Clothes moths don't kill or bite, and aren't poisonous, but they are the little jerks of the insect world and have very expensive taste. They love furs, cashmere, wool, and any other expensive animal fibers you have in your closet. When it comes to fashion, they are bug enemy number one, but there are ways to keep the little buggers away from your furs, and I'm here to tell you how.

Prevention Is Best

Here are my favourite tricks to turn your closet into a no-go zone for clothes moths.

Cedarwood oil: Spray cedarwood oil (diluted with distilled water) around your closet, but away from the clothes, or place cedarwood oil-soaked cotton balls in corners of closets and drawers.

Lavender oil: Fresh lavender oil (used in the same way as above) is another nice-smelling clothes moth deterrent.

Give them space: Don't over-stuff your closets and give your coats a good shake every now and then. That makes it difficult for clothes moths to get comfortable in there.

Natural repellents: There are quite a few good natural moth repellants on the market, including ones you can hang in between your coats or stuff into the coat pockets. I avoid mothballs, though. They smell bad and are terrible for the environment.

Freezing: Note this is of no use on furs as it will destroy the leather, but I will share my trick for keeping wool and cashmere safe from clothes moths: freeze them for 48 hours in September or October. This kills the eggs, and it is actually the larvae that hatch from the eggs that are responsible for the holes in your clothing, not the clothes moths themselves.

Professional storage: Your best bet for keeping furs safe out of season or when they aren't being worn is professional fur storage. If you are looking for storage near you, ask your local furrier. If they don't offer storage, they will be able to recommend someone who can.

How to Tell If You Have Clothes Moths

A sign of clothes moths is if the fur is shedding. The hairs come loose from the leather, and fall out. But don’t confuse shedding with breakage. Delicate furs, like rabbit and chinchilla, are prone to breakage with heavy wear so it is normal that they break and shed a little bit. But if the hair is coming out in clumps, then you probably have moths.

... And If You Have

Isolate the infested garment. The bad news is, the moths are probably in your other clothes as well so it's time for a full closet clear out. Fumigation is one solution, but you can also clean and/or kill the moths on your clothes by washing and/or freezing everything, and then cleaning the entire closet like a crazy person followed by an overdose of cedarwood or lavender, to keep them away. Warning, this is not a fun way to spend your weekend.

Fur, unlike wool and cashmere, cannot be frozen to kill the eggs as this will ruin the leather. The only way to remove clothes moths is to get a professional fur cleaning. If it is a jacket you bought for $50 from a vintage store, you may want to consider getting rid of it, as it may not be cost-effective to clean, but that is of course your choice.

The easiest way for animal activists to further their agenda is to lie, and when it comes to the fur trade, that means portraying us as a cruel industry that mistreats animals. We don't like giving animal activists credit, but there's no denying how successful they've been at spreading their lies. They appear so frequently in traditional media, blogs and comment sections, that members of the general public can hardly be blamed for believing that at least some of this horrible stuff must be true.

Well, it isn’t, and we are here to set the record straight about the Five Biggest Lies Animal Activists Tell About Fur.

Activist Lie #1: Animals on fur farms are skinned alive. Take a moment to consider this and you'll realize it makes no sense. Not only is skinning an animal alive illegal and utterly immoral, it would also be dangerous for the operator, would increase the risk of damaging the pelt, and would presumably take longer than skinning an animal that was euthanized. (Is it easier to cut your dog’s nails while he is excited or when he’s been sleeping?) Farming is a business, and businesses need to be profitable – so why would anyone adopt a practice that is dangerous for their staff, damages the product, and takes much longer than doing it properly? The simple answer is that they wouldn’t, which is why animals are never skinned alive for the fur trade.

In fact the horrible activist video that started this vicious myth has now been exposed as a complete fraud – the cruel acts it shows were staged for the camera!

SEE ALSO: 5 REASONS WHY IT'S RIDICULOUS TO CLAIM ANIMALS ARE SKINNED ALIVE

Activist Lie #2: Most furs come from China where animal welfare laws don't exist. Therefore, most animals used in the fur trade are mistreated. The clever part of this lie is that, if true, it would render irrelevant the high standards of animal welfare on North American and European fur farms. If most fur comes from China, who cares how well farmers care for their mink in Wisconsin or Denmark?

There are two problems with this argument. First, it doesn’t matter where a farm is (it could be on the moon!), if farmed animals do not receive excellent nutrition and care, they will not produce high-quality fur. In fact, China does have animal welfare laws and is in the process of introducing Western standards to fur farming, but even without them Chinese fur farmers have a strong economic incentive to keep their animals healthy.

Second, and more to the point, while it is true that many fur garments are now cut and sewn in China where labour costs are lower, the fur pelts used to make most garments sold in the West originally came from European or North American farms. In fact, more than 90% of European and North American farmed mink and fox – and North American wild furs too – are sent to China to be transformed into apparel and accessories.

Activist Lie #3: Animals chew off their paws to escape steel-jawed leg-hold traps. This lie refers to very old trapping methods that are no longer permitted or used. Decades ago, some animals (especially muskrats) would sometimes have bones broken in old-fashioned leg-hold traps, allowing them to pull free. This does not happen with the new padded and off-set foot-hold traps. In fact, these new live-holding traps cause so little damage, they are used by biologists to catch and release (unharmed) wolves, lynx, otters and other animals for radio collaring or relocation. Meanwhile, the great majority of fur-bearers (including muskrats) caught for their fur are now taken in highly effective quick-killing traps, eliminating the possibility of a trapped animal being left alive.

Activist Lie #4: Fur farms are "not subject to federal regulation". This is a sneaky deception by animal activists that suggests that fur farming is "unregulated" and therefore without standards to protect the well-being of the animals. What is intentionally not explained is that federal regulations generally concern only food safety issues related to livestock produced for human consumption. Fur farms, however – like all farms – are indeed regulated by municipal and state or provincial laws. Furthermore, farmers who mistreat or do not provide proper care for their animals can be prosecuted under federal (and state/provincial) animal-cruelty laws.

