Even those of us who think dressing up means jeans and a clean T-shirt have an opinion about "high fashion". Skinny models in bizarre outfits … we’ve all seen them in old copies of Vogue begrudgingly read in the dentist’s waiting room. And since high fashion loves fur, it can also influence our opinion of fur fashion in general, and not always in a positive way.

That’s right. High fashion, with all its excesses, is a double-edged sword for the fur trade. While those who understand it value its promotion of fur, the jeans-and-T-shirt crowd can be left thinking fur fashion is a lot of frivolous nonsense. Or worse, a waste of animal life.

So for all the fashion heathens among us, let’s learn more about how high fashion works and why it is so important to the fur trade. To this end, I interviewed our resident fashion insider, Alice, who has years of experience working in the luxury fashion sector.

Simon: The public’s view of high fashion, or haute couture, can be rather negative. Designers with exotic names making outlandish outfits for a handful of wealthy clients make it seem elitist and self-indulgent.

Alice: First let’s get our terms straight. Haute couture and high fashion are not the same and have different objectives. Haute couture describes a very small niche of the luxury fashion world, hand-making one-off pieces that only royalty and oil sheiks can afford. High fashion is a loose term for the collections of luxury designer brands that are for sale to the general public and influence trends in mass-market fashion.

Simon: Whatever they’re called, some of their pieces are so weird, no normal person could carry them off, so why bother?

Alice: If pieces look unwearable, it’s probably because they’re not meant to be worn. But they have a definite purpose; they represent the big ideas of a collection. These ideas are then tapered down into more normal items for the stores of the designer brands. Fast-fashion and mass-market brands then make them even more commercial and sell them on the high street.

So while a designer-brand show may feature an insane, brightly coloured fur coat with feathers and all kinds of things sticking out of it, its stores may not even have that coat. It might have a production run in single digits, with less volume and no feathers. Then a high-street store will make a bolero jacket with the same colours but fake fur. It gets massively tapered down.

And sometimes catwalk pieces aren’t for sale at all. These are called “press pieces”. Again, they represent the big ideas, but they look super spectacular because their purpose is to make the pages of magazines. So a stylist might look at a collection of sheared mink jackets decorated with beaded flowers, and then ask the atelier to make a mink bikini top and matching headband, covered in beaded flowers, and pair it all with a long skirt with a train. No one would ever go to the beach dressed like that, but it makes an impact on the catwalk.

Are Buyers of High Fashion Different?

Simon: When I need a new pair of cargo shorts, I don’t check Vogue first. I just head to the store and buy the first pair that fits. Are buyers of fur fashion so different?

Alice: Yes. Fur fashion is part of the luxury sector, and buyers of any luxury goods, not just fur, behave differently from buyers of $10 cargo shorts.

Most people with $10,000 and more to spend on a fur coat don’t just walk into a store and pick one they like. A seed has already been planted in their mind of what they want, and designer brands plant these seeds by having their clothes on the catwalk and being worn by celebrities and other influencers.

And when that happens, it’s very important for furriers and fur manufacturers to be on trend. At the last New York Fashion Week, rapper and style icon Nicki Minaj got a lot of media coverage in a $19,000 Oscar de la Renta fox coat. It’s likely that this style of coat is going to be popular at retail now, and the furriers may have even placed rush orders to get similar coats in stock. “Trickle down” would also see cheaper, less-flashy versions in fast-fashion outlets, maybe even made of fake fur.

Simon: Trickle down?

Alice: Yes, trickle down theory is when a designer brand sets a trend, and others follow suit with more affordable versions. There’s also “trickle up”, like if designer brands are inspired by street style or subcultures, like punk or hip hop. But for luxury goods like fur, trickle down is key.

Simon: So how far down does it trickle? Surely Canada Goose, known for its functional coyote-lined parkas, doesn’t care what designer brands are doing.

Alice: It certainly does. Canada Goose is known as a performance brand, but it’s already collaborated with French designer brand Vêtements, and I expect it to be influenced more and more by high fashion in the next few years. It gives Canada Goose credibility – a “cool factor” – to be associated with a designer brand, rather than just being known for functional parkas. And it will sell more of the regular coats just because it happens to have a couple of fashion-forward ones available.

A better example of these collaborations is H&M. While it’s known for its fast-fashion, it’s had huge success collaborating with a string of designer brands and celebrities.

SEE ALSO: 5 Reasons Why PETA Won't Make Me Ditch My Canada Goose

Simon: Critics of fur fashion say it’s “frivolous”, and of course they’re not referring to raccoon hats in Winnipeg in winter. They say that when fur is used for purposes other than keeping the wearer warm, the taking of animal lives cannot be justified. A real need must be met, and fur sandals don’t meet the standard. Even some trappers feel this way. They lament that they work hard all winter so someone can wear a pink fur bikini with pom-poms on.

Alice: That sounds like a great argument; no one wants to see animals being killed for no good reason. But where the fur trade’s concerned, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Furbearers are farmed and trapped above all to make cold-weather clothing, and if this clothing also happens to be fashionable, it does not lessen the fact that its primary purpose is to keep people warm. As for accessories, you must remember that animals are not killed for the purpose of making these. The vast majority of fur pelts, and certainly of prime pelts, are made into coats, and accessories are made from whatever's left. This includes scraps, parts like tails that are normally only used for trim, and the good parts of damaged or low-quality pelts.

