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.

I received a phone call the other day from a very frightened fur retailer. Two young women had come into his store while he was serving a customer and begun lecturing him about the evils of selling fur. He had tried to stay cool and asked them to leave, several times, but they kept at him until, finally, he lost it and said things he wasn’t proud of. They had filmed him too; now his outburst was on an activist website and his Facebook page had been bombarded with comments accusing him of being a sexist thug.

“Am I finished?” he asked, shaken. “That’s not me, but they were so aggressive; honestly, I was frightened.” I told him to remove the threatening posts from his Facebook page – but to take screen-grabs first, for the record. I also advised him to make a police report about the women who had harassed him, and to ask the police to keep an eye on his store at night. (The windows of several fur stores in the same town were broken in the weeks that followed.)

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. An outerwear store that sells fur-trimmed parkas in Vancouver has endured rowdy protests several times a week for more than a year. Activists now often follow fur-wearers down the street, haranguing them. DxE (“Direct Action Everywhere”) activists invade department stores, intimidating consumers and thumbing their noses at store security. At the opening of new Canada Goose stores in New York and Toronto, protesters carried “F*ck Canada Goose” posters. (So much for compassion and intelligent dialogue!) “Fur police” recently patrolled the streets of Hamburg, Germany, lecturing fur-wearers and giving them “tickets”.

READ ALSO: "Meat of the Matter: Peace-loving avengers," by Dan Murphy, for Dairy Herd Management.

Fur is still a favorite target but any animal-based business can find itself under attack. An infuriating new tactic of animal rights activists is to blitz commercial Facebook pages with negative ratings and comments, as a Vancouver chef recently discovered when he added seal meat to his “sustainable and cultural foods” menu. (Ironically, activists often claim that the seal hunt is immoral because only the fur is used!)

Here are 5 reasons why animal rights activists are becoming more aggressive ... and why it will likely get worse before it gets better.

1. Aggression Works

Activists have learned that many retail stores – even those of large corporations – have a low tolerance for confrontation. Things were different when most furs were sold by furriers running multi-generational family businesses; fur was what they knew, and they defended it with passion. With fur now popular for trim and fashion accessories, it is sold in a much wider range of stores.

This is putting fur on more people than ever before, but it also makes retailing more vulnerable: if fur represents only a small fraction of your sales but generates 99% of your security and PR problems, caving in to PETA is a tempting option. Unfortunately, the message to animal rights activists is that threats and intimidation work.

2. Pop Culture

If you have seen a music video recently -- or follow much of what passes for political debate these days -- you understand that the vulgar, arrogant and often aggressive tone of animal rights activists (“F*ck Fur!”) is very much in tune with certain elements of contemporary culture. And because there’s no sign of popular culture becoming much more polite any time soon, we can expect the arrogance and aggressiveness of these activists to intensify too.

3. Animal Rights Activists Are Getting Frustrated

Cleveland Amory, founder of the Fund for Animals, began campaigning against the fur trade in the late 1960s, almost 50 years ago. Protests intensified in the 1980s and then, again, with the emergence of media-savvy organizations like PETA. The traditional fur coat was also challenged by more casual lifestyles and the availability of less expensive winter clothing materials.

But just when it looked like Western consumers were abandoning their furs, the trade reinvented itself. Suddenly fur is everywhere, not only on 70% of designer runways, but in the streets – as trim on coats and parkas, on handbags, vests, scarves and boots. As trim and accessories, fur is more affordable and is being worn by more young people than ever.

Like old-time Stalinists frustrated with the “false consciousness” of workers who didn’t support The Revolution, many activists have concluded that, if moral persuasion isn’t working, it’s time for more vigorous methods. “As long as they do the right thing, we don’t really care why they’ve done it,” says PETA executive vice president Tracy Reiman when asked whether companies give up fur to avoid harassment, rather than because they share PETA’s views.

4. Social Media Encourage an Escalation of Emotion

Animal rights activists have always used disturbing images, but mainstream media rarely broadcast the most gruesome of them. In the Brave New World of social media, however, the gorier the better. As PETA's Tracy Reiman says, “… we put out a video of rabbits that are having their fur ripped out, and everybody watches it.”

It is not hard to understand why normally compassionate people would be horrified by some of the images circulating on the Internet. If I thought these images really represented the fur trade, I would be against it too. So don't be surprised that some idealistic young people decide it’s time to take stronger action to end such (apparent) atrocities.

