We’re used to hearing polarised arguments about fur, either strongly in favour or strongly against. But many people hold views that fall somewhere in between. One such person is fashion designer Jane Avery, from Dunedin, New Zealand, who is garnering attention for her work with just one type of fur, wild rabbit, under the brand name Lapin (French for rabbit). So is she pro-fur or something quite different? Let’s find out …

Truth About Fur: According to Lapin’s website, you specialize in “limited edition, bespoke and one-of-a-kind garments.” Can you describe some of your garments?

Jane Avery: The coats and jackets I have made to date are a combination of New Zealand wild rabbit fur and beautiful top-quality fabrics. When I started out with this concept three years ago I used appropriate fabrics to hand in my stash. I also had the opportunity to travel to India where I sourced heavy silk vintage saris and traditional embroidered woollen textiles. What resulted was a collection of one-of-a-kind creations. I also make limited-edition, made-to-measure bespoke pieces incorporating new fabrics such as 100% wools.

I live in a cold part of New Zealand and creating coats with exceptional warmth yet still retaining elegance and indulgence in gorgeous textiles is my aim. My original concept was to make garments using rabbit fur panels for yokes, collars, cuffs and upper shoulders. The furrier I work with prepares these for me. The fabric sections are insulated with a 50% cotton 50% wool batting so they can match the warmth given by the fur. The same goes for the insulated sleeves of Lapin bomber jackets which have rabbit fur bodices trimmed with leather.

TaF: Tell us about the production process. How many hours go into each garment and do your prices reflect this?

Jane Avery: There is a lot of hand preparation before the sewing machine gets involved. Because fur isn’t sewn with seams like fabric is, I turn in and hand-baste the seam allowances on the fabrics in order to create clean, secure edges to attach to the fur. It’s an example of slow fashion in action and it’s certainly not high tech. Some coats can take up to 50 hours to make.

It’s been an intense development process (I am essentially a self-taught sewer of over 20 years) and I’m quite the perfectionist. There’s extensive handwork tailoring and securing the inside of the garment before the coat lining is bagged out and the inner sleeve is hand-sewn shut. What results is a highly finished garment that’s as close to perfect as I can make it.

Of course this attention to detail and made-to-measure process is reflected in the eventual price of the garment. Also the quality of the textiles and the fact that the fur passes through the hands of my rabbiter, tanner and furrier before it gets to me puts Lapin pieces in a higher price bracket.

SEE ALSO: I'm an artisan designer: Fur and leather keep me warm.

TaF: Who are your clients?

Jane Avery: My clients to date have been people who recognise the skill and dedication in crafting a Lapin piece and want to invest in something special that, well cared for, will take them through many years of pleasurable wearing. It’s my hope that Lapin pieces will become heirlooms handed between generations. For the vintage fabrics I’ve been repurposing, such as the saris and woollen paisleys, this has particular resonance. I adore the concept of well-preserved, pre-loved antique fabrics being given new purpose and continuing their usefulness and beauty in companionship with New Zealand Wild Rabbit Eco-Fur.

TaF: Historically, before the expansion of fur farming made mink and fox more affordable, rabbit was called “the great imitator” because it could be treated to resemble mink, ermine, fox, beaver, and even seal. Do you take advantage of this versatility and how?

Jane Avery: The way I came to using rabbit was not because I wanted to imitate or emulate furs from other countries, but because I saw a New Zealand pest-resource that wasn’t being used to its potential. Of course I’m very open to experimenting and learning how I can manipulate this wild resource in a fashion sense. I do dye a proportion of the skins I use jet black, and I’m looking forward to being able to afford dying in other colours. For the integrity of the Lapin brand and message, which is to promote the use of this specific pest resource, I feel it is important for it to retain its own special identity.

Wild Rabbit Eco-Fur

TaF: The Lapin website says you use “responsibly sourced New Zealand ‘Wild Rabbit Eco-Fur’.” What do you mean by “responsibly sourced” and “Eco-Fur”?

Jane Avery: Lapin rabbit furs are harvested from the eradication catch of New Zealand high-country rabbiters. The responsibility these workers have, employed by high-country station owners, is to control the rabbit populations. If the rabbits are left unchecked, they reach plague proportions. Historically and to this day they destroy thousands of acres of grazing land and also the delicate native vegetation characteristic of the New Zealand sub-alpine landscape, such as tussock grass. They cannot be allowed to stay. This is an imperative of the New Zealand high-country environment.

The rabbits for Lapin generally die from a sharp shot to the head and are sourced at nighttime when their eyes can be seen shining in the beam of the rabbiter’s spotlight. To my mind this is as close to an instantaneous death with as little suffering as possible. It is responsible in that it deals with the problem skilfully and with respect to causing the animal the least suffering.

Lapin fur can be considered an "Eco-Fur" because by wearing it you contribute to restoring the natural New Zealand environment. It is a pest resource which means the rabbits are not being purposely bred for their fur. My creative philosophy for Lapin is to use as much as I can of what I have available around me. The rabbits are here and must be dealt with. Yes, there is tragedy in the deaths of these sentient beings, but I believe my view is one of practicality and realism. Wearing the fur of these animals can be considered a "woke" alternative to indulging in other furs, be they farmed or faux.

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

TaF: Most rabbit fur today comes from young animals bred for food, but the best pelts are said to come from adult wild rabbits that are taken in winter, when the fur is thick and even. Are you selective about the pelts you use?

Jane Avery: I am selective about the pelts I use. As a wild catch, it is variable in quality. I’m fortunate to work with a rabbiter who will grade the best pelts for me in the course of his work. The season here in New Zealand for optimum skins runs in winter from July to October when the chilly southerly winds are blowing into the New Zealand South Island high country. This means the rabbits have their winter coats on and are not moulting.