SEE ALSO: CALLING PETA: U.S. FUR FARMING IS STRICTLY REGULATED

Activist Lie #5: They kill "baby seals" in Canada. If we had a dime for every time we've heard this lie, we could buy a dozen beautiful seal-skin coats! In fact, the hunting of nursing harp seal pups has been banned in Canada since 1987. For the last 30 years, harp seals can only be hunted after they have moulted their first fluffy “whitecoat” fur. By the time the hunt legally opens, the seal pups have been weaned and are on their own, preparing to migrate to their Arctic summer feeding grounds. (Their mothers have left, to breed again, before also heading north for the summer.) But these easily verifiable facts do not stop animal activists from continuing to illustrate their fund-raising campaigns with photos of fluffy “whitecoats”. Why let facts spoil a great story that has raked so many millions into their coffers from well-meaning supporters?

What you can do. The next time you hear someone spreading these 5 Biggest Lies Animal Activists Tell About Fur, set them straight! We all know that if people hear lies often enough, they start to believe them. Well it works both ways. People need to hear the truth more often to believe it ... so let's be sure that they do!

***

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

It seems that animal rights and anti-hunting bullies come in many shapes and forms. Knowing this is important in managing-down the inevitable, but thankfully infrequent, conflicts that lawful hunters, trappers and even fishermen face in harvesting wildlife. A couple of years ago, while hunting wild turkey, I had two such encounters on the same day. Here is what happened.

The spring turkey season was open and I was hunting on private property in eastern Ontario. The property consisted of a long rectangular field bordered by forest and bush on the north side, a township road and small property with a house and barn on the west side, fields on the east side and an unimproved township right-of-way on the southern edge. Turkeys were frequently feeding on waste corn along the northern edge of the property, and the adult males, or toms, were using a nearby rise in the field as a strutting zone. Only bearded turkeys are legal game during the spring season.

On the day in question, I parked my truck along the edge of the right-of-way, packed up my gun and gear, and walked in a northeastward direction across the field. Following the hunting regulations, proper gun handling and shooting in a safe direction are key to personal safety and that of others. As required by law I was using a shotgun to hunt turkeys. These firearms typically have an effective range of no more than 60 yards, though the spent shot can travel up to 200 yards. With the surrounding private property and the township right-of-way well beyond my field of fire, I set up my decoys on the small rise in the field and settled into the nearby fencerow for the afternoon. I had a clear view of the entire field. The right-of-way was well over 500 yards to the south. Beyond my truck, which was one-half a mile southwest, I could barely make out the roof tops of some of the housing and other buildings along the higher elevation of the township road.

By then it was nearly 2 p.m. I planned on staying until the end of the day’s hunt which, according to the provincial regulations, is 7 p.m. After three uneventful hours, I was surprised to see a provincial police cruiser driving down the right-of-way. At the same time I watched as a large bearded turkey ran as fast as he could across the corn field, headed for the safety of the nearby forest. The police were obviously responding to some sort of complaint. The cruiser parked behind my truck, blocking the right-of-way.

Through my field glasses, I watched as two officers inspected my vehicle, returned to their cruiser, and then sat there waiting. At that point I concluded, reluctantly, that my hunt for the day was probably over. However, as subsequent events were to prove, the day’s excitement was just about to begin.

"How Is Your Day Going?"

Approaching the officers with a shotgun in-hand, even unloaded and with the action open, would complicate our encounter. So I unloaded my gun, set it aside in the fencerow along with my other gear, and walked back down the field. As I approached the vehicles, both officers got out of their cruiser to meet me.

“How is your day going Mr. Thompson?” the senior officer asked. I had presumed, correctly, that they had checked my vehicle registration in order to identify its owner. “Well frankly sir it was going fine until you two showed up. So far today my only opportunity to bag a tom turkey just ran off into the woods at the approach of your vehicle,” I replied.

Both officers remarked that, when they started down the right-of-way, they had seen a large turkey. From my camo clothing they had already surmised that I was hunting. I explained to them that I was licenced, that the spring turkey hunting season was open, and that I was hunting on private property with the permission of the landowner. I added that I was parked on the edge of a public right-of -way. Further, I offered to provide the officers with the landowner’s name and phone number, along with my permits and licences, to which they declined.

I then immediately started asking them, “What are you doing here? Are there any problems?”

The senior officer answered in a serious tone, “Sir we just received an urgent call from a property owner on the nearby township road reporting multiple gunshots and bullets hitting their house!”

After I stopped laughing, my reaction was swift. “This is ridiculous. These allegations are not true. I have not even fired a shot. Not only that, but I am hunting well down the field away from buildings on the township road with a safe field of fire in all directions. And, like I said, I have the permission of the landowner.”

Without any hesitation I continued, “It is really unfortunate that you have to waste your valuable time on a frivolous complaint such as this. Understand that whoever had complained has brought you here under false pretenses in order to harass me. Whether their motivations are animal rights, anti-gun, or anti-hunting, it does not really matter. It is illegal under Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to interfere with anyone who is engaged in lawful hunting, trapping or fishing.”

The officers agreed with my assessment and concluded that the complaint about gunfire was entirely unfounded. We shook hands and after wishing me a good hunt, they departed. I then walked back to the fencerow to retrieve my gear and head home, but not having any inkling as to what was going to happen next.

"Leave Immediately!"

I was returning across the fields to my truck when I noticed a man driving an ATV down the right-of-way. He stopped at my truck, got off his vehicle, and placed something on my windshield. He then continued along the right-of-way until deep mud forced him to turn back. By that time I had reached my truck. A note was stuffed under my windshield wiper. On it was written, “You are parked on private property! If you do not leave immediately the police will be called and you will be charged with trespassing!”

I met the fellow as he returned and motioned him to stop. Scowling, he killed the engine and stepped off his vehicle.