The anonymity of social media also encourages more radical and polarized opinions, in all types of politics.

5. “Animal Rights” Is a Fundamentalist Ideology

The previous four points provide ample explanation for the more aggressive tone of animal rights activists. A more troubling question is whether the “animal-rights” philosophy itself may inevitably lead to more aggressive behaviour.

Despite all the media coverage of PETA’s antics, few people – journalists included – understand the profound chasm separating traditional “animal welfare” values from the radical and comparatively new “animal rights” doctrine. Animal welfare refers to our responsibility to minimize suffering for the animals we use. Hopefully everyone reading this post agrees with this. Animal rights, by contrast, says that humans have no right to kill or use animals at all, even for food or important medical research.

A more troubling question is whether the “animal-rights” philosophy itself may inevitably lead to more aggressive behaviour.

But if we truly believe that killing and eating an animal is the moral equivalent of murdering and eating another human being, then how far should we go to stop such “crimes”? Seen this way, activists who become more aggressive or even commit illegal acts are not “going too far”; rather, they are reading their animal-rights philosophers correctly.

“Animal rights” -- like other fundamentalist doctrines -- does not allow for respect or tolerance of differing views. In this sense, the increasing aggression of animal rights activists is not an accident or an aberration. But if intolerance and aggression are the logical conclusions of “animal rights”, maybe it’s time we took a much more critical look at this radical new philosophy. This will be the subject of a future article.

Eating seal meat is not something many of us have tried. It's not a regular feature on restaurant menus, nor is it abundant in grocery stores. Vancouver restaurant Edible Canada made headlines in January when it announced that its menu for the restaurant festival Dine Out Vancouver was going to feature seal meat.

The two dishes, a pasta dish featuring pappardelle with seal mince and a starter of seal loin served rare, caught the attention of media and culinary enthusiasts, but where there are seals, there are activists. Not only did protesters turn up outside the restaurant, they also went on a cyber attack, downgrading the restaurant’s reviews on Facebook by posting hundreds of one-star reviews (since reversed, to an extent, thanks to our loyal followers; see below).

We had a chat with Edible Canada's executive chef, Eric Pateman, described as “one of the leading ambassadors of Canadian cuisine”, about eating seal meat, protesters, and Canadian cuisine.

Truth About Fur: You knew there was going to be some backlash, so why did you decide to go ahead and put seal on the menu?

Eric Pateman: It was the right thing to do. Part of what we do as a business is define Canadian food culture and seal has such an important historical as well as present-day context to it. By not doing it, we would have been doing a disservice to part of what we do as a business, which is educating and informing people on what it is that makes Canada so unique.

TAF: Did you have any plans in place to deal with the activists, or did you just deal with it as it happened?

EP: We definitely had had some conversations about what some of the potential backlashes could be, but we never anticipated the impact on social media that we saw. We expected some protesters, etc. ... The online impact was far more significant than we expected, but the in-person protests were less than we anticipated.

TAF: Well it is January, people don’t want to go outside, and it is much easier to criticize people anonymously from your computer.

EP: And most of the online attacks were international.

TAF: You posted on Facebook that the response to the seal meat was quite good. Can you talk about the feedback from customers?

EP: We had no idea how this was going to go, we thought it would be a great educational piece for the consumer. Obviously our customer base really likes the innovative and the obscure, and to try things that are truly reflective of our culture. When I looked at our numbers over the weekend, after the first three days [of the Dine Out Vancouver event] the seal dishes were the number one selling dish, by two to one over the next most popular dish, and the next was lamb heart. So we definitely attract a clientele who is interested in trying different proteins and dishes from across Canada.

[Editor’s note: lamb heart comes from a very cute, baby animal, but strangely there were no protests about that.]

We never anticipated that the pasta and the seal loin would do as well as they did. We didn’t make the call to add the seal loin to the menu until three days before Dine Out Vancouver. People were saying, “We really want to come in and try it, and we really want to taste it in its own right.” And almost every single table in the restaurant was ordering it. At the end of the day, the general perception has been incredibly positive. Ninety-five percent of the people who have tried it said “it wasn’t at all what I was expecting” to “it was better than what I was expecting.”