I like to use thick, fluffy furs with firm yet pliable skins suitable for construction in bomber jackets and structured coats. I also love the way many of the young doe rabbit furs are so sleek, smooth and floppy. These are great for scarves, capes and more unstructured styles. I am still experimenting with what is possible and learning so much every time I get a new batch of furs to work and create with.

So Does Rabbit Fur Shed?

TaF: Rabbit fur has a reputation for shedding easily, causing uneven patches in the fur. Is this reputation deserved, and are there ways to minimise shedding?

Jane Avery: The way to minimise shedding is to harvest during the winter when the animals are holding onto their fur for warmth. When I started out, I tested furs by continually rubbing and shaking them. My view is if you get them at the right time of year the shedding is tolerable.

Rabbit fur is what it is. It’s a natural resource and even with its reputation for shedding is a beautiful, practical material worthy of inclusion in high-end garments. Looked after well, it will look good and retain its warmth-giving properties for many, many years. It’s important to look after it properly such as being aware of not continually slinging leather bag straps on your shoulder or rubbing with car seatbelts. At least when it sheds you know the little bits are safely bio-degrading in the environment and not polluting the planet like the microfibres shed from synthetic “furs”.

TaF: Possums are also considered a pest in New Zealand. Is possum fur something you’d consider using?

Jane Avery: Lapin was founded on the notion of creating attention for the very under-utilised pest-resource of New Zealand wild rabbit. However it is just a name and I’m certainly not closed to using New Zealand possum fur as my business grows. From an aesthetic point of view, I like possum fur when it has been shorn down to a nice soft pile. As with rabbit fur, the creative possibilities with this pest, notorious for destroying our native forest habitats, are many.

TaF: Another source of fur which has a small but growing following is vintage furs which are remodeled and recycled. Is this something you would consider doing?

Jane Avery: I like the idea of repurposing vintage furs, and yes, it’s something I’m open to working with as my business develops. From my own wardrobe I wear a vintage chinchilla-rabbit coat which I found in a Salvation Army op-shop. It sheds like you wouldn’t believe so I’m banned from sitting in my son’s plush car seats when I have it on!

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

TaF: How do you feel about using farmed fur, such as mink or fox? An argument in favour of using farmed fur is that it takes pressure off wildlife populations, and in fact most of the demand for fur these days is met with farmed fur.

Jane Avery: Personally I would not use farmed fur for Lapin. It would be contradictory to Lapin’s essential message and philosophy.

I feel I am well enough informed about the whys and wherefores of fur farming and I understand the animal welfare standards are generally high, and in many cases higher than other industries exploiting animals for their meat and skin. As a sewer I also respect the tradition and craftsmanship of the fur industry.  But farmed fur is not something that I would purposely seek out as a product to work with.

I find reassurance in the fact that New Zealand wild rabbits, an introduced species, are essentially having a marvellous time living natural, free lives, eating and breeding in the great outdoors. At least when they meet their deaths at the hands of a rabbiter they are free, albeit in the wrong place in the world. If they were not an ecological problem in this country, I would not be exploiting their fur for fashion, nor would I seek out other furs … aside perhaps for possum.

TaF: North America has its own problems with invasive nutria as well as indigenous furbearers that cause problems if their populations are not managed. For example, muskrats destroy marsh habitats, beavers cause flooding, and coyotes prey on livestock and are expanding into urban areas where they prey on pets and bite children. Are you supportive of using these species for their fur, provided it is done sustainably?

Jane Avery: To me it’s all about context. The world we live in is so very different to the world of 150-200 years ago. Sure, North America has its problems with invasive species too, and certain situations demand certain responses. If it’s deemed these animals must be "sustainably" culled then it would be disrespectful not to make practical use of their fur.

With the New Zealand rabbits, the context is created by human history. The tragedy is that they were introduced to this country in the first place.

I believe anyone in the business of exploiting animals for what they can provide to humans should check their moral compass on a regular basis. We shouldn’t necessarily do things just because that’s the way we’ve always done them. Everything must be considered within its realistic context and with the good of the environment central to decision-making.

***

SEE ALSO: Inside a rabbit fur fashion designer's 10 sqm solar-powered eco cabin in Central Otago. This NZ Life.

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.

Our July news roundup focuses on two areas where a little more common sense could solve everyone's problems. When wild furbearer populations grow too large, whether they're invasive or indigenous, common sense suggests we cull them and make use of the fur and meat (if they're tasty). But animal advocates want us to share space even with dangerous wildlife while calling for fur bans.

The Darwin Award for managing invasive wildlife goes to Canmore, Alberta, where a program is under way to control an explosion of rabbits. It's not that the locals don't like rabbits, but some don't like all the hungry cougars, coyotes and bears they're attracting. So far, 1,300 rabbits have been trapped and euthanised, with most going as feed to a wildlife rehab centre. But now everyone's upset: rabbit lovers, obviously, but also taxpayers who are paying $300 per rabbit caught! Plus the program's not working because the rabbits are breeding like, well, rabbits. Duh!

A fashion designer in New Zealand, where invasive rabbits cause extensive environmental harm, has a much better idea. Jane Avery is turning rabbits into fur coats under the label Lapin (French for rabbit). "If you wish for the luxury of fur, then maybe you should be making an eco-conscious choice,” says Avery, who is not so much a fur fan as a lover of her natural environment.

Don't expect rabbits to vanish from Alberta or New Zealand any time soon, but efforts to eradicate invasive species do occasionally succeed. One such case is the American mink in Scotland's Outer Hebrides. Decades after mink were released from fur farms, wildlife conservationists now believe they finally have them under control.

Indigenous wildlife can also present problems, like "urban coyotes". In a classic case of "you can't please everyone", traps were first installed in a park in Cambridge, Ontario, and have now been removed following a campaign against the "cruel" traps by Coyote Watch Canada. Said one confused resident who's afraid of the coyotes, "The city has to do something about it, but not hurting them as well because they have the right to live."

