customers high-quality and sustainably-produced natural products like fur. If you want to know more about that ...”
• “If our store is thriving after so many years, it is because there are many people who appreciate the beauty of natural clothing materials. Sure there are synthetic alternatives, but most are made from petroleum, which is not really better for animals or the environment. If you want more information about how fur is produced ..."

7. Dealing with Cyber-Attacks

Several North American retailers have recently been hit with cyber-attacks where their Facebook pages are flooded with negative comments and ratings.

If this happens, here are some things you can do:

• Contact Facebook immediately and ask them to remove the abusive (and fake) ratings/reviews. Go to Facebook's Help Centre here, and follow the menu items Policies and Reporting / Reporting Abuse.
• Tell them this is an orchestrated terrorist-type cyber-attack; tell them you feel threatened.
• If you advertise with Facebook, tell them you will stop advertising if they cannot remove these abusive posts/ratings quickly. (It works!)
• If Facebook does not respond quickly, contact [email protected]; as a stop-gap measure we can rally supporters for positive posts.
• The simplest and quickest solution of all is simply to disable the ratings and comments section of your Facebook page.

Finally, remember: It is always best to be prepared, but most fur protests are brief and relatively harmless. The most important thing is to remain calm and not be suckered into escalating the tension. If you learn that you will be targeted by a fur protest, contact your national association – they have the experience to help you get through these frustrating episodes.

Do you have any other ideas or experiences you would like to share? We would love to hear from you!