TAF: I expected it to be more liver-y. I didn't expect it to taste like steak.

EP: The big thing with seal is if you don’t cook it right, it does taste like liver and it does taste bad. It is very temperamental. I will be interested, when I am traveling across the Arctic circle to Newfoundland and going to the Festival of the Seal in the Magdalen Islands in March, to try other people’s interpretations of it. From what I have been reading online, the much more historical preparations are to cook it to death, and it comes across as a much more intense flavour, versus what we have done with the loin itself, keeping it rare. It mutes a lot of the flavours that come out with excessive cooking.

TAF: Do you think this is something you want to feature regularly?

EP: We are getting asked every single day whether we will keep it on our menu, and based on the response so far, absolutely. How we will keep it on the menu is yet to be determined. We are having guests ask for the loin in a larger portion - more than two ounces, more of a steak style. We might keep the pasta. We will sit down and evaluate that with the culinary team after Dine Out Vancouver and see what we want to do. Once the hunt is done and there is fresh seal meat, I can see us running a seal festival or an event around that.

TAF: I’ve frequently tried to find seal meat in restaurants across Canada and I have struggled to find it on menus. Have you had any feedback from other chefs, and do you think this might encourage them to put it on their menus?

EP: Absolutely. In the last week I have probably been contacted by five or six chefs, ranging from White Horse to Yellowknife to Calgary, and a few in Vancouver, all looking to get in contact with our providers. I can definitely see this starting to kick off. Someone had to be the one to jump in first, but I think we will start seeing other people adding it to the menus. We even had a fishmonger approach us if he could start carrying seal at his seafood store.

TAF: Throughout the dramas with the protesters, have you noticed how animal rights groups use the seal hunt as a money maker? Seals are abundant so there is no question about sustainability, and baby seals haven't been harvested since the '80s. What do you think of campaigners still using images of cute baby seals to raise funds?

SEE ALSO: EU SEALING POLICY IS HYPOCRITICAL, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC

EP: In all honesty, I don't know enough about that side of the industry. This was totally new to me, in terms of understanding a lot of the political ramifications and ties around it. Part of the reason I’m going to this seal festival, part of the reason I want to go out on the seal hunt this year, is to get a deeper understanding for myself personally. I had a couple of really good discussions both with the Humane Society and even PETA when they were protesting outside our restaurant the other day, we had a good chat and getting their take on things.

My job is to promote what Canada is, and I think one of the things that makes Canada so unique and special is that we are free to have a voice around things that are important to us, free speech, the ability to protest. I am not opposed to people doing what they are doing, though the cyber attacks were a little off mark, but I didn't have any issues with PETA showing up in front of our restaurant doing what they did. They have the right to do that. I hope to be far more educated by the summer with the hunt itself, really understanding it and all of the ramifications around it.

The Dine Out Vancouver event ends February 5th but keep en eye out for future seal meat specials at Edible Canada. And thank you to all the Truth About Fur followers who helped us get its rating back up on Facebook. Notorious seal-hunt opponent Paul Watson issued a call to his supporters to post poor (“1-star”) reviews, and 550 did just that, dropping Edible Canada’s average rating from 4.5 to 2.1 overnight. Truth About Fur and other responsible-use groups responded and within a week 5-star ratings caught up and pulled ahead. On the day of publishing this post, Edible Canada's average rating stands at 3.3. Check it out and post your review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

"How Is Your Day Going?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Leave Immediately!"

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

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

“Is this note yours?” I asked politely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Divisions in the Ranks

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

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

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

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

Join Your Sportsmen's Group

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

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

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

Deceitful Anti-Hunting Groups

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

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

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

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

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

FROM OUR WEBSITE: FUR PRODUCTION: TRAPPING

Unfortunately, this could happen to anyone working with fur these days, especially retailers selling any sort of fur or fur-trimmed products.

A veteran North American retail furrier – who shall remain nameless here, to protect the innocent – has participated for the past ten years in a high-profile fund-raising fashion show, in support of a local charity. About a month before this year’s show, he spoke with the organizers who confirmed that they were looking forward to working with him again. Then the animal-rights bullies showed up.

Just two weeks before the event, he received a call from the fashion-show producer. She informed him that the Events Committee had decided they could not include his products in the show this year. “One of the sponsors is against fur,” she said, as if this explained everything. The committee had made their decision and nothing could be done, she told him bluntly.