SEE ALSO: Will urban coyotes change the animal rights debate?

Beavers are also expanding their territory, onto the Alaskan tundra. “You just need to look at the map to see how well beavers recolonized the rest of North America after over-trapping," says an expert. "They are now in all the lower 48 states, and Alaska is the last standing – and it’s going to fall.” Given the radical changes beavers can bring to a landscape, the jury is still out on whether this is a good or a bad thing.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

Fur Bans Threatening

Regardless of how some furbearers are expanding their range, calls for fur bans are also spreading.

In the UK, a Parliamentary debate in June considered the possibility of banning fur imports post-Brexit. The government said no, but the anti-fur lobby have kept up a steady flow of stories to the hungry media. Grabbing headlines in July was the spurious argument that fur should be banned because a few retailers have been caught labelling it as fake. The government has rightly said this is not grounds for a ban, but it seems to be wavering, as this BBC report shows.

Also in Europe, Ireland's Green Party will be reviving its bid to have fur farming banned there. This almost happened back in 2009, but got derailed during a period of political turmoil.

Back on this side of the pond, a ban on fur sales is approaching in San Francisco, and the fur industry has threatened legal action if it goes ahead. Animal rights leaders have also announced that New York City is in their cross hairs.

On Our Blog

Last month Truth About Fur interviewed Katie Ball from Thunder Bay, Ontario. Katie says fur is in her blood and it shows! When she's not on the trapline, she's running her own fur fashion company or advocating on behalf of several outdoors associations.

We also ran an overview of the latest annual general meeting of the Fur Institute of Canada. For those not already in the know, the FIC is the country’s leader on humane trap research and furbearer conservation, and is the official trap-testing agency for the federal and provincial/territorial governments.

Odds and Ends

Let's close with some news in brief ...

In 2018, the International Fur Federation and Fur Europe commissioned a study comparing degradation of real and fake fur in a simulated landfill. Now they've released a video summarising the findings.

SEE ALSO: The Great Fur Burial.

In sealing news, a reopened tannery for sealskin in Alaska is having trouble keeping up with demand (pictured above), while on one of the remote Pribilof Islands the annual fur seal hunt was allowed to start three days early because groceries were running out.

Farmed mink production in the US fell slightly in 2017, but the total value of the harvest was up thanks to higher prices. Read the official US Department of Agriculture report and an analysis by Capital Press.

This year's winners of the Yukon Innovation Prize say they want to turn the fur industry upside down. Team Yukon Fur Real plans to buy pelts from local trappers and help artisans create fur products that can be sold to consumers.

Calling sports fans, a fur coat owned and signed by Joe Namath is up for auction! To place your bid, click here. As of August 1, there are zero bids, perhaps because the reserve price is $10,000!

June saw fur very much on the agenda in the UK, where the government was obliged to debate a proposal to ban all fur imports on leaving the EU next year, after receiving a petition with 425,000 signatures. The opposition Labour Party vowed to pass such a ban if given the chance, while its members vied for the headlines with celebrities like Brian May, Judi Dench, Ricky Gervais and Andy Murray. One Labour MP even likened wearing fur to wearing a swastika.

But while anti-fur tirades dominated column inches and air time, the media didn't just roll over. The BBC took a sympathetic look at mink farming in Denmark, and raised the issue now on everyone's mind of our excessive use of plastic, including fake fur. Even the tabloids are condemning fake fur, with the Daily Mail stating, "'Animal-friendly' fashion alternatives could do more harm to the environment than fur and leather-based clothing." (In fairness, though, the Mail is happy to bash anything, including real fur.)

As anticipated, the Conservative government said it has no plans to ban fur imports, but the future is far from secure if Labour wins the next general election, scheduled for 2022.

Food Fascism

In other European news, vegan terrorists are now picking on family butchers. We reported in May how a butcher in England had its windows daubed with paint and got death threats all the way from Australia. Now French butchers are so sick of vegans that they're demanding government protection. Targeting butchers is not just a European thing, though, as this Berkeley, California butcher found out last year.

And on the subject of food fascism, a food lawyer (yes, such a job exists!) says we should follow California's foie gras ban closely. The Supreme Court, no less, has been asked to hear an appeal from producers about a circuit court ruling reinstating the ban. "This is a court case about much more than foie gras," Baylen Linnekin told the Orange County Register. "It concerns the future of beef, poultry, pork, and other foods eaten by nearly every American."

Tough Questions

When animal users are not countering ignorant and often untruthful attacks from animal rightists, we're searching for answers to tough questions. When it comes to knowing your opponent, here's a thought-provoking piece in The New Republic entitled "The truth about the 'vegan lobby'."  "It has long been demonized by conservatives – and even some vegans themselves – but does it really exist?" asks Emily Atkin.

Truth About Fur's senior researcher Alan Herscovici examined "The truth about 'fur free' designer brands". Have they really developed a dislike for fur, or are there other forces at work?

Also on our blog, conservationist and environmental social scientist Paul McCarney asked the tough question of whether anthropomorphism is good or bad for conservation. And on a related note, Roy Graber at WATTAgNet says farmers et al. should "Stop saying animals are our friends." "Often when the food and agriculture industry depicts overly happy visions of livestock and poultry, it reinforces unrealistic expectations," he writes.

Meanwhile, it's easy for animal users who produce food and clothing to forget that medical researchers have been under attack for decades and the problem shows no signs of abating. The Daily Bruin published a series of responses by researchers to activists, defending the use of animals in studies. Said one, "It is difficult to have a conversation with people who believe that human and animal lives should be weighed equally."

If you ever have to argue why we don't need to treat animals quite as well as humans and you're not sure what to say, Juan Carlos Marvizon, Ph.D. provides this scientific explanation in Speaking of Research.

Trapping News

Ontarians have been hogging the trapping headlines of late, in a nice way.