A friend of mine once won a set of mink golf club covers in a raffle and, curious to know how much they were worth, asked around. It turned out they were very affordable because they were made from the pelts of farmed mink that died naturally before their fur had fully grown. He was a little disappointed, but also comforted to know that mink were not being raised for the express purpose of keeping golf clubs “warm”!

So accessories are very much secondary products to cold-weather clothing, and should actually be seen in a positive light because they demonstrate the industry’s dislike of waste.

SEE ALSO: Why Fur Is the Ethical Fashion Choice

Simon: Still, some stuff is perceived badly by some people, especially the silly stuff like furry bag charms or covers for iPhones. The fur trade seems to be courting criticism for appearing insensitive to the fact that animals have died, while producing items that don’t even help their core business.

Alice: What you call “silly” stuff, marketers call “fun” stuff, and they exist in all areas of retailing. And you’re mistaken if you think they don’t help the core business. It’s a proven marketing strategy that by offering fun items at low prices – entry-level items – more people will end up buying the high-end product you really want to sell. So if a girl buys a furry key-ring bauble and ear rings and all her friends think they’re awesome, then her next step might be to buy a fur scarf. And when she grows up, her attraction to fur may translate into a full-length coat.

Small, affordable items also generate exposure to friends of people who buy them, and open up debate about your product. Those iPhone covers, for example, have had an amazing amount of media coverage, all positive.

So if turning a small percentage of pelts into cute accessories opens up the dialogue about fur, makes it more accessible, and gets more people to wear fur, it makes perfect business sense to do it.

And as I’ve already said, animals are not killed for the purpose of making accessories. If anything could be said to show disrespect for animal lives it would be throwing the fur scraps away. Instead, they are used to create fun items that give people pleasure. There’s nothing wrong with that.

High Fashion Influences Us All

Simon: So to sum up, how important is high fashion to the fur trade?

Alice: Extremely important. While fur is on the catwalks, it continues to be a fashion item and is in demand in the fashion market. Without the fashion component, we will see many more "practical" fur pieces, such as parkas and more simple coats whose sole purpose is warmth, but less of the stylish pieces.

It’s vital that fur fashion appears in the media and that is achieved by putting it on the catwalk and on the backs of celebrities. No one is better at doing this than designer brands, and they also have the money to pay for advertising.

But remember that high fashion influences every sector of the fashion industry, not just the luxury sector. Any company involved in designing, producing or marketing clothing is constantly alert to what direction the market is taking. They follow current trends but also hope to predict future trends, and for this they look to designer brands, fashion media and celebrities.

So as consumers, we might think that high fashion is irrelevant to us and that we make independent decisions about what to wear. But that’s rarely the case. We are all subject to being influenced, and though we may not know it, high fashion influences what every one of us wears.

Let's start this month's roundup on a serious note – polluted water is serious, right? – and talk about synthetic fibres. Activists constantly promote fake fur as an alternative to real fur, but it is not a viable alternative. It doesn't keep you as warm, it doesn't feel as good, and it doesn't last as long. But worst of all, it is made from petroleum by-products, and synthetic fabrics are responsible for microplastic contamination in our food, in our water, and in the air. We are literally breathing in plastic pollution from synthetic clothing, and activists are still wasting their time protesting fur.

Speaking of activists doing stupid things, these Buddhist monks were fined for releasing lobsters into the ocean, because the creatures are now threatening the entire ecosystem. (They were not native to the area.) So now we are seeing not only microplastics in the polluted water, but destructive lobsters too.

This group stole a bunch of chickens from a small family farm – let's hope they are jailed. Other animal rights shenanigans from last month include Pamela Anderson's email to Canada Goose staff asking them to stop using fur (they've declined to do so), and these fashion week protests where activists were spitting on people (and the victims weren't even wearing fur).

PETA has turned its attention to attacking the wool industry (pictured), but as this writer explains, shearing sheep is absolutely necessary and the activists don't know what they are talking about. It's nice to see the Huffington Post taking a break from its animal rights coverage to publish a piece about how the movement is hurting people to protect animals. We're no stranger to fighting off the AR's, and our senior researcher wrote a piece recently about his years of fighting the anti-fur activists.

Trapping Not Harmful to Animal Populations

While California is trying to ban all commercial trapping (a bad idea for a state that sees frequent coyote attacks on pets), we've published a piece on how animals that are trapped commercially have very healthy populations – proof that regulated trapping does not negatively affect animal numbers. That said, we do think that trapping is best done out in nature, not from your sofa.

We were happy to hear that seal meat is back on the menu in Canada, this time in Montreal, and that one of fashion week's most talked-about celebrity outfits featured a fur coat.

Speaking of fur coats, these Canadian mink farmers are organising a winter coat drive – adding to the mountain of evidence we have that fur farmers aren't the evil people activists make them out to be. But then activists don't talk to farmers or visit farms, and as this writer explains, visiting a fur farm can only change your perception of fur farming for the better.

Let's end this roundup with a few of the other surprising stories we read last month (though nothing is as shocking as the microplastic-polluted water and air story we mentioned above):

Someone is trying to grow leather using biotechnology (and no animals).

Someone else is trying to make animal-free meat (pictured).

Hunters and vegans have a few things in common. (Trust us, this is a good read.)

And lastly, the least surprising story of the month: a feature on why people gave up veganism. (Hint: it's because they didn't feel well on a plant-based diet.)