And that might have been the end of the story, except this retailer is not the sort who likes to be told that “nothing can be done” ... especially when it involves mindless kowtowing to anti-fur bigots. Sensing that the show producer was not open to discussion, he went above her head and contacted the charity’s Events Coordinator. What he did next should be an inspiration to all furriers – and, indeed, to everyone who believes in democracy.

Here is a summary:

1. First, he introduced himself and explained that his company had supported this charity event since its inception, a decade ago.
2. Then, he suggested that it wasn’t wise for a medical charity like theirs (they support palliative care) to give in to activist pressure tactics. Animal-rights bullies also oppose laboratory animal research, he reminded her. PETA-boss Ingrid Newkirk is on record saying that she opposes animal research even if it can find cures for AIDS or other terrible diseases. (He had the Event Coordinator’s attention now.)
3. And what about the retailers who were showing wool and leather products? Would they also be banned from the show if that was the next activist demand? (Hmmm ... maybe this wasn’t so simple after all?)
4. Then he asked what they were serving for dinner for the fashion evening ... (She was chuckling now.)
5. It was time to drive home his main argument: “Listen,” he told her. “We’re not saying that everyone has to wear fur...or leather…or eat meat and dairy either. Each of us can have our own opinions and make our own decisions. Isn’t that what democracy is all about? But that doesn’t give us a right to impose our ideas on everyone else!”
6. Finally, he promised to send her a link to a recent Truth About Fur blog post explaining how the modern trade is regulated and why fur is a responsible and ethical fashion choice.

She promised to speak with her superiors. And, sure enough, 24 hours later the retailer received a call from the charity’s CEO. It was Friday afternoon.

"Not the Way We Do Things"

“I wanted to call before the weekend so you wouldn’t have to worry; you’re back in the show,” she said. The activists were not “sponsors” of the event; they had bought a table, like many others. In any case, the Committee should never have made this sort of policy decision without consulting with her. “This is not the way we do things,” she said. The charity appreciated the support his company had offered for so many years; they were delighted that he was ready to participate again. Have a lovely weekend!

Two weeks later, the fashion-show evening was a wonderful success, with almost 500 people in attendance. “I was pleased to see that several of the charity’s board members placed bids for the fur scarf we contributed to the silent auction,” says the retailer.

“I was worried that the activists would make a fuss when my fur scene came on,” he says. “But there was nothing but applause. I found out later that the activists had cancelled their table when they learned that they couldn’t impose their will on the organizers. See how phony their support really was all along!”

The retailer sent a note to the CEO after the show, congratulating her on a wonderful evening – and thanking her for having the intelligence and integrity not to give in to the activists’ bullying tactics.

With fur season revving up again, we hope that his little story will provide encouragement to any retailer who is harassed by activists. Truth About Fur will be preparing a “tool kit” of resources you can use to defend your business, including blog posts like the one cited above.

And if you have a story about tactics that have worked for pushing back against activist bullies, please share it with us!

SEE ALSO: STANDING UP TO ANTI-HUNTING BULLIES - A CASE STUDY FROM ONTARIO

A recent on-line, anti-trapping rant by Born Free USA boss Adam Roberts ("What kind of person still traps wild animals?", Huffington Post, Sept. 7, 2016) underscores how trappers are on the front line in the war against humans using animals – a war in which the weapons of choice are misleading images, inflammatory rhetoric, and exploiting the information gap between rural and urban cultures.

Roberts' attack drives home how important it is to explain, again and again, the vital role trappers play in responsible wildlife management and conservation.

Like other "animal-rights" groups, the folks at Born Free rage against a wide range of animal-use activities. This time, as part of their "Victims of Vanity 2" campaign, they are promoting an “undercover” trap-line video showing “atrocities” that they claim “occur regularly across America”.

“What kind of person purposely destroys a beaver dam and sets a ‘wall of death’ of Conibear traps," asks Roberts, "knowing that the unsuspecting beavers will return to repair their handiwork – only to be possibly smashed across their abdomens and drowned?”

The insinuation is that such traps cause terrible suffering. Born Free's own video, however, shows beavers that have clearly been struck by the trap bar across the back of the neck, breaking cervical vertebrae and causing rapid death, just as this quick-killing trap is intended to do. These traps were developed through several decades of (on-going) scientific research to provide the most humane possible methods for controlling wildlife populations.