On Truth About Fur's blog, Ontario trapper Jim Gibb described how to stay busy with wild fur prices so depressed, in "Skunk under your deck? Call a certified trapper".

"Irrepressible" Ontario trapper and designer Katie Ball was interviewed by the International Fur Federation. She's a busy beaver with a résumé that includes the Northwestern Fur Trappers Association, the Ontario Fur Managers Federation, and the Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen's Alliance. On top of all that, she runs a fur design and manufacturing business, Silver Cedar Studio.

And if you want to trap in Ontario but come from out-of-state – or in this case a whole different country – be sure to follow local regulations. These Minnesota trappers were fined $6,000 for trapping violations in Ontario.

In other trapping news, the Northwest Territories are having trouble with too many beavers, so the government has raised the bounty from $50 last year to $100. The offer ended June 10, so plan for 2019. This is called a marketing incentive, not a cull, and trappers must show evidence that the meat or pelt are being used.

Payback

It's unfortunate, of course, that so many animal activists now behave so badly, but the "good" news is that law enforcement and society at large are not giving them a free ride.

In Utah, activists have been charged by the FBI for stealing piglets from a farm. This activist has been charged with breaking into five Ontario mink farms. And in Australia, these ones have been charged with animal cruelty for allegedly injuring and killing several hens after a break-in.

In Florida, an angry sheriff brought attention to the old problem of activists releasing undercover videos of alleged animal cruelty to the media rather than to law enforcement, in this case enabling the perpetrators to flee the state. As always we ask ourselves, do they really want to protect animals or simply grab media attention?

Last but not least, it's tempting to laugh at the fate of these Direct Action Everywhere protesters who crashed a BBQ challenge in San Francisco, only to be booed, heckled and taunted with meat by the participants. What did they expect? And if you think that's nuts, check out the video of the lady protesting "cruel" conditions on chicken farms by lying in a pile of poop – in California, of course!

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.

It’s no secret that the planet is in trouble. We're depleting our non-renewable resources and leaving behind a trail of toxic garbage and pollution. The good news is that many people are now striving for lifestyles that are more sustainable, but the choices we face can be tricky. One choice we all make every day is what to wear. So what is sustainable fashion, and how does fur measure up?

To measure fur's sustainability, we're going to ask five important questions.

Question 1: Where does the raw material come from?

This is the most important question by far when determining whether your clothing is sustainable or not.

Raw materials fall into two classes: organic (plants and animals) and inorganic (coal, oil, ore, etc.). Organic materials are sustainable because they are renewable; the plants and animals from which they come replenish themselves. Common examples used in clothing are cotton, linen, bamboo, wool, fur, down and leather. Inorganic materials are unsustainable because they are non-renewable; once they're gone, they're gone, unless we can find some more. The most important inorganic materials used in clothing are synthesised from petroleum, such as acrylics and polyesters.

How does fur measure up?

Fur comes from animals, and since animal populations replenish themselves, that makes the raw material for the fur trade sustainable in theory. In practice, fur can lose this sustainability credential if the animals are removed faster than their population can replenish itself. While this certainly happened in the past with some species in some regions, the good news is that the lessons of history have been learned.

The trapping of wild furbearers today is strictly regulated to ensure harvests are sustainable from year to year. Regulations cover what animals can be taken, when, where, and how. These regulations ensure that we are using only part of the annual production. Trade in endangered species is strictly prohibited.

Meanwhile, fur farming, like all livestock farming, is inherently sustainable, because farmers can produce fewer or more animals depending on market conditions. Indirectly, farming also benefits wild populations as it reduces pressure on them in times of high demand. Fur farms also minimise their environmental impact in other ways, e.g., feeding their animals left-overs from human food production; using manure and soiled straw bedding to fertilise crops; and turning carcasses into biofuel.

The result: Both wild and farmed furs are sourced sustainably.

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

Question 2: How is the material produced or processed?

The different ways in which materials are produced and processed mean they have different environmental impacts. It's well known that the production of petroleum-based synthetics brings risks, from oil spills during extraction to toxic chemicals emitted during production of the fabric. But every fabric has issues, including organic fabrics. Traditional methods for growing cotton, for example, use a lot of water, synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, and remove wildlife habitat. In the case of farmed animals, there is waste disposal to consider.

How far the raw materials and finished garments travel is another consideration. A garment entirely produced and sold locally has a smaller carbon footprint than, for example, a polyester garment made from oil drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, processed into fabric in China, assembled in Vietnam, and then sold in Europe.

How does fur measure up?

The main materials used in the "dressing" of fur pelts are either organic or naturally occurring compounds, and environmental protection controls ensure that there are no harmful effluents. (This is certainly true today for all developed economies, but developing countries are now also introducing better controls.) Claims made by animal rights groups that fur dressing is very harmful to the environment have often confused fur dressing with leather processing. In reality, fur dressing is a much milder process because the hairs must be protected rather than burned off as they are in leather production.

It is also worth noting that, unlike other clothing materials, furs are often used in their natural colours, which means no bleaching and dyeing. Very few materials in the apparel sector are used in their natural state, which makes fur a true exception. In fact, the most valuable furs are the ones whose natural colours and patterns are the most striking, with no need for dyes or bleaches.

One downside to the fur production process -- like much other apparel production today -- is caused by globalisation. While most fur garments consumed today in North America and Europe are made with locally-sourced pelts, much of the actual manufacturing is done in Asia. This reduces labour costs -- and provides lower prices for consumers -- but implies more fuel use.

The result: The processing of fur is not harmful to nature; it is done with benign chemicals, and fur is often used in natural colours, reducing the need for bleaches and dyes. However, while the fur pelts are usually produced in North America or Europe, fur (like other apparel) is now often manufactured in Asia, which requires transportation and fuel consumption.

Question 3: Does the garment cause harm during its lifetime?