“Is this note yours?” I asked politely.

He stepped menacingly towards me, shouting, “If you don’t leave right now I will call the police and have you arrested for trespassing and poaching!”

"You are too late. Unfortunately for you the police just left," I blurted out. “Respectfully sir, you do not know what you are talking about. I am not trespassing nor am I poaching. Spring turkey season is open and I have the permits and licences that allow me to hunt. There is nothing illegal with parking on the edge of this public right-of-way, nor with my hunting on this field. I have the landowner’s permission."

It took him quite a while to calm down, but not before he complained at length about trespass and littering problems on his nearby property. I told him that I too was a landowner and that I sympathized with him. I then took the initiative to explain that I have been hunting for over 50 years, that I am very safe in the field, and that I never trespass nor litter. I also described for him briefly the role of regulated hunting in managing for abundant game and other wildlife species.

"I will be hunting here again," I told him. "So when you next see my vehicle parked here you will know who it is. You will also know that I am hunting with permission and you can count on me to hunt safely, not trespass on your property, nor litter. Here is my business card. Call me if you have any questions or concerns." I concluded our encounter by asking him if he had any other issues. He demurred and said that he did not. We amicably shook hands and I thanked him for stopping.

SEE ALSO: STANDING UP TO ANIMAL-RIGHTS BULLIES - CASE STUDY #1

Later I reflected on the afternoon’s events. In one day I had been falsely accused of trespassing, illegal parking, poaching and careless use of firearms. While my hunt that day did not turn out as expected, my preparations certainly made a big difference in being able to successfully resolve the day's two encounters. Obtaining landowner permission, confirming vehicle parking, setting up in a safe shooting location, and having your documents at hand, are all part of what it takes to successfully hunt on private lands and, as it turned out, to deal with harassment by others attempting to interfere with your lawful activities.

I returned to that same field later in the spring. Without any further incident, I was fortunate to harvest a nice tom turkey. Having previously run the gauntlet of police and angry neighbors, I can assure you that I savoured every morsel of that delicious and hard-earned bird!

A Visit from St. Nicholas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fur industry is proud of the many ways in which fur is eco-friendly, including that after decades of use, it biodegrades. In contrast, when fake fur made from petrochemicals reaches the end of its useful, and typically very short, life, it goes in a landfill where it will sit until the end of time. Or will it? In pursuit of knowledge and truth, we decided to do a little experiment: the Great Fur Burial.

On May 14, we took a mink stole and a fake fur vest, cut them into equal-sized pieces, and buried them. Above is how the pieces looked on burial day. The plan was that after 3 months, 6 months, and then once a year for five years, we would unearth two pieces of the mink and fake fur to compare degradation rates. This experiment is hardly scientific, but it only has to show one thing: do they rot, or not?

Six Months Later ...

Two weeks ago we unearthed another set of fur pieces. Our burial spot is marked by red sticks.

The synthetic fur was easy to find (left), whereas we had to be a lot more careful unearthing the real fur (right) as the pieces appeared to be much more delicate.

Once the fur pieces were out of the ground, they were placed, as is, on a tray. The real fur piece is on the left and the fake fur is on the right. As you can see, the real fur sample is much smaller than the fake sample, and not because of degradation. It seems the real fur sample must have been made of two pieces sewn together. The stitching rotted, and we ended up exhuming only one half.

We gently shook some dirt off each piece but as the mud was really encrusted in the fur, we decided to let the samples dry for two weeks so we could clean them without causing damage.

Two weeks later the dirt was dry and we gently shook off as much of it as possible, without having to rub the samples too much. It is quite obvious, looking at the photo below, that the real fur (left) has disintegrated a lot more than the synthetic. The synthetic fur (right) looks pretty much intact, whereas the majority of the hairs of the real fur seem to have disappeared. The leather is frail and the only parts of the real fur sample that seem to be in decent condition are the threads.

This photo shows the backs of the samples, and it is obvious that the real fur is in much worse condition than the synthetic fur.

Let's look at the real fur, close up. The hairs are practically gone and the leather is frail. The sample is disintegrating.

In contrast, the synthetic fur, below, still looks practically intact. The hairs are still soft and the backing shows very little change since it was buried. It is hard to imagine any dramatic change happening between now and our next exhumation a year from now, so it's looking like the story is true: fake fur can sit in a landfill for hundreds of years.

Summary

Equal-sized pieces of real and fake fur were buried side by side. After six months, the fake fur showed no obvious signs of degradation, biological or otherwise. In other words, it was almost perfectly intact. The real fur, however, was in an advanced state of degradation, with the hairs reduced to a few fine wisps, and the leather frail and delicate.

Like all good scientists, we’ll hold back on making conclusions until the experiment has run its course. But the way things are headed, it might not be long before we’re using tweezers and a magnifying glass to find a real fur sample. It will all then be down to the fake fur samples. Will they degrade in five years? Or by the end of time?

Read the other installments of this experiment:

The Great Fur Burial, Part 1: Burial
The Great Fur Burial, Part 2: After Three Months
The Great Fur Burial, Part 4: After One Year

SEE ALSO: New study compares natural and fake fur biodegradability. Conducted by Organic Waste Systems, Ghent, Belgium; commissioned by the International Fur Federation and Fur Europe, 2018.

Let's start our November news roundup by celebrating the trapping victory in Montana. Bill i-177, which would have prohibited the use of animal traps on public lands, was voted down. Well done Montanans!

In other trapping news, raccoons are part of a legal battle in New Jersey, with animal rights activists fighting against the use of enclosed foothold traps. Did we mention these raccoons are rabid? Let's hope it doesn't take a major outbreak of rabies to make this court case go away. Speaking of legal battles, there is one under way in Maine over incidental lynx trapping (see above), whereas in Canada there has been a proposed private members bill to designate May 20 as National Seal Products Day. We love this idea and give it our seal of approval.