North America’s world-leading humane-trap research program has provided the scientific basis for comprehensive state and provincial trapping regulations, trapper-training programs, ISO standards, Best Management Practices, and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards.

SEE ALSO: Neil Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping

Thanks to this pioneering work, the time-to-death produced by quick-killing traps like those shown in Born Free's video is now measured in seconds. Roberts knows, however, that most of his readers live in cities and have little real contact with nature. People who find their meat neatly wrapped in cellophane on grocery store counters are easily shocked by pictures of dead animals, no matter how humanely they were euthanized – especially when cued with sufficiently emotional rhetoric.

Similarly, the live-holding devices used for capturing larger predators – like the coyote shown in Born Free's video – are not diabolical instruments of “torture”. Modern, live-holding foot traps are used by wildlife biologists to capture and release – unharmed – wolves, lynx, river otters and other animals for radio-collaring or reintroduction into regions where they were previously extirpated. To claim, as Roberts does, that such traps “have remained relatively unchanged for 400 years” is nonsense.

Should We Kill At All?

But what about the bigger question Roberts implicitly raises: should we really be killing wild animals at all?

In fact, there are many reasons why wildlife populations often must be managed. Overpopulated beavers can completely “eat out” vegetation in their region; the population will then crash and there may be no beavers at all for many years. Regulated trapping can smooth out these boom-and-bust cycles, maintaining healthier and more stable beaver populations. This is one reason why biologists believe there are now as many beavers in North America as there have ever been. There can, however, be too much of a good thing: beaver dams in the wrong places can flood roads, fields, and forest habitat. When your basement (driveway, back yard) is flooded, who’re ya gonna call: Mr. Roberts ... or your local trappers’ association?

Meanwhile, coyotes are the number-one predator problem for sheep and cattle ranchers, and many states and provinces have been obliged to offer bounties to keep their populations in check. Coyote, fox and raccoon populations are also culled to protect endangered ground-nesting birds or sea-turtle eggs. Overpopulated foxes, skunks and raccoons are prime vectors for rabies and other diseases that can be transmitted to humans and pets. For these and many other reasons, there will always be a need for trapping, whether or not anyone buys fur. Without a market for fur, however, these management efforts would be paid for by the government – i.e., by tax-payers – as they now are in many parts of Europe.

SEE ALSO: Why fur is the ethical clothing choice

Trappers protect nature in other ways that are not often publicly recognized. While we all “care” about nature, most of us now live in cities. Trappers are our eyes and ears on the land, sounding the alarm when nature is threatened by inappropriate resource extraction or industrial activity. Trappers' associations across North America are on the front lines to ensure that forestry practices respect the needs of wildlife, for example by leaving a swath of uncut trees along watercourses. And, like the canary in the mine, trappers are the first to spot changes such as reduced reproduction rates among mink that may signal industrial pollution upstream. Harvesting data, including the sex and age distribution trends, provide vital information about the health of our wildlife populations.

Most important of all, nature is not a museum. Most wildlife species produce more young each year than their habitat can support to maturity. The ones that don’t survive feed those that do. We are part of nature and we too can make use of the surpluses that nature produces – year after year, generation after generation – so long as we protect the habitats and ecosystems that provide those surpluses. This is called “the sustainable use of renewable natural resources”, a central conservation principle promoted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other conservation authorities. (By contrast, the synthetic materials that animal activists would have us wear are usually derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource.)

Animal Abuse

Does all this give us the right to abuse animals? Absolutely not.

The Born Free video also shows a trapped coyote being kicked, prompting Roberts to ask, "What kind of person watches a tethered and helpless coyote writhe in pain and distress, unable to move because of the intensely unforgiving steel jaws clamped to her paw, kicks her in the side, and then finally shoots her in the chest so that her lungs fill with blood, and she dies a miserable, suffocating death?"

Most trappers would be disgusted by this scene. There is no excuse for kicking an animal, ever. Furthermore – Roberts' "intensely unforgiving" rhetoric aside – every trappers' association and trapper-training manual teaches that live-trapped animals should be killed quickly and humanely with a direct shot to the head. But this completely unacceptable behavior of one individual does not give Roberts or Born Free the right to smear the reputations of more than 200,000 North American trappers.