A few years ago this would have seemed a strange question, but a growing body of research now shows that petroleum-based synthetics harm the environment just by being worn. Every time we wash and dry these synthetics, micro-particles of plastic are released into the air and water, and these are now turning up everywhere – in the oceans, in animals, and even in our drinking water.

Organic fibres also release microparticles, but the difference is that they biodegrade, rather than accumulating like plastic microparticles.

How does fur measure up?

Scientists are focusing their efforts on plastic microparticles, but it's reasonable to assume that microparticles given off by fur garments, being biodegradable, are harmless. And since furs are not washed and dried regularly like most other garments, the number of microparticles floating around is probably much smaller than, say, cotton microparticles. In short, while microparticle pollution is a huge concern for petroleum-based synthetics, it's a non-issue for fur.

The result: Fur causes no environmental harm during its life cycle.

Question 4: How long will the garment last?

The 3 R’s of waste management are reduce, reuse, and recycle, and they are all aimed at reducing our overall consumption. In the case of clothing, we need to eschew throwaway fashion that lasts just a few seasons, and opt instead for quality garments made of durable materials.  

How does fur measure up?

Of all organic materials used for clothing, fur and leather (fur with the hair removed) are the most durable. It's not by chance that leather is used for shoe soles! And because fur coats are generally quite expensive, consumers have an incentive to care for them. Fur is one of the few clothing materials that is worn for decades and even passed down through generations.

When properly cared for, a fur coat can last 40 years or more, and even then it may not be at the end of its life. Provided the leather is still supple, grandma's vintage mink coat can be recycled as a trendy new bolero, or "let out" to make a two-metre scarf.

The result: Fur apparel is extremely long-lasting, which is an important sustainability objective because it reduces the need to constantly produce new products.

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

Question 5: What happens to the garment when it's discarded?

Waste disposal is one of the most pressing environmental issues today, both of consumer goods and the packaging they come in. Most clothing eventually ends up in landfills, but how much damage it causes there depends on the materials used. Organic fabrics, such as cotton, wool, and fur, biodegrade. The problem with petroleum-based synthetics is that they don't biodegrade but eventually break down into microparticles of plastic that then enter the waterways. (It's been estimated that clothing and other textiles are responsible for 34.8% of such microparticles in the oceans today.)

How does fur measure up?

Being organic, fur fully biodegrades when put in a landfill. Animal rights groups claim the chemicals used in dressing prevent fur from biodegrading, but this is nonsense, and Truth About Fur has proven it. Any silk lining, cotton thread or leather straps will also biodegrade, while metal zippers will rust and return to the soil in mineral form. At worst, a few plastic buttons will remain. So in the sustainability stakes, fur wins hands down, especially when compared with petroleum-based synthetics which don't biodegrade, but just break down into microparticles that one day may turn up in your beer!

The result: Fur is completely biodegradable.

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

The verdict

Wait a minute, you may be saying; if fur scores so well on these sustainability measures, why have several high-profile brands recently announced that they will stop working with fur, saying that fake fur is more sustainable? Simply put, the claims these companies are making are nonsense. Anyone who believes fake fur made from petroleum is more sustainable than real fur has no understanding of the meaning of sustainability. Unfortunately, these companies are simply regurgitating, without checking the facts, propaganda fed to them by animal rights groups bent on ending all use of animals.

SEE ALSO: Sustainability: Why is Gucci so confused?

So how does real fur score overall as sustainable fashion? Fur is one of the most sustainable fabrics on the planet, ticking all the boxes: it's made from sustainably-produced natural materials, it uses fairly benign production processes, and the result is long-lasting and recyclable garments that eventually fully biodegrade after providing many decades of warmth and comfort.

OK, we hear what you're thinking: Truth About Fur is all about advocating fur, so it's no surprise that we're giving it two thumbs up. But now ask yourself the same questions, substituting any other material for fur, and see what you get. What's the production process behind your petroleum-derived synthetic raincoat? Will your fake fur jacket look good after five years of wear and tear? And does it not concern you that these garments, at the end of their life cycle, will be condemned to a landfill to crumble into microparticles that pollute our oceans? Let us know in the comments below!

Want to know more? Then you may want to read Fur is a sustainable natural resource. And watch ...

Chances are, if you have a fur coat, it’s got a story. Certain items of clothing are more than just coverage against the elements, they can have great significance, whether it be sentimental value, an interesting history, or some other meaning. Because of the cost and the long life of a fur garment, they are rarely a casual piece of clothing. When you ask people about their furs, most will have special stories about their pieces.

Today we are going to share a few of these fur coat stories, not only to highlight the importance of these valuable garments, but also to trace their history and their role in people’s lives. A long-lasting, good-quality fur coat is so much more than just an item of clothing. It can be a piece of family history, a symbol of an achievement, or a sentimental object.

Fur Is In Her Blood

"I would never have imagined that I would marry into a mink ranching family (in fact my sister and I married brothers!)," says Christy A Allen Mullen, from Weymouth, Nova Scotia. "Nor did I know, leading up to my marriage, that I would find out that my great-grandfather Kenny was a mink rancher in the 40’s.

"I begged for a mink coat for several years; my dream came true in 2010. I am now the proud owner of a 7/8 length Blackglama coat made from female skins from our farm. In the spring of 2017, I purchased a vintage Blue Iris coat in New Brunswick. My furrier in Montreal remodeled this into a beautiful new jacket that I could never have imagined owning! I wear my coats EVERYWHERE!! I have had many repairs done from being worn, and even had trim replaced because it was worn out. I am a proud ambassador of fur and our farm, everywhere I go!"

SEE ALSO: 5 great ways to recycle old fur clothing

A Family Living Off the Land

"I was gifted my mother’s fur coat, as so many have, when she was no longer wearing it," recalls Katie Ball, from Thunder Bay, Ontario. "This coat has much meaning to me. For one, my father trapped each red fox to make it. All 27 came from his trap line, and I remember being there while he collected some of these specific pelts.