The team at Truth About Fur has over 50 years of collective experience in the fur trade and we can confirm that a communications role in this field is not for the faint-hearted. It is a job where we are often on the defense, regularly need to react at the speed of light, and work with a fraction of the budgets available to our critics. We’ve been called every name in the book and yet, day after day, we come back to our desks and do our best to defend and promote this trade that we love. But lately, we are feeling a bit discouraged and, surprisingly, it’s not because of activist insults. It’s because, all too often, we see our own supporters – fur fans who are supposedly on our side – making statements that are directly hurting our industry.

To promote our industry, we explain the environmental credentials and other positive contributions of the fur trade. And while we aim to be a positive voice for our trade, we also know that discrediting the animal extremists who mislead the public about fur is part of the job. But one thing we don’t do is insult the very people we are trying to educate – consumers, media, political leaders. And yet, all too often on our social media channels, our “supporters” insult potential fur customers or fur fans by endorsing a very simplistic and erroneous vision of the battle lines in this difficult discussion.

Fur Fans Aren't All Conservative

There’s a common misconception that the people who support the fur trade are all “conservative” when it comes to politics. This simply is not true. While we have a great deal of support from conservatives, we know that many “center” and “left-leaning” people also support our trade. These people may be considered by some to be "liberals" or “tree huggers” but they believe that an industry that relies on the sustainable use of natural resources is the way forward for our planet.

There is also a misconception that the people who are anti-fur are all liberal. That is also wrong. Our social media team often checks the Facebook profiles of people leaving negative comments on our page. Many of them do show what could be considered politically liberal content. But many others show conservative content –including pro-Trump messages and support for the NRA.

So what does that say about the people who are pro-fur, and those who are against? It demonstrates that politics do not necessarily define a person’s understanding of our trade.

Even more importantly, we need to think about how we can make our industry and fur products attractive to more people. What kind of people? All of them. We already have considerable “right wing” support, it’s true, but there are still many who have not understood our message. And the liberals? We need them too! We need their support and we know it is ripe for the taking. The ethics and environmental benefits of our trade are attractive to so many people who consider themselves to be liberals. Many of them love the concept of living off the land, of using sustainable resources, and of buying good quality items that last a lifetime. There are many that could become fur fans with the right message.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that we are going to be stronger with more support. And given that North America is pretty much divided down the middle in terms of liberals and conservatives – it would be crazy to alienate either of those groups.

Our Cause is Stronger without Insults

If you think about it, it's not a formula for success to insult half the population on a page that is vying for their support. Just because an animal activist does something stupid, doesn’t mean that all liberals are to blame. And using works like “libt*rd” to describe the activists, who represent a very, very small percent of the population, is never going to help us to win over the majority of society. Even though many trappers and hunters may vote Republican, many potential consumers may identify differently. Why would we want to shut them out?

It would be wrong to say that politics doesn’t have a place on this page, because part of our job is to be aware of legislation that affects our trade and to ensure that politicians continue to support our industry. And research does show that more Republicans than Democrats believe that it is morally acceptable to use fur. But there is no place in this battle for insults about people’s political persuasions. Fact is, we often find excellent articles about the fur trade in left-of-center media and we have many supporters who lean left when it comes to politics. The activists are already aware that "animal rights" transcends tradition political labels: they now discuss how they can convert conservatives to their cause (let's make sure this never happens.)

So unless you are trying to sabotage our industry, please think twice about lashing out with simplistic political insults. Imagine a liberal coming to our page who is interested in learning about the how trapping works or the environmental benefits of wearing real fur – only to find themselves berated as “libt*rds”, tree huggers, snowflakes, and “lefties”. Do you think such rants will bring us new allies? What will newcomers to our page think if they encounter such language?

Truth About Fur Is Run by a Diverse Team

The trash talk is not just hurting our image, it is also hurting us. Truth About Fur is produced by a small team that includes what many would consider to be tree-huggers and (gasp) liberals (see Lefty Tree-Lover Catches Fur Bug). Our team and supporters include Muslims, Jews, and atheists; pro-choice campaigners, people of colour, and immigrants. We aren’t here to push our political or religious agendas, we are here to support the trade. So please: let's put politics aside and work together to create a space where everyone who appreciates fur, trappers, farmers, living off the land, and sustainability can feel welcome and help us to support this remarkable heritage industry.

July means Paris Fashion Week, and our friends at FurInsider.com did us all proud with six installments of commentary and glamorous pics of haute couture. Fur was plentiful, and hardly seems to raise an eyebrow these days – which is a good thing! Enjoy also Vogue's coverage of Fendi's haute fourrure show. Also abuzz with fur were the catwalks at FashionClash in the Netherlands.

And fur fashion has received some boosts from less-expected sources. Selfies of people in real fur are booming on Instagram, and UFC brawler Conor McGregor is a big fan of mink. Let's hope he wears this outfit when he battles boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. on Aug. 26!

Still on fashion, we published a blog post on the fur policy at Net-A-Porter. This on-line fashion retailer sells a lot of animal products (leather, suede, shearling, etc.), but – hypocritically, we say – not fur. PETA put the word out like it's a major shift in policy, but it's not. It hasn't sold fur for years.

On the down side, former "supermodel" Gisele Bündchen has chosen to endorse petrochemical fur over the real deal. "All great designers now do beautiful #fakefur," she wrote on Instagram, even though it's patently untrue.