As we are full on into trapping season, it's worth sharing a few good reads from last month. Here's an interesting piece on the impact of the trade of Amazonian furs in the mid-20th century. Gregory Thompson did a great job giving us tips and advice on maintaining good relationships with the landowners of the land you trap on. And this piece about the use of coyote furs on Canada Goose parkas is also a great read. Lastly, we were thrilled to hear that Neal Jotham got a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Canadian Museum of Nature for his central role in the creation and adoption of international standards on humane animal traps used in the fur industry. We also featured him in our blog earlier this year.

Let's move on to a topic that is a bit more ... fashionable. Canada Goose has opened a new store in New York City (see above), and it includes a few fashionable pieces, like a silk parka from a collaboration they did with Opening Ceremony. While the parka sure looks nice, we are pretty sure the main reason why people buy Canada Goose, or any item with fur, is because it is warm. That's a concept we explored in a blog post, where we discussed the fact that fur is not just for fashion. So if you are looking to keep warm this winter, check out our guide to buying vintage fur, have a look at Lilly e Violetta's everyday furs, or check out the kangaroo fur shoes that all the celebrities are wearing.

The animal rights activists stooped to new lows last month when one protested a veterans parade to push her vegan agenda, and when this sustainable school got death threats for teaching small-scale family farming. Stella McCartney and Morrissey, two of the most annoying celebrity animal rights activists, also got media attention for harping on about the same old thing, over and over again. We of course loved this article about how vegetarianism and veganism are destroying the planet - it is a good one to read and share. And we explained the truth behind one of PETA's (many) lies: that fur farming in the U.S. is not regulated.

Some final thoughts ...

Do you need Christmas tree decoration ideas? How about decorations made of fur? They didn't go down too well in this hotel in Munich but we would gladly take the fur fir tree off their hands.

Have you ever wanted to witness the miracle of child birth? Yeah, it's not for everyone, but we are all about witnessing fawn birth. This video is beautiful.

Our most-shared Instagram post was one of these guys wearing buffalo fur coats (see above). We're pretty sure you won't get cold wearing these!

What would you do if your dog ran into a wolf? Most of us would run, but this guy stupidly stuck around to film it. At least it makes for some interesting viewing.

Going out into the woods this season? We loved this handy list of essentials for the wild.

Lastly, it is the holiday season, and that means it's time to indulge a little. Just don't end up like this drunk squirrel, ok?

Earlier this year I wrote a blog post listing “5 reasons why PETA won't make me ditch my Canada Goose”. For anyone who has been living under a rock (or in some tropical paradise), Canada Goose is a popular brand of amazingly warm, down-filled coats with coyote fur around the hood to protect your face from winter’s fiercest blasts.

The article included a photo of me with Maggie, my 10-year-old Golden-Lab rescue dog. In response, several readers asked, sarcastically, why I hadn't used Maggie to trim my parka instead.

Then, in the past few weeks, activists protesting the opening of the first Canada Goose bricks-and-mortar stores – in Toronto, New York, and London (UK) – deployed the same tactic, bringing their dogs to the demos. If we are not ready to use our pets for fur, they argued, how can we justify using coyotes?

At first glance, they raise an interesting dilemma: since Maggie and the coyote are both canines, it seems morally inconsistent to love and pamper one while killing and “exploiting” the other. But is it really?

Here are five reasons why my dog is not a coyote, and why wearing fur is not like wearing your pet:

1. Coyotes don’t sleep in our beds

Fact is, dogs in much of North America and Europe – at least in urban areas – have become members of the family. Dogs have long helped humans with our work; they have been our devoted companions. But now they have moved into our homes, and for many families they have become surrogate children. Parents living with teenagers may sometimes feel that dogs are, in fact, preferable to human children. Be that as it may, it is clear that pets dogs are no longer on the outside looking in, but have become an integral part of the family. Using dogs for food or clothing has therefore become taboo, akin to cannibalism. Trees, plants, and other animals – including coyotes – are in the other category: consumables. That’s how the world works. (Sorry, PETA.)

2. Dogs chose us to protect them

Dogs split away from their wolf ancestors at least 15,000 years ago, maybe much earlier. And, as Stephen Budiansky (The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication) and others have argued, it is very likely that dogs chose us, rather than the other way around. According to this hypothesis, wolves that were not aggressive enough to compete in their pack may have approached human settlements, attracted by bones and other food that humans discarded. Because the most docile animals were more likely to be tolerated, there was a “natural selection” for non-aggressive animals that accepted a subordinate role in their new human “packs”. The wild coyote is a very different beast. As one trapper told me about a coyote he found in his trap: “When I looked into his eyes, I was chilled by the cold, evil stare; this was nothing like a dog!” Only people who have had no close contact with wolves, coyotes or other wild canines can believe that they are “dogs”.

3. Dogs and coyotes occupy different spheres of moral concern

While, theoretically, all humans should enjoy equal consideration, we are generally more concerned about our own children than about the neighbour’s children. And more about our neighbours than about people in another city or half-way around the globe. Without such “degrees of moral concern” we would not be able to function at all, knowing that children are suffering hunger and abuse in many parts of the world while we sip our lattes. Similarly (whatever PETA would have us believe) we are more likely to swerve to avoid hitting a child – even on a tree-lined road; even if it means risking our lives – than we would for a dog in our path. Again: rats, bees and other social animals live harmoniously in large groups, but will tear to shreds any stranger that wanders into their midst. It seems to be consistent with natural law to treat those closest to us differently.

4. If we kill coyotes, we should use them

Coyotes are highly abundant and have expanded their range across most of North America. They are now the number one predator problem for ranchers and, when fur prices do not provide sufficient incentive to keep populations in check, state and provincial governments may offer bounties to encourage hunting and trapping. If we have to cull coyotes, surely it is more respectful – more ethical – to use them. Of course, domesticated dogs and cats can also over-populate, and they too are culled. In modern, Western societies we collect and put down millions of unwanted pets in “humane shelters” rather than leave them hungry, sick and abused in the streets as is done in many parts of the world. That we choose not to use the fur or other parts of so many unwanted pets probably reflects our wealth (we can afford to waste these resources) and the special relationship we have with dogs and cats, more than any moral imperative.