"I am now the second trapper of this line, and I spend even more time with him on this land.

"But this isn’t the only reason why this coat is special; I was able to watch the skillful hands of Pirie create this coat from the ground up, for my mother. This is where the love of fur fashion spawned from for me at such a young age.

"I modeled for over 10 years but wanted to get into fashion and create my own items. Fur became that medium. I now own and run Silver Cedar Studio, creating items with furs from our trapline as well as others.

"This coat is a part of who I am. And continues to influence me daily in my passions and trade. Proud to be a trapper."

Winnipeg Winters

"When I earned my professional designation 18 years ago, my folks helped me buy a full length silver tipped raccoon coat with notched collar, puffed sleeves, and a detachable hood trimmed in silver fox," says Patricia Prohaska from Winnipeg.

"I take the bus to work and sometimes the bus does break down from the cold. Eighteen years of Winnipeg winters and bus rides to and from work and the coat still looks new. That coat means more to me than my car. I consider it the best investment I ever made - after my education.

"I have worn fur all my life - three of my aunts worked in the business as finishers. Mother nature by far provides the best insulation."

***

Do you have a fur coat, jacket, or hat that has a special place in your heart? A treasured hand-me-down or an item of fur clothing that kept you warm through cold times? Maybe it is a coat that you wore for 20 years, a scarf that you bought with your first paycheck, or a pair of fur gloves that kept your hands warm when you got lost in the snow? Have you remodelled a special old coat and turned it into a trendy jacket or a warm pillow for your home?

Please send your fur coat stories (max 300 words) to [email protected], with an image. If you've got a good story but you don't want to write it then send us an email and we can call you and get your story over the phone.

Welcome to Fur Trade Tales, our new series of real-life stories from real people of the fur trade. We kick off with our first Trapline Tales, but look out for Fur Farm Tales, Furrier Tales, and more to come. If you'd like to contribute, please let us know at [email protected]

---

Everyone in the fur trade has tales to tell, and I am honoured that Alan Herscovici – the creator of Truth About Fur – thinks mine are worthy of launching Trapline Tales. It’s the least I can do. Alan has devoted his working life to the trade, sometimes at great personal cost, and has been a passionate spokesperson to the media on behalf of us all. We owe him a great debt of gratitude.

Today I run a company called Fur Canada, making a range of fur products, museum-quality taxidermy specimens, and traps, but my journey in the fur trade began long ago, in a place called the West Kootenay, in British Columbia. I grew up there in the 1960s and '70s, and it had to be the best childhood any kid could experience. With my parents and siblings, I learned the ways of living off the land. We grew every kind of vegetable, had milk cows, chickens, horses and beef cattle, and in winter I would assist my father on his fur trapline.

Snowmobiles – and a Missed Opportunity

Every weekend during winter was a new experience. My father's trapline was 100 kilometres long, and it took us five years just to rotate every corner of it. In 1963, we also acquired the area's first snowmobile.

One day my mother and I were shopping in Nelson when I spotted a parked truck with two big, yellow snow-plowing machines on a trailer. "What are they?" my mother inquired of the gentleman attending them, who happened to be a distributor. He graciously explained how they worked and their advantages over snowshoeing. He called them "snowmobiles", and they were made by a Quebec company called Bombardier. She said her husband was a trapper and might be interested in one, so he followed us home. My father quickly took a liking to these machines, and since it was late, invited the gentleman to stay the night.

Next morning, my older brothers and father road-tested the machines, and by lunchtime the deal was made. We were the proud owners of a brand new Bombardier snowmobile! I still have it to this day, and one day will restore it to its original state.

During that winter and the next, the gentleman made follow-up visits in case repairs were needed. He was very impressed with my father and his success with the machine, because within that first winter, he had contracts with the power company and timber company to check on their power lines and spar tree equipment that was inaccessible in the back country.

On one of his visits he told my father that he was the sole distributor for Alberta and British Columbia, and the territory was now more than he could handle. Would my father like to take over the distributorship for BC? My father pondered for a moment and could only envision the excessive work ahead in promoting, selling and servicing the product during the trapping season – the most important part of the year for him. His answer was an emphatic "No!" I'm not sure he gave much thought to setting up his two teenage sons and me, then just six years old, in the snowmobile business, as fur trapping was his passion. You could say, there was a great missed opportunity for the family, as hindsight is always 20/20.

Breaking Trail

A few years later my father purchased another snowmobile. At this point Bombardier was selling them under the brand name Ski Doo, and our new Ski Doo was called an Olympic.

At 10 years old, I was operating our original Bombardier and my father ran the Olympic, because it was much bigger and heavier. We were trapping in the high Selkirk Mountains, so it was common to get 40-60 centimetres of snow in a week. He would break trail and I would follow. When the snow became too deep and the machines bogged down, out came the snowshoes and I would start breaking trail one step at a time. In that deep, fluffy snow it was difficult, so I would only go about 300 metres and return to the snowmobile. I would get it unstuck, fire it up and away I went. Straddling my freshly broken snowshoe trail, I would get the machine up to full speed until that ole Bombardier hit the virgin snow, go 20 metres and come to a stop, stuck again. Out came the snowshoes and the process started all over again.

Many a Saturdays were spent breaking trail. We would return the following day to set traps. Then a few days later return to check the traps. This kind of fun went on from December to the end of February, when the high-country trapping season ended.

Stinking Rotten Scent

In the summer there was no trapping, of course, but it was still on our minds, and one of the highlights was making call scent for marten. There were two goals. First, it should not freeze. And second, it should be a stinking rotten scent, and the hot summer weather was perfect for this.