Trapping Know-How

It's the quiet season for trappers, so it's good there's been no shortage of reading material. A must-read for Canadian trappers is the latest list of certified traps from the Fur Institute of Canada.

The Live Free & Trap blog, out of New Hampshire, produced a magnum opus, "Rise of the dumpster cats", on the state's growing bobcat population and the conflict it's creating. And talking of bobcats, a controversial new report says management doesn't take sufficient account of bobcats' value to ecotourism. A dissenting biologist says: “Just because somebody traps a bobcat doesn’t mean that the particular bobcat was a bobcat that was going to be viewed by a tourist ...”

Bears are in the news too, with animal rights groups all in a flap over the delisting of grizzly bears in Yellowstone. On July 31, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho assumed primary responsibility for their grizzlies from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Duluth News Tribune told us how researchers use foothold traps to monitor wolves (see above), and Trapping Today explained why the prices of furbearers vary not only by size and species, but also where they were trapped.

History buffs should eagerly anticipate the story of Hugh Kroetsch, employee of Hudson's Bay Company back in the 1950s, in an upcoming documentary called Last of the Fur Traders. And if you really want to get down and dirty, you might want to go rendezvous camping. Here's how to get started.

In local news: dog walkers in Erie, Pennsylvania have learned why it's not a great idea to feed coyotes; in Alberta, coyotes have been found with a tapeworm that is deadly to humans if untreated; and marten may be making a come-back in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

Fur Farming News

Fans of facts will want to check out the latest annual report on mink farming from the US Department of Agriculture.

We hope you will also learn from our blog post "Versatile mink oil: An under-appreciated resource". As chance would have it, there was also an excellent piece on how a mink farmer in Iceland uses his oil. Mink oil cosmetics were once all the rage. Is it time for a comeback?

In decidedly bad news, animal rights terrorists are presumed to be behind the release of 30,000+ mink from a farm in Minnesota. Thousands of the animals "freed" in this misguided act died shortly after. The reward for information leading to arrests now stands at $11,000.

Bits 'n' Bobs

We're always saying there's no contradiction in being an animal lover and a fur lover, and Aussie "socialite" Shane Pavlinovich certainly agrees! The "eccentric jewellery designer" loves vintage and ethically sourced fur hats, coats and scarves, teamed with "extravagant pearl necklaces".

And let's wrap up with a story that seems like a bit of fun but is actually not funny at all. Wildlife photographer Dave Slater is in a legal battle over some selfie pics taken with his camera by some macaque monkeys. We'd share one of the amazing pics, but it's all about copyright. Of course, PETA's involved!

Canada is celebrating its 150th anniversary of Confederation this year, and with it comes a lot of stories about Canadian fur history. If you want to learn about how the country was founded on the fur trade, then check out our piece entitled The Country that Fur Built: Canada’s Fur Trade History (pictured above). Life on the Line is an excellent interactive piece about whether trapping is outdated or a part of living heritage. (We all know it's the latter.) Other articles about Canadian fur history include this story about a man who ran a Hudson's Bay store in the remote North and a profile on a fur trader from the 1800's. Some people are going beyond the typical Canada Day celebrations, like this guy, who is paddling from Banff to Montreal to reconnect with his Metis ancestry.

While we are all celebrating this industry's heritage and Canadian fur history, there are some who are still trying to stop us, and everyone who uses animals as clothing or food. Yes, the animal rights activists are at it as usual, and now they are protesting fashion designer presentations, holding vigils for chickens, marching for an end to slaughterhouses (never gonna happen), vandalising statues, and disrupting army medic training. (Honestly, who doesn't want our armed forces to have the best possible medics on the ground? Jerks, that's who.)

Thankfully the media are not fooled by their actions. This piece explores how PETA uses deception (pictured above) and fake animal abuse videos to further its cause, and this article exposes how to tell if you are being manipulated by animal activists. This op-ed explains how the forces that shut down Ringling Bros. want to end a lot more than animal abuse, and this one looks at how the very farming developments that vegans oppose are what allowed them to be here today. A very worrying piece about how the SPCA spends more on lawyers than animals is sadly a common theme with animal rights or protection groups – many of them spend very little of their donations on the causes they are supposed to be fighting. But it isn't all bad news – Domino's Pizza has taken a stand against the activists by saying it will never cave to extremists and it trusts farmers to know what is best.

The thought of pizza makes us hungry, but how about pasta instead? One of our favourite Canadian chefs, Eric Pateman, has been cooking up a delicious seal Bolognese, and the Globe and Mail did a Q&A with Dion Dakins, who talks about whether seals are too cute to eat. Sealing is about more than sealers, of course, which is why we wrote about the other people involved in this trade. Since we are on the topic of wild meat, there's good news in Oregon where it has now been made legal to harvest roadkill.

Let's end with a few tips for summer

Need some new sandals? These fur ones by Zizi Donohoe (pictured above) were made for 7-Eleven.

Want to keep your pets safe? Keep them away from beavers.

Better watch out for bobcats, too, since their populations are rebounding after a decades-long hunting ban.

Need a coffee date this afternoon? If you are in San Francisco you might be able to have coffee with a rat. (Seriously.)

Want to keep the kids busy with a science experiment this summer? Try and replicate our fur burial experiment. It will teach them about biodegradation and the benefits of real fur!

Need a caddie for your golf game this summer? This furry guy has got you covered.