5. Dogs, like their human protectors, have been removed – or at least insulated – from nature

In nature, most plants and animals produce more young each year than their habitat can support to maturity; those that don’t survive provide food for the others. This is the great cycle of life. And like it or not, people are part of this cycle. We too need resources from our natural environment to survive, and we too will feed the worms in the end (unless we attempt to shirk our debt with cremation, but even then our basic chemical components will be recycled). In ecological terms, there is nothing unusual about using coyote fur on parkas. What is unusual is the abhorrence we feel in Western society about making mitts with Rover or Prince – or Maggie. Traditionally, dogs had to earn their keep: pulling sleds, herding sheep, killing rats and other “vermin”, protecting property. When they died, their fur and leather were valuable in societies too poor to waste useful resources. But, as mentioned in our first point, dogs have become part of our families, and in that sense have been removed from nature. We found Maggie at the Montreal SPCA when she was one year old; she had been there a month and came close to being put down. Happily, the number of dogs euthanized in North American shelters has been greatly reduced, thanks to spay-neuter programs and “Adopt, Don’t Shop” campaigns. But we cannot manage wildlife populations with spay-neuter programs. And we cannot live without using the resources that nature provides. The status of “honorary humans” that we have applied to our dogs in wealthy Western societies, cannot be extended to all of creation.

SEE ALSO: DON'T FEEL BAD ABOUT THE COYOTE FUR ON YOUR CANADA GOOSE JACKET

When I mentioned that I was writing this article, a friend suggested a sixth point: she said that we can’t use our dogs for clothing or meat because “they love us”. Unfortunately, as much as I love my dog, I am not at all sure that this sentiment is really reciprocated. I suspect that Maggie’s interest in me is directly proportional to the quantity of kibble, table scraps, ear scratching and interesting walks that I provide. But then, perhaps the love that humans share is not all that different?

So what can we conclude? Animal activists argue that it is an arbitrary distinction to pamper some animals while “exploiting” others. But this short analysis suggests that such distinctions are not so much “arbitrary” as they are culturally determined; they are based on wealth, urbanization, the changing nature of the family, and other socio-cultural factors. Aboriginal people in North America – and traditional societies everywhere – used dog fur and leather, as many still do. Most dogs used to live and work outside; we have brought them into our homes and families. But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to use plants and animals and other resources that nature provides.

So the "moral inconsistency" raised by pampering some animals while exploiting others is more apparent than real. And Maggie would almost surely agree, if she were capable of this sort of rational thought; she certainly appreciates the meat, bones and other animal products we offer.

Ironically, animal-rights purists (including PETA) now also oppose the keeping of pets, which they denounce as a form of paternalistic slavery. I am not sure that Maggie would agree.

***

RECOMMENDED READ: Animals deserve respect, but they are property – not people. By Andrew Lawton, Global News, May 26, 2017.

"Fur farms in the U.S. are the only sector of animal agriculture unregulated by the federal government," charges People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And it's no throwaway statement either, making it onto PETA's list of Nine Shocking Fur Facts. When presented with no context, the casual reader will conclude that US fur farming is unregulated, period. But this could not be further from the truth.

The trick employed by PETA here relies on the fact that most readers will only see "unregulated by the government", and not even register the word "federal".

In common with all livestock in the US, almost every aspect of furbearers' lives comes under the jurisdiction of state departments of agriculture, not the federal government. State departments of agriculture are, of course, still government bodies, and love regulating just as much as the federal government. So are fur farms regulated by government? You bet they are, but - like most of animal agriculture - mostly by state and municipal governments.

Where the federal government does get involved in livestock production is in regulating the slaughter of animals raised for food, because there are human health concerns. Since farmed mink and fox are not produced or sold for human consumption, their production (including euthanasia) is mostly the responsibility of state governments.

That said, it's still not true to say that fur farms are completely exempt from federal regulation. While the federal government largely delegates implementation of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to states, these are still federal laws, and fur farms must comply just like any other livestock operation.

Working with Government

Some opponents of fur take a different tack when trying to create the impression that US fur farming is unregulated. Fur farms, they say, just follow standards developed by the industry itself - a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop. While it's true that the industry places great importance on its own standards, that does not mean that farmers can do whatever they want.

First, it's important to understand that having industry standards is totally normal. In American agriculture, fur farmers were pioneers in developing such standards, but today every livestock sector has them. They have some important functions.

Standards are a basic tool for an industry that is committed to policing itself. This relieves some of the burden on government which typically does not have the resources to conduct regular inspections of every small farm, and may visit only when a complaint has been filed.

Standards also help farmers improve their operations because they incorporate the findings of research in areas where the industry is the recognized authority. In the case of fur farming, these include nutrition, housing and disease control (bio-security).

Standards also provide a buffer against attempts - for example by animal activist groups - to introduce arbitrary regulations that are based on ideology rather than scientific research.

However, the important point here is that industry standards are not alternatives to government regulations. Rather, they complement and build on them. This is why regulations governing livestock farming typically evolve through consultation between government and industry stakeholders, while taking advice from independent experts.

Animal-Welfare Statutes

A good example of how this works is in the area of animal welfare. Animal-welfare statutes are many and varied, covering everything from mistreatment and neglect, to intentional cruelty. Such statutes, however, can be short on specifics; it is neither possible nor desirable to regulate every scenario that might face every kind of animal. So this is an area where specific industry standards – for example concerning nutrition and housing – can complement and build on more general government statutes.