Here's how we did it:

1. Take 10-20 mink scent glands, and 10 complete beaver castor glands. Chop and mash them into a fine paste, then place in a glass gallon jar.
2. Add 2 cups of herring fish roe.
3. Add 1 litre of fish oil – herring or salmon works great.
4. Stir ingredients until fully mixed.
5. Place the jar atop the roof in full sun with a light lid cover.
6. Every 30 days give ingredients a stir.
7. After 90 days, remove the jar from the roof and secure with a tight lid until trapping season starts.

During the summer, our recipe would cook and percolate on the roof. It was one of those odours that had to be acquired in order to appreciate the effort that went into making this eau du toilet scent.

All trappers understood the value and creativity of such a fine call scent and its importance in trapping marten. My mother, on the other hand, did not have the same appreciation for our efforts. She had a few choice words for us during those hot spells when she was hosting summer garden parties and the marten eau du toilet scent would waft its way down from the roof top and into the party.

Parting Shots

• Shame on provincial governments! Shame on Air Canada! Canada has a free trade agreement with the USA, Mexico, Korea and others, but we don’t have free trade and free flow of goods within our own country! And can you imagine? Our national airline has an embargo on a wildlife species that the Inuit people of the Canadian Arctic legally harvest for sustenance!

• Sorry Mum! The first critters my father trapped, back in the 1920s, were skunks, when their fur was highly prized. He always joked that his wedding day, November 10, was also the first day of the skunk-trapping season. He told that joke for 72 years until he passed away on his 97th birthday. My mother did not quite see the humour. She says the joke wore off after the first five years.

• Squirrel surprise. When I was about 10, a chum and I ventured into the realm of squirrel cuisine. After hours setting up a spot in the woods, including a makeshift rotisserie, finding dry wood in three feet of snow with wet matches, smudge smoke in our eyes, wet clothes and cold feet, we were ready. We skinned and eviscerated that little critter, then stuffed it with hazelnuts and roasted it over an open fire. Surely this would be a mouth-watering meal, the best-tasting squirrel ever! Well, let's just say that it sounded better than it turned out. It was several more years before I ventured back into the fine cuisine of squirrel cooking.

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

• Name-dropping. Among the many products my company makes are coyote fur collars for parkas, and one of our clients has an impeccable pedigree: Amundsen Sports of Norway. The name rings a bell, right? CEO Jorgen Amundsen is carrying on a family tradition of adventurers started by his great uncle, Roald Amundsen, the first man to set foot on the South Pole in 1911!

 

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

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

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

Protest Season

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

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

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

Pest Control

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

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

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

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

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

In the modern field of conservation, sustainable use is the goal for which resource managers strive. Yet not so long ago, conservation was popularly associated not with sustainability, but with not using resources at all. Perhaps inevitably, along the way some lazy thinkers came to equate sustainable use of a resource with not using it, among them Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri.

When Bizzarri announced recently that Gucci would be dropping fur, he caused much head-scratching. The move was a demonstration of “our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business,” he explained. So Gucci will now be replacing real fur – a renewable, biodegradable, natural resource – with non-biodegradable fake fur made from a non-renewable resource, petroleum.

How could Gucci have become so confused about the meaning of "sustainability"? History provides a possible answer.

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

Protection vs. Conservation

Forty years ago, when Marco Bizzarri was growing up, and after a long history of renewable natural resources being mismanaged in much of the world, the word "conservation" was on everyone's lips.

But what did "conservation" mean to most of the public or, in practical terms, on the front lines of the war declared on alleged resource abusers?

The biggest "conservation" issue of the day – the biggest ever in terms of public awareness – was whaling, and groups that formed the Save the Whale Campaign called themselves conservationists. A very few were the real deal, but most were actually perpetrating a deception. They were not interested in sustainable use, or a temporary cessation of whaling to allow stocks to recover. They wanted all whaling stopped forever, regardless of the state of stocks. They were "protectionists", or, to use a term more commonly associated with wilderness protection, "preservationists".

And so the die was cast. In the popular conscience, "conservation" had come to mean not using something, be it whales, seals, ivory, tuna or tropical rain forests. The list just grew as "Save the [enter pet cause here]" campaigns proliferated. Stopping the killing of any animal, correctly termed protection, was now widely perceived by much of the media and the general public as a conservation goal.

From Conservation to Sustainability

Meanwhile, true conservationists were developing increasingly sophisticated management strategies based on a relatively new concept, the "sustainable use of renewable natural resources".

An integral part of sustainable use is that conservation objectives are often best served by giving renewable resources financial value, thereby giving stakeholders an incentive to manage them wisely. For many species of animal, the most effective way of doing this is to allow regulated killing for food or clothing. Captive breeding and even domestication of animals can also help relieve pressure on wild populations. Gucci's parent group, Kering, is actively involved in a programme to conserve pythons by farming them. Ted Turner's bison ranches have played a key role in bringing this animal back from the brink of extinction. And yes, all wild species of furbearers have benefited from the expansion of mink farming.

In short, sustainable use is founded on the consumptive use of resources in a regulated environment. It gives the resources value to stakeholders, while ensuring use of those resources does not exceed their capacity to replenish themselves.

Sustainable use is not about stopping use of a resource.

Gucci Left Behind

Gucci's understanding of "sustainability" appears to be based on an outdated, 1970's view of conservation: that the best way to conserve a resource is to stop using it.

For sure, some furbearer species were hit hard by hunting and trapping before modern regulations were implemented, even in North America. And some, such as South American and African spotted cats, are now – rightly – banned in international trade.

But to imply, as Gucci does, that farmed mink and fox, or abundant wild populations, will somehow benefit by no longer being used for fur shows a naîve and total misunderstanding of how sustainable use works.

Gucci has been left behind as our knowledge of environmental conservation has evolved. We don't need a Save the Mink campaign!

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.”

Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri puzzled many when he recently announced that the prestigious design label would go "fur-free" in 2018. The confusion wasn’t about the decision itself – fashion companies change directions all the time – but about Bizzarri’s claim that a fur-free Gucci was meant to demonstrate "our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business."