Undercover videos from animal rights groups came under attack last month for being dishonest and unfair. This is definitely not news to any of us, but it is nice to see the media paying attention. This article questions why the undercover videos showing "poor" treatment of a dog on the movie set of A Dog's Purpose were not released until a year later, to coincide with the movie's release. Suspicious at best. This piece explored the concept that the activists are not interested in the truth about what goes on at farms, because they only release highly edited videos, which are not representative of the truth.

In other activist news, a woman in a dinosaur suit turned herself in for scaring the horses pulling carriages in New York. We still don't understand how scaring and harassing animals can be part of a campaign to protect them. Vice published an article exposing an FBI investigation into animal rights groups, and this piece looks at how veganism comes at a price. If you care about protecting the fur trade against animal rights activists, read our definitive guide on how you can take action to support the people of the fur industry.

Sealing Season Here Again

May was a month for hunting seals, and this is a great piece on why support for sealing needs to be renewed (pictured above). Meanwhile The Guardian published a piece on the why sealing is misunderstood, and this op ed gives us reasons why we need to save our sealers.

There were some great features on trapping last month of which these are our top three picks. Vice published a story of a woman who left the city to trap on her family's trap line. And there were two "a day in the life" pieces, one about tagging along with a beaver trapper and another following a Labrador trapper.

Are you sad about putting your furs away for the summer? Vogue gave us some great tips on wearing fur for Spring (pictured). If you are shopping for new furs, then this shopping guide provides a great list of tips. Bad news if you were looking for a very particular, special vintage piece. The fur coat that was worn on the Titanic and then on a lifeboat already sold at auction, for a cool $80,000.

Let's end with a few good tips:

Buy Domino's pizza and thank them for supporting the farmers

Don't buy Lush cosmetics as they are apparently kicking farmers out of their store.

We suggest you stay away from sea lions, or risk being pulled into the water like this girl.

When you are shopping for your next Bentley, make sure it isn't one with mushroom leather seats (pictured). We think buying a car with vegan leather is a really fungi bad idea.

What are you doing to protect fur and the industry? The fur trade has faced many difficult challenges over the past few years. These include fast-changing lifestyles, new and cheaper (and usually synthetic) clothing materials, vertically-integrated companies, multi-national fashion-marketing giants ... and, of course, sensationalist animal-rights campaigns that spread disparaging and false information about our industry.

The fur trade has done a remarkable job of dealing with these challenges, especially considering its small-scale, decentralized and largely artisanal character. The increased use of fur in small pieces (vests, jackets), trim (on parkas) and accessories (hats, scarves, handbags) has made fur more accessible to more, and younger, people than ever before. We see more fur now on the catwalks and in the streets than we have for decades.

Nonetheless, we know we still have lots of work to do. Animal activists continue to spread misinformation that can confuse consumers. Their latest strategy is to pressure fashion and outerwear retailers to drop fur from their inventories. And such pressures can be very difficult for consumers and retailers to resist, especially if they are not sure whether the fur trade is responsibly managed.

The truth, like it or not, is that our industry is too small to expect our professional associations and breeder groups to solve these problems alone. We all have to pitch in to protect fur tradespeople and get our messages out to consumers, designers, retailers, media, politicians, and the general public.

Here are some ideas about things that YOU can do to help.  And we’d love to hear some of the other things that YOU are doing to let people know about our remarkable, heritage industry.

If you are a fur designer, manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer:

• Be active online. Comment on news articles and on social media, presenting polite and knowledgeable arguments to defend the trade. Even if people don’t comment back, people are reading. Let’s present ourselves as an industry that is confident about its processes.
• Answer customers' questions honestly, and if they press you about issues, respond accordingly. Have the information ready and know the facts. Our industry has often been misrepresented, so we need to be especially open with our customers.
• If you have a company website, add our link to your website so people can click through to get facts about the trade, and refer customers/associates/suppliers to TruthAboutFur.com
• Add the video The Fur Industry in 2 Minutes Flat to your website using this embedded link: <iframe width=“560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sydmyD8ouxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you are a trapper:

• Take guests out on the trap line from time to time. It may slow you down, but it is worth it. Read more on taking people out on your trapline.
• Volunteer to hold classes and teach people about what trappers do.
• Educate the young. The key to sustaining this wonderful activity and to protecting fur trapping is to get young people interested in it.
• Be active online about what you do, how you do it, and why you do it. Trapping is very complex and it is important to understand the benefits trapping brings to wildlife populations and how licenses fund responsible conservation.
• Ally yourself with hunters and fishermen. Sportsmen need to work together to strengthen and protect their rights.
• For strong debate arguments, check out our Q&A section about trapping.

If you are a fur farmer:

• Open your farm up to visitors. Inviting people onto your farm gives you the chance to educate them on how the industry works, and show you have nothing to hide. Contact your local or national fur farming association (Canadian Mink Breeders Association or Fur Commission USA) for information on how to organize such an event.
• Answer questions. Fur farming should be easy to defend. Animals must be treated well in order to have nice fur, and even the activists can't deny this obvious fact. If people have questions about the animals’ pens, food, and health, be honest and tell them what you do and why you do it.
• Remind people that fur farms are an integral part of the human food chain, and that the animals eat leftovers from chicken farms and fisheries.
• Be active on online. Many farmers show photos of their animals and the daily life of farm work. Being open and transparent about your work is key to ensuring we protect fur farming and get people to support it.
• Ally yourself with other farmers and support the farming trade. Sticking together is key to protecting the farmers of North America.
• For strong debate arguments, check out our Q&A about fur farming on our website.