Thus, in the case of mink farms, industry association Fur Commission USA (FCUSA) has a certification program which includes, among many other requirements, a minimum size for mink pens. By setting this standard, and enforcing it through inspections by independent veterinarians, the industry complements more general government animal-welfare statutes.

Euthanasia is another example. Again, rather than developing statutes from scratch for every kind of livestock, states refer to recommendations of the American Veterinary Medical Association in its AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. FCUSA takes the same recommendations on euthanasia and incorporates them in its industry standards. In other words, while it can be said that the industry "sets its own standards" on euthanasia, these standards are, in fact, based on the same recognized authority as states rely on; they effectively respect state statutes while adapting them to the specific characteristics and needs of fur farming.

In summary, US fur farms are regulated just like any other livestock sector, except that they are not subject to federal regulations for food animals. And industry standards are not alternatives to state statutes; they interpret and complement them. Therefore, PETA's "shocking" assertion that fur farming is "unregulated by the federal government" is as meaningful as saying, "Michael Jordan doesn't wear Under Armor shoes!" Of course he doesn't. He wears Nike.

One of the arguments I hear over and over again is that fur is wrong because we are killing animals "for fashion". Fur’s main purpose is not for fashion and I think it is time to set the record straight about why the majority of us wear fur.

Defined as “A popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behavior” (Oxford Dictionary), fashion is constantly changing. When someone buys something to be fashionable, it is usually an item of clothing – or an accessory – whose life-cycle as a fashionable product is relatively short. That print, silhouette, or shape that is considered fashionable today is probably not going to be so next season or next year. On the other hand, classic clothing could be considered as wardrobe staples that do not follow trends and can be worn for many years. Would you not consider fur to fit into the latter? Fur coats are made to last and while some may be considered fashionable, nearly all are designed to have some degree of longevity.

Modesty and Protection

Let’s consider the purpose of clothing. We wear clothing for a lot of reasons, sometimes it is for fashion, other times status, or for identification purposes (a uniform, for example). But the majority of us wear clothing primarily for modesty and for protection from the elements.

Fur plays a huge role in protecting us from the elements. The majority of human beings live in climates where it is necessary to wear clothing throughout the year to protect ourselves from the sun, rain, wind, and cold. We have many options when the weather turns cold, and we have discussed the unintended consequences of wearing synthetics here.

But it goes without saying that we need to wear something.

If you are feeling the urge to buy and wear something fashionable, you probably don’t think “fur!” A new dress, a pretty pair of shoes, or an interesting accessory usually come to mind when I think about wearing something fashionable. And funnily enough, people don’t complain about cows being killed “for fashion” because they are made into lovely shoes. Right? Or that sheep are being raised on farms “for fashion". Not really. They just go out and buy that new wool sweater.

But if you were in the mood to make a fashion statement, would you really choose an expensive garment you can only wear for four months in the year, that requires expensive storage and cleaning, and takes up a lot of closet real estate? No, most would choose a pair of earrings instead.

Yet some people claim it is wrong to wear fur because it is just for fashion. I don’t think fur is for fashion, it is for keeping warm. It is a beautiful, stylish way to keep warm, but there’s a reason why you don’t see a lot of mink coats on the streets in July. That’s because fur is worn as protection from the elements. In public opinion research conducted by the Fur Council of Canada, the majority of women who wore fur said that it was primarily for warmth.

Canada Goose Irony

I find it ironic that one of the brands that gets the most flack for killing animals “for fashion” is Canada Goose. Canada Goose is not a fur brand but it trims its parka hoods with coyote fur because it considers it to be the best material to protect your face from wind and cold. I have a Canada Goose parka, and I love fashion, and I can tell you right now that my least fashionable coat is probably my Canada Goose parka. Look at the silhouettes, the colour palette, the finishings. These coats aren’t fashionable, they have Velcro on them! Velcro! Probably the antithesis of fashion.

They might not be fashionable, but do you know what Canada Goose coats are? WARM. Practical. Reliable. Long-lasting. Made in Canada. Did I mention warm? That’s why people buy them and that’s why the company has done so well. Sure, it has great branding and it knows how to market its product, but the brand wouldn't have done well if its coats couldn’t stand up to the harshest winters. The majority of people don’t buy Canada Goose parkas as fashion statements, they buy them to keep warm. And you don’t need to live in the Arctic to need to keep warm. Try standing still at a bus stop or in a dog park for 20 minutes in the middle of a cold winter. If you’ve done it wearing Canada Goose, you’ll understand how fantastic these parkas are.

The same applies to many fur coats. Sure, there are some that are fashionable. But they are mostly being worn in fall/winter. Sure fur is soft and stylish and pretty ... but first and foremost, it is warm.

Practical AND Stylish

And don’t even try to argue that if fur coats are primarily practical, why are they designed with trends and fashion in mind? Good design is integral in every aspect of our lives, and just because we want to wear fur because it is warm, doesn’t mean we don’t want to look good. It is absolutely acceptable to make a practical garment and also consider what it will look like, from a fashion perspective. When you are paying that much for a garment, you want it to be as stylish as possible, which is why fur coats and jackets tend to be cut to be flattering and fashionable, as well as being practical. But there is no denying that their primary function is as a winter clothing garment.

People have many reasons to argue about fur, and you are free to choose not to wear it. But stop saying that it is wrong to use fur because it is "only for fashion". It's only people who don't wear fur who make this claim, Protection from the elements is not a question of fashion, it is a question of comfort and sometimes survival. You can choose to wear a synthetic coat made from petroleum by-products to keep you warm, you can wear a down-filled parka with a coyote-trimmed hood, you can wear a full-length mink coat, but whichever you choose, the primary reason for that purchase is not fashion, it is function. And fur is nature's best answer to winter, People who wear fur know this.

Have you ever wanted to buy vintage fur? If you've ever been to a secondhand store or an antiques market, you'll know that there is a huge selection of beautiful furs available for sale. Whether you are an eco fashion warrior who tries to choose secondhand, or a new fur coat is out of budget for you, secondhand furs can be an excellent way to add newness (and warmth) to your winter wardrobe. If you choose to go vintage, then there are a few things you need to consider before making your purchase.