Mr. Bizzarri’s comments are certainly bizarre, and not only because Gucci was founded and is still known as a leather designer.

His comments are bizarre because, whatever your personal opinions about the ethics of using animals, there is no debate about the fact that the modern fur trade is an excellent example of environmental sustainability.

Perhaps someone should explain to this social-responsibility-climbing CEO what environmental sustainability really means.

Following is a short primer on sustainability and fur.

SEE ALSO: Sustainabiity: Why is Gucci so confused?

Sustainability Primer for Fur-Free Gucci

The concept of sustainable development was launched by the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), published in book form as Our Common Future, in 1987. As quoted on the corporate responsibility and sustainability page of Gucci’s own website, this landmark document proposed that our 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”, i.e., the air, water, and natural ecosystems that we depend upon for our survival. So, whenever possible, we should use renewable resources (plants, animals) rather than non-renewable resources (petroleum-based synthetics). And we should use these renewable resources sustainably, i.e., no faster than nature can replenish the supply.

The sustainable use of renewable natural resources is based on the fact that most species of plants and animals produce more young than their habitat can support to maturity. The ones that don’t make it feed others. And we are part of this natural system. We too can use part of this natural “surplus” for our food, clothing, shelter and other needs.

Let’s see how fur measures up to these sustainability requirements. There are two main types of fur used today: wild-sourced and farm-raised. They have somewhat different implications for sustainability, so we will consider them separately.

Wild-Sourced Furs: Sustainable Use of an Abundant and Renewable Resource

The modern wild-fur trade is an environmental success story. All the fur we use today comes from abundant species, never from endangered species.

Thanks to national and international regulations, fur is an excellent example of the responsible and sustainable use of renewable natural resources.

To ensure that we use only part of the surplus that nature produces (“sustainability”), trapping is strictly regulated in North America by state, provincial and territorial wildlife biologists. Thanks to these regulations, the most important North American furbearers (beaver, muskrat, coyote, fox, raccoon) are as abundant today as they have ever been, or even more abundant. In fact, furbearer populations would have to be controlled in many regions even if we did not use the fur, to prevent the spread of disease or to protect livestock, property, other species or natural habitat.

SEE ALSO: Abundant Furbearers: An Environmental Success Story

And while not strictly a sustainability issue, it is also reassuring to know that North American trappers respect animal welfare. Modern trapping methods have been refined by more than 30 years of scientific research and must comply with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (in Canada) and Best Practices (in the US).

Wild furs are, in fact, the ultimate free-range, organic and locally sourced clothing material. By contrast, most synthetic materials are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource.

Not least important: when you buy wild fur you are providing income to First Nations and other people living in rural and remote regions where alternative employment can be hard to find. Helping people remain on the land – where they can monitor industrial activity and sound the alarm when nature is threatened – is also an important sustainability objective.

Farm-Raised Furs: Completing a Sustainable Agricultural Nutrient Cycle

Globally, most fur is now produced on farms, and fur farms also contribute to environmental sustainability in several important ways.

Mink and fox are the most commonly farmed furbearers. They are carnivores, and are fed left-overs from our own food-production – e.g., the parts of cows, chickens, fish and other food animals that we don’t eat.

Farmed fur animals recycle food wastes into a beautiful, long-lasting and ultimately biodegradable clothing material, while their manure, carcasses and soiled straw bedding are used to produce bio-diesel and organic fertilizers, completing the nutrient cycle.

Fur animals are raised on small, family-run farms. And fur farms can thrive in regions where the soil is too poor or the climate too harsh for most other agriculture.

And, again, while not strictly a sustainability issue, it is reassuring to know that fur farmers provide their animals with excellent nutrition and care. Animal welfare is assured by legislation and various codes of practice, but, above all, because excellent nutrition and care are essential to produce high-quality fur.

Fur-Free Gucci Is Misguided and Hypocritical

As even this brief summary shows, Gucci’s new fur-free policy completely contradicts its CEO’s claims about "our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business."

Bizzarri also justified Gucci’s new policy by claiming that fur is “not modern,” a serious charge in the fashion world. But what could be more modern than using materials that are produced responsibly and sustainably, like fur?

Fur-free Gucci smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy because, as mentioned, Gucci has always been known for its leather products. Someone should tell it that leather is produced by scraping the fur from an animal hide.

Some argue that leather is a by-product of animals raised primarily for food. But some fur animals are also eaten, including various types of farmed sheep and rabbits. Beaver, muskrat and other wild furbearers also provide food for aboriginal and other trappers and their families.

Furthermore, not all leather comes from food animals – notably the python and other exotic leathers used extensively by Gucci. In fact, Gucci’s parent group, Kering, recently bought its own python farm in Thailand to ensure good welfare conditions for the reptiles its members use. If Gucci was concerned about the welfare of fur animals, instead of dropping this beautiful and environmentally sustainable material, surely it would have done better to inspect the fur farms that supply it, or learn about how wild fur production is regulated.

Perhaps the good news in this story is that Gucci's bizarre decision about fur provides an opportunity to begin a more serious public discussion about the real meaning of sustainable living. And companies like Gucci can play an important role in this discussion. But first, it would do well to do its research and review its ill-conceived position on fur.

If you want to tell Gucci what you think of its new fur-free policy, you can contact it here (options vary depending on region, just pick one). Include the URL of this blog post, and recommend viewing of Furbearing Animals: A Renewable Natural Resource, by the Fur Council of Canada.

Or you can email Gucci directly at: [email protected]
Or telephone: 1-877-482-2499.

SEE ALSO:

Does Gucci Really Want to Choke the World with Plastic Fur? By Mark Oaten, CEO, International Fur Federation

Gucci: Ethically Minded or Sadly Mistaken? Things that Make You Go Hmmm. FurInsider.com