For everyone who supports or works in the fur trade:

• Be active online! Comment on articles and social media. Share the truth, dispel myths, and remind people that there are lots of us that support the trade.
• Work hard to debunk myths and share positive fur trade information on all of your personal networks.
• Check out the Truth About Fur website to brush up on the facts, and refer people to it if they have questions about the trade.
• Support brands who sell fur, and try to avoid brands who have an anti-fur stance.
• Buy fur! Whether you are buying new, vintage, a coat, or an accessory, one of the best ways to support and promote this remarkable heritage industry is to buy and wear fur products.
• Support real animal welfare and conservation, not “animal rights”! Make sure you know the true agendas of any charities you support. If you care about pets, always donate to your local shelter and not the national “animal-rights” groups such as PETA and HSUS. Read up on charitable donations.
• When you wear fur, tell people why you do it. Be vocal about your support of the trade and don’t shy away from expressing it.

Stay in touch! If there is an important issue we need to address quickly, contact us by email, Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Do you have an amazing story to share? We want to post it in our Truth About Fur blog. Help us be the go-to place to represent the true image of the industry. Send us your beautiful pictures. We welcome your comments and contributions.

Some of our useful resources include answers to the most frequently asked questions:

• Are animals skinned alive for their fur?
• How are farmed mink killed?
• Is fur processing bad for the environment?
• How are fur animals trapped in the wild?
• What happens to the rest of the trapped animal once the fur is taken?
• Do fur farmers and trappers get a fair price for their products?

It's seal hunt season and with that comes the onslaught of lies and propaganda surrounding the hunt. This article describes how PETA is hurting the Inuit with its anti-sealing campaign while this one covers the food insecurity faced by the Inuit (pictured above) because of the decline of the seal skin trade. But it is not all bad news for the seal hunters; the Norwegian hunt has renewed interest thanks to a documentary, Angry Inuk, the Inuit seal hunt, which is having a very positive impact. And the lies about the suffering of the animals during seal hunt season are being exposed by articles such as this.

Since we are on the topic of animal rights, let's see what activists have been up to in the last month. Foie gras protesters outside a restaurant in the UK haven't given up, even though their antics seem to have resulted in increased trade for the restaurant. PETA found itself locked out of a LVMH shareholder meeting (boohoo for them). This Member of Parliament in the UK, whose party advocates veganism, was caught eating fish and has had to issue an apology. And we loved this article exploring the issue of white privilege in the vegan movement. Our blog finally put pen to paper on the very important and often confused issue about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights philosophies. (We'll give you a hint: the first is great, the second isn't.)

On the fashion front, this article does a good job explaining how a fur coat now represents status in menswear. Or you could just wear fur on your eyelids – mink, to be precise – as it is very popular in the world of eyelash extensions. If you are looking for some home decorating ideas, then look no further: this penthouse is practically covered in fur. Here's an important story for our vintage fur retailing readers: this store owner in San Francisco is being charged for selling endangered furs because she didn't realize that the laws changed last year. Speaking of old furs, here's how to make them last: store your furs properly (pictured above).

There's been no shortage of trapper features recently, and our picks include a feature on the Yankee trapper in Arkansas and this Yellowknife trapper following in his late father's footsteps. Since we are on the topic of tradition, read about Canada's trapping traditions here or learn about a new innovative fur product (pictured above) and the wonderful history behind it in this Truth About Fur guest blog post by Brenda Dragon. Good news for Northwest Territory trappers: the last set of auction results were very promising.

Next time you get in a debate with someone claiming there are "benefits" to fake fur, you may want to show them this article. It's yet another piece describing the serious environmental damage caused by synthetic fabrics.

Let's end this month's round up with some of our favourite animal stories.

This 15-foot python scares the heck out of us.

This beaver has added cattle herding to his list of skills (pictured above).

It's usually deer that get hit by cars, but in Canada, they've got humans getting hit by deer.

This article was first published in The Villager, March 16, 2017. 

As someone brought up in the Canadian fur trade and who has spent much of the past 35 years studying the environmental ethic of North America’s founding industry, I am troubled by the arrogance and ignorance displayed by self-appointed “animal-rights” activists protesting the opening of the Canada Goose boutique in Soho.

Responding to complaints about neighbors disturbed and consumers harassed, activists Nathan Semmel and Leonardo Anguiano recently argued in these pages that “it is solely the vile ethics of the Canada Goose corporation that brought about our presence.” (“Call of the Wild: Why we protest Canada Goose,” talking point, March 2):

By “vile ethics,” they mean that Canada Goose uses animal products — goose down and coyote fur — to make their remarkably warm parkas.

Goose down and fur are two of nature’s best insulators, but it is not surprising that these protesters object. Most of them are — or aspire to be — vegans, and embrace the radical “animal-rights” philosophy, which means they oppose any use of animals, even for food. Most Americans, however, do eat meat, fish, dairy and eggs. Most of us also wear leather, wool and silk. This does not mean we condone the mistreatment of animals. Research confirms that most people believe that humans do have a right to use animals, but only if four important criteria are respected — namely, that animals should be used sustainably, humanely, for an important purpose and with minimal waste.

Let’s see how the use of coyote fur stacks up against these widely accepted ethical criteria.