Here are our tips on avoiding moths, dry rot, and tears when shopping for your next piece of vintage fur.

• If the fur has a yellow tinge, then it means it is oxidized. The discolouration shouldn't turn you off buying a fur if it is a great piece, but it does affect the colour of the pelts. Look for the yellow tinge on the areas that are exposed to the sun, for example the shoulders, and the sleeves.

• If the fur and its leather have a brittle feel, then do not buy it. Fur and its leather should be soft and supple and skins that have dried out or have dry rot tend to be brittle and crunchy.

• Test the leather for dry rot by gently stretching the reverse (leather) side of the fur. (You can usually access this through the lining, and most are open.) The fur's leather should have some elasticity when you gently stretch it. If you don't feel any elasticity, then don't buy this fur because dried-out, brittle leather is more likely to tear or fall apart.

• Check for rips. They can be a sign of bad wear and tear, or again, of dry rot. If there are several rips in the coat, chances are the fur is dried out. Check areas like the arm holes, shoulders, and neckline for rips.

• Is the fur shedding a lot? This could be a sign of moths. Keep in mind that some delicate furs can break (for example rabbit or chinchilla) and most furs shed a little bit, but if there are a lot of hairs coming off the garment, or the hairs are coming out in clumps, then do not buy the coat.

Now that you know the tips and tricks to buying vintage fur, it is time to go shopping!

The time of year is approaching when the main thing on many people's minds is trapping. But we aren't just talking about where and when to go trapping, or what to say to your boss if you want to skip work to go trapping. We're also talking about a very important Montana trapping ballot coming up on Nov. 8. If it passes, it will ban trapping on the state's public lands. Vote Clinton or vote Trump, that's your decision, but please make sure you vote NO on i-177. The campaign has been primarily funded by out-of-state animal rights groups. If they win this, they'll be one step closer to banning all trapping and hunting, and to their ultimate goal of making us all vegan. We're serious, that is their goal.

Times like this highlight the importance of supporting your fellow sportsmen, even if they don't partake in the same outdoor activities as you. Uniting sportsmen was the subject of our latest blog post, and if you want to learn more about the Montana ballot, read what the Sportsmen's Alliance has to say. We liked these two op-ed pieces about the Montana vote, too: Trapping doesn’t hurt pets, as long as pets controlled and Vote no on the anti-trapping initiative.

Other states are also considering the future of outdoor pursuits, notably Kansas which will soon be voting on whether fishing and hunting are a right or privilege.

In other trapping news, New Zealand continues to find ways to control its invasive possums, with a booming fur trade and now a dog food trade. And what's not to love about a 10-year-old Minnesota girl who loves trapping (above)?

Activist Shenanigans

Meanwhile, the activists are up to their usual shenanigans. Pamela Anderson is trying to promote her anti-animal-use lifestyle while praising Vladimir Putin. "He loves wildlife," she opines, but he's also an avid hunter. Should someone tell her? And these heartless people hurled abuse at a child with terminal cancer because he wanted to try bullfighting, with one telling him to "just die".

There have been a few articles examining the real agenda of animal rights groups. Our favourites include a piece about how they want to end all animal domestication, including pet ownership, and this one about why it's unethical to oppose animal research. Good news includes the failure of this "fundamentally flawed" animal rights bill in Canada, and a piece on TruthAboutFur about how one man took on, and beat, some animal rights bullies.

As winter is rolling in, we are thinking about fox fur-lined parkas (above) and otter fur scarves, like the ones the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wore when they visited Canada in October. And if you know anyone who is on the fence about wearing fur, be sure to share the following TruthAboutFur post. We think it is a pretty clear explanation about Why we must wear leather and fur.

Other articles that caught our eye included this one about the cost of groceries in the far north of Canada. We hope this makes activists think twice about criticizing the way of life up there, including the hunting. One of our contributing editors was a guest on a fashion podcast and talked about the fur trade. We've got your wildlife lesson sorted for this month with some interesting information about mink and bobcats. And our fur photo of the month award goes to the Royal Family of Denmark, who were photographed in seal skin for the latest Greenland stamp (above). Animal rights activists were not impressed but we certainly were.

Let's end with our two favourite videos of the month: one documenting the pros and cons of the fur trade, and this one, a lesson on why it is a bad idea to text and walk. We'll give you a hint why: bearssss.

I recently sat in on a conservation meeting in a sportsmen’s lodge outside Concord, New Hampshire. The topic for discussion was the lack of camaraderie amongst sportsmen and women, and the toll this has taken on conservation and wildlife programs throughout the state and region. One man said his piece on what was wrong with the current state of hunting and trapping across America. “I’m going to say something that may offend some of you," he cautioned us, "but it needs to be said. Sportsmen groups are one of the most unorganized groups of people in the country.” There wasn’t a single rebuttal from anyone in attendance; everyone knew full well what he meant, and furthermore, what it means for the future of consumptive outdoor activities in the region and the country.

It’s a subject that not too many hunters and anglers recognize, or want to admit, but those of us in more “niche” activities like hound hunting and fur trapping know it all too well. Let’s face it, you may be a big-time duck hunter and passionate about your sport, but when a bill comes before your state legislature to restrict or ban bear hunting, are you as a duck hunter, going to take the time to write to your representative to save bear hunting when you know full well you’ll never hunt bear? I’m guessing the answer, nine times out of ten, would be “no”, and that's one of the reasons why consumptive outdoorsmen and women are constantly under scrutiny from anti-hunting and anti-consumptive organizations nationwide.