Sustainability: Only part of the natural surplus produced in abundant wildlife populations is used for fur today, never endangered species. This is assured by strictly enforced state, national and international regulations. Coyotes are highly abundant and expanding their range across North America; they are, in fact, the number-one predator problem for ranchers in many regions. There are also increasingly frequent reports of coyotes devouring pet dogs and cats. And even if we did not use fur, coyotes (and other predators) often must be managed to protect nesting birds, the eggs of sea turtles, and other endangered species. When fur prices do not provide sufficient incentive to control coyote populations, several states (and Canadian provinces) have been obliged to offer bounties. But if we have to cull some of these animals, surely it is ethical to use them.

Humaneness: Millions of dollars have been invested over the past 35 years in scientific research to ensure that humane methods are used to capture wild, furbearing animals. Many coyotes are now taken with quick-killing devices. Others are taken with live-holding traps designed to minimize injuries to the animals. These are the same traps used by biologists to capture and release wolves, Canadian lynx and other animals, unharmed, for radio-collaring (for research) or reintroduction into regions where they were previously eliminated. Clearly, these are not the diabolical instruments that activists would have us believe. Nor are nature’s ways of controlling wildlife populations — starvation and disease — necessarily preferable. A coyote with sarcoptic mange (a parasitic mite) may scratch itself raw for weeks before dying. Nature is not Disneyland. If humaneness is the concern, modern trapping methods may actually reduce suffering, by maintaining more stable and healthy wildlife populations than would occur naturally.

Important Use: Animal activists claim that the killing of coyotes or other animals for fur is “unnecessary”, and therefore morally indefensible. Leaving aside the tricky question of determining which, if any, products are really “necessary,” humans do need clothing, and fur is a natural, long-lasting and ultimately biodegradable material. By contrast, fake furs and other synthetics promoted by animal activists are generally made from petrochemicals, a nonrenewable resource. More troubling, recent research reveals that synthetic microfibers can cause considerable harm to wildlife. According to EcoWatch: “When washed, plastic microfibers break off and a single jacket can produce up to 250,000 fibers in washing-machine effluent. Less than 1 millimeter in size, they make their way through wastewater plants and into marine environments where they have been found to enter the food chain. Microfibers make up 85 percent of human-made debris on shorelines around the world, according to a 2011 study.” Perhaps natural fur and down are not such frivolous choices after all.

No Waste: Most of us are comfortable wearing leather because it is “the envelope that dinner came in,” but we may wonder what happens to the rest of the animals that provide fur. In fact, beaver and muskrat are often eaten by northern Cree and other trappers and their families in remote regions where store-bought food is very expensive and alternate income may be hard to come by. Raccoons, opossums and other furbearing animals also provide food in more southern regions. And while coyotes and other predators are not usually eaten by humans, their carcasses are returned to the bush where they feed birds, mice and other animals through the winter, when food is scarce. Nothing is wasted.

This short review shows that the North American fur trade does satisfy the four criteria that determine whether the use of animals is morally acceptable for most people.

Furthermore, while we all “care” about nature, most of us now live in cities with little direct knowledge about what really happens in the wild. Activists protesting against Canada Goose, for example, claim that “trapped coyote mothers leave behind starving pups.” They are apparently unaware that trapping occurs in late fall and winter when the young of the year are no longer dependent upon their parents.

Trappers, by contrast, live close to nature and have the knowledge — and a direct interest — to sound the alarm when wildlife habitat is threatened by industrial activity. It is trappers, for example, who lobby and work with timber companies to maintain uncut forest corridors for wildlife around waterways or important nesting areas. It is the destruction of habitat — not hunters or trappers — that threatens the survival of wildlife.

While animal activists like to see themselves as “progressive,” their words and actions reveal an arrogant disregard for the knowledge and values of the hard-working rural people who feed and clothe us.

None of this means that anyone is obliged to wear fur. But it does cast doubt on activist claims to have a “moral” justification for imposing their personal choices on the rest of us. If those promoting the radical “animal-rights” philosophy want to maintain any credibility, they would do well do show more tolerance toward those who make different choices. Too often, while preaching “compassion,” their actions seem to be driven by ideological fundamentalism, aggression and “alternate facts.” Surely, we have enough of that already in Washington.

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.

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.

Is fur an ethical clothing choice? The media often seem confused about this question, acknowledging the resurgence of fur in designer collections while uncritically reporting sensationalist animal activist complaints about this trend. The implied (and often explicit) message is that consumers are less bothered about whether fur is an ethical clothing choice, and more concerned about looking good. In short, "fashion trumps ethics". But is this true?

To answer this question, we must take a step back and ask what makes it ethical to use any animal product.

Some of the best work on this subject was done by the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada (1984-86). Public-opinion research conducted in six Western countries (the UK, France, West Germany, Norway, Canada and the US) showed that “there is no agreement on whether it is ethical or moral to kill seals. The choice is a matter of personal conviction.” [Report of the Royal Commission, Vol. 1, p. 23, 1986.]

The Royal Commission also found, however, that there is “substantial weight of opinion that if the killing of any wild animals is to be accepted as ethical, it should satisfy the following conditions”:

1. The existence of the species should not be threatened;
2. No unnecessary pain or cruelty should be inflicted;
3. The killing should serve an important use;
4. The killing should involve a minimum of waste.

Let’s see how the modern North American fur trade stacks up when measured against these widely accepted ethical criteria.

The Existence of the Species Should Not Be Threatened

This is a “conservation” or “sustainable use” argument. Simply put, there is no future in using up resources we depend on for our survival.

About one-half of the furs produced in North America today comes from farms, so there's no threat of extinction there. Furs taken from the wild, however, also come from abundant populations. Government-regulated trapping seasons ensure that we use only part of the surpluses produced each year in nature. Most species produce more young than their habitat can support to maturity. Animals that don’t survive feed those that do. Humans are part of this cycle and we too can use the surpluses that nature produces, year after year, generation after generation – so long as we protect and maintain the natural ecosystems that produce this bounty.

This is called “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”. It is a central pillar of modern conservation policy that was first promoted by the landmark World Commission on Environment and Development [Our Common Future, 1987], and now directs the work of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Thanks to excellent national and international regulations, North American furbearers that were once depleted in parts of their ranges have been restored, and more! Biologists believe that beavers are now as abundant as when Europeans first arrived, while coyotes, foxes and raccoons are more numerous in Canada than they have ever been. This is a real environmental success story.

So without question, the modern, well-regulated fur trade meets our first ethical criterion: the existence of species is not threatened.

No Unnecessary Pain or Cruelty Should Be Inflicted

This is the “animal welfare” argument, i.e., the belief that we have a right to use animals for food and other purposes, but only if we cause them as little suffering as possible.

The modern fur trade has taken very seriously its responsibilities to prevent unnecessary pain or suffering. North America is the world leader in scientific research to make trapping as humane as possible. This research provided the scientific protocols for ISO standards, Best Management Practices, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (1997).

Based on this research, state and provincial wildlife authorities determine which traps may be used for each species. Most species can now be taken in quick-killing traps or “sets”. For the others (e.g., larger predators including coyotes, foxes, lynx, and bobcats), live-holding traps have been significantly improved to prevent injuries. The new live-holding foot-hold (or “leg-hold”) traps, for example, are often used by biologists to capture and release (unharmed) wolves, lynx, river otters and other animals for radio collaring or re-introduction into regions where they were once (often intentionally) extirpated.

On fur farms, mink and foxes are provided with excellent nutrition and care; this is the only way to produce the high-quality fur required to compete in international markets. Farms in the US are certified by Fur Commission USA, while in Canada farmers follow codes of practice developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council.

So the North American fur trade also satisfies our second ethical criterion: the responsibility to prevent unnecessary pain or cruelty is taken very seriously in the modern fur trade.

SEE ALSO: NEAL JOTHAM: A LIFE DEDICATED TO HUMANE TRAPPING

If Animals Are Killed, They Should Serve an Important Use

Activists often claim that it is unethical to kill animals for fur because "no one needs a fur coat". Fur coats are portrayed as "unnecessary luxuries"; raising and killing animals for fur is therefore characterized as “frivolous use”. But is fur really a frivolous or unnecessary product?

Humans need clothing to survive, and in many regions warm clothing is essential. Of course there are other materials to keep us warm, but the best of them (wool, down, leather) also come from animals. Meanwhile, most synthetic fibres (including fake or “faux” fur) are derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, the extraction and transformation of which entails serious environmental risks.

Trapping, hunting and fur farming, it should be remembered, also provide food and important income for people living in rural or remote regions where alternative employment may be hard to find; fur is certainly not “frivolous” for them.

Then there is the need, in many regions, for furbearers to be culled annually to maintain healthy and stable populations, to preserve their habitat, to protect endangered species (e.g., by culling predators that attack ground-nesting birds or endangered sea turtle eggs), and to safe-guard human health, livestock and property. If furbearer populations must be culled, surely it is more ethical to use these animals for clothing than to discard them.

Last but not least, fur clothing is remarkably long-lasting, can be worn “vintage” or taken apart and remodeled as styles change, and will eventually biodegrade – all important environmental virtues.

So, in multiple ways, the modern fur trade satisfies our third ethical criterion: the animals serve important purposes.

If Animals Are Killed, There Should Be a Minimum of Waste

Most North Americans eat meat and therefore generally consider it ethical to use leather, a “by-product” that would otherwise be wasted. Fur, however, may seem more problematic if the rest of the animal is not used, as is often assumed. In fact, many wild fur-bearing animals  (beaver, muskrat and other species) also provide food for First Nations and other people, especially in northern regions where cattle and other livestock cannot easily be raised. Wild furbearers not consumed by humans are returned to the bush where they are eaten by mice, birds and other animals. Nothing is wasted.

Meanwhile, farmed mink and foxes are fed left-overs from our own food supply – the parts of chickens, pigs, fish and other animals that we don’t eat and that might otherwise go into landfills. In addition to fur, farmed mink provide oil for cosmetics and the preservation of leather. Their manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertilizers, to enrich the soil and produce more food, completing the agricultural nutrient cycle. Biofuels made from mink remains now power buses in Aarhus, Denmark, the world’s largest producer of farmed mink. Similar projects are being tested in North America.

So the modern fur trade satisfies our fourth ethical criterion: there is minimal waste.

As this brief summary shows, the modern North American fur trade satisfies all four of the criteria required to determine that fur is an ethical clothing choice.

Of course, this does not mean that anyone is obliged to wear fur. As the Canadian Royal Commission determined some 30 years ago, that decision is ultimately “a matter of personal conviction”. This has been confirmed by public opinion research conducted in recent years showing that about 80% of North Americans agree that wearing fur should be a question of personal choice.