Decades ago this type of mindset was unheard of. If you hunted deer, chances were you also dropped a line in the creek for trout and trapped muskrats along the marshlands during duck season. In many states and provinces, this way of life still prevails as larger populations of rural folks hold tight to their outdoor self-reliant roots. But for many of us, the community of consumptive sportsmen has become fragmented. We are passionate about our own particular practices, but fail to recognize hunting, fishing and trapping as an all-encompassing benefit to conservation and outdoor recreation.

Divisions in the Ranks

Now I know there are plenty of you reading this and wondering what I’m talking about, thinking that it's only common sense to support all forms of hunting, trapping and angling. Unfortunately nowadays, your train of thought is in the minority, and this concept is seldom heard when the proverbial deer piss hits the fan.

Yes, we should support and commend one another for having the common sense to want this natural world managed and regulated as a resource for all consumptive practices. However, every state and province in North America has divisions within its hunting ranks. Many bird hunters don’t care for trappers; many deer hunters don’t care for hounds-men; many anglers don’t care for hunters. These divisions rise to the surface every fall, and sometimes disputes over wildlife management spill into clubs and departments, causing greater divides and offshoots.

When a bill or piece of legislation does come along threatening the current ways of hunting and trapping, it's usually only those whose hides get affected (pun intended) that spend time voicing opposition.

Meanwhile, the animal rights groups and “hands-off" environmentalists have a field day presenting themselves as the majority, when in reality this is clearly not the case.

Join Your Sportsmen's Group

So what exactly am I asking for? Am I seriously trying to convince every New Hampshire deer and pheasant hunter to show up at the next hearing on anti-trapping legislation? Well, frankly, in a perfect world that’s what I’d like to see, and I recall a time when that would not have been an outlandish request.

What I will realistically settle for is for all of you to join your local sportsmen’s group - not your local skeet club or shooting range, but your state organization dedicated to preserving hunting, fishing, and trapping for everyone. The Sportsmen’s Alliance for instance, is a national organization that champions such values. This group serves as a lookout to protect deer hunters and bass fishermen, as well as fur trappers, hound hunters, and turkey callers. While national groups like the Sportsmen's Alliance do an excellent job, we must also support one another at the state and regional levels. Almost every state and province has some kind of consumptive sportsmen’s group; Maine has SAM, New Hampshire has the NH Wildlife Federation, and so on from Vermont to California. These groups not only support all major forms of regulated hunting and fishing, but also serve as a bridge of unity between the different classes of these outdoor activities.

When each of you took your hunting or trapping education classes, you learned about concepts like carrying capacity, wildlife management and conservation. I can tell you the Primos hunting decal on the back of your F-250 doesn’t mean a thing if you don’t support the other aspects of conservation that go along with its meaning. It really doesn’t matter how much you spent on your duck blind, or which Pro-Staff you belong to - if you aren’t willing to recognize and support the other aspects of wildlife conservation, such as fur trapping and bear hunting, your Real-Tree camo pajamas are nothing more than a fashion statement. More than 90 million U.S. residents (16 years old and above) participated in some form of wildlife-related recreation in 2011. With numbers like this, it’s a downright embarrassment that we must constantly fight to keep trapping and hunting relevant today.

Deceitful Anti-Hunting Groups

Despite what anti-hunting activists may say or think, I know lack of support for these “niche” activities isn’t due to lack of individual sympathy for the cause, but rather a lack of motivation to see the fight through. This is where we all, as outdoorsmen and women, must stand together against those who wish to abolish all forms of hunting and fishing. If you don’t believe your brand of outdoor hunting could be targeted, take a look at the current headlines to get a snapshot of how anti-hunting groups deceitfully operate. They know how difficult it is to push a man off his stool. They know it's much easier to whittle away at each supporting leg of that stool when he’s not looking, and watch him fall on his ass in sheer shock and surprise!

Keep in mind these organizations don’t protest hunting and attempt law changes on principle. Their primary motivation is donations. Take a look at any of the anti-hunting groups like HSUS, PETA and Furbearer Defenders, and you’ll see their websites plastered with “donate-now” buttons. They parade state-to-state crying injustice, corruption and animal cruelty while soliciting for donations. Once the deed is done, and they’ve won the argument, they’re on to the next state to suck the life out of their outdoor conservation groups. The wildlife these groups claim to support end up suffering in their wake as they continue to follow the money. Its common knowledge that most of the people who speak against hunting at these state hearings are paid to be there – it’s much more motivating to “save the animals” when you’re collecting a large paycheck in the process. But instead of standing and fighting these anti-hunting groups, sportsmen are busy pushing their neighbors under the bus in the hope these groups will move on if trapping and bear hunting are banned. This is a huge mistake, as even the most basic research on these groups will show this is not their end game. Staten Island is already experimenting with controlling its deer population by castrating bucks rather than allowing hunting; it’s happening right in front of your eyes and I’m sorry to say the “Redneck pride” sticker on the back of your truck isn’t going to stop it.

It’s not all doom and gloom; there is a light at the end of this ever-growing tunnel. You can start by becoming an active member of your local sportsmen’s club and keeping an ear to the wall for anti-hunting and trapping legislation. Find out who your local district and state representatives are and let them know you are a hunter or trapper. Whether they’re Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, most representatives listen to what their constituents are saying. Sending a handwritten letter introducing yourself and your outdoor activities is a good start to breaking the ice before legislation is introduced. It doesn’t take a lot of time either - I work a full time job, maintain and run a pro-trapping website for free, and take an active role in my local conservation groups with time still left over to hunt and trap!

To summarize, whether you hunt to put venison in the freezer, fish for sport, bird hunt with dogs or set traps for natural fur garments, you are an integral part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Your support is needed as our society is overcome by tablets, smart-phones, self-driving cars and Kardashians. Our self-reliant ways of life are ALL in jeopardy as habitat loss and out-of-touch citizens continue to constrain and restrict our activities. It’s time we start pushing back and regain our freedoms as fixtures of the natural world. United We Stand, Divided We All Fall.

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

FROM OUR WEBSITE: FUR PRODUCTION: TRAPPING