On the contrary, as society becomes more interested in protecting our natural environment, it is time that we learn more about these remarkable and knowledgeable men and women – the small minority among us who continue to live close to the land.

What kind of person still traps today? Far from the grotesque caricatures that animal activists like to portray, in many real and practical ways, today’s trappers are the true guardians of nature.

Sensationalized videos claiming to show “animal abuse” are sadly a fact of life these days for animal agriculture, and they’re often promoted (if not actually filmed) by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. One such video, dealing with wool production from Angora rabbits, premiered in 2013 and has gone unchallenged - until now. An Angora farmer in the US contacted us to raise some real concerns about this video, which we think are worth sharing.

Before dissecting the video, let's start with a backgrounder on Angora wool production.

There are two distinct types of Angora rabbit: those that moult, and those that don’t.

Those that moult have their wool plucked every three or four months, just before moulting begins. Plucking produces the best wool because most of the guard hairs are left behind, but it is time-consuming. Plucking leaves in place the incoming coat, although one breed, the French Angora, can be fed a depilatory which results in the exposure of bare skin. Here's a video showing how to pluck an Angora properly.

Angoras that don’t moult are sheared. Because the guard hairs are included, the wool is not such high quality, but collecting it is quicker and the yield is higher because wool can be sheared even from sensitive areas of the rabbit's body. Shearing is therefore more common in commercial operations. The most important commercial breed is the high-yielding and virtually mat-free German Angora. Ninety per cent of Angora wool production today is in China, and almost all Chinese farms raise German Angoras. Here's a video showing how to shear an Angora properly.

Show Time

OK, it's time to watch the main attraction. If you find videos of animal cruelty hard to stomach, just give it a miss and take my word.

0:10 – 1:03: This rabbit is almost certainly a non-moulting German Angora, even though it looks very similar to a moulting French Angora. We can tell it's a non-moulting breed because its legs are tethered to what is called a stretching board. These are sometimes used, but not always, when rabbits are sheared.

PETA describes the stretching process as follows: "During the cutting process, their front and back legs are tightly tethered – a terrifying experience for any prey animal – and the sharp cutting tools inevitably wound them as they struggle desperately to escape." In reality, while rabbits being stretched for the first time might be nervous, they soon learn to relax. Stretching keeps the rabbit still and pulls the skin taut, thereby preventing nicks and cuts from the shears - the total opposite of what PETA claims. Here's an excellent video demonstrating how stretching is done.

Oh, but what's happening now? Having set the rabbit up for shearing, the man is plucking it right down to its skin! He is also applying far greater force than is ever needed to pluck a moulting breed. This is all wrong for two reasons. First, the rabbit is obviously in pain. Second, as US Angora farmer and advisor on this blog post Dawn Panda says, this could be called "worst business practice". "We see the wool being yanked off, guard hairs included, in a manner that will ruin the coat for several cycles," says Dawn. "It will damage the hair follicles and greatly reduce the quality and value of future harvests as new coats will grow in coarser and hairier. No one trying to make money would do that."

This raises a disturbing question. Are we seeing a non-moulting German Angora being forcibly, and very roughly, plucked just for the camera?

READ ALSO: "Saving Society from Animal 'Snuff Films;". Fur Commission USA.

1:04 - 1:17: Here a rabbit is being sheared, so we don't see any pink skin. It appears calm. At this point in the video, it is not clear whether this footage and the footage of a rabbit being violently plucked were shot on the same farm. We'll come back to this because, if all the footage is from one farm, the question is raised why one rabbit would be plucked and one sheared.

1:18-1:22: Here a rabbit that has just been sheared is shown suspended in the air by its front legs. This makes no sense, Dawn assures us. There is no part of Angora husbandry in which a rabbit would ever find itself in this situation. It can't even be claimed the rabbit fell off its stretching board because it's far too high. Once again, we can’t help but wonder if this bizarre scene was staged for the camera.

1:36-2:02: Here we see a parade of seven rabbits in their cages. Of these, the first three still have hair on their torsos and have been sheared. The next three have been plucked right down to their skin. The last rabbit cannot be seen clearly.

This scene suggests that the violent plucking at the beginning of the video and the shearing that followed took place on the same farm. And since commercial farmers generally don't have mixed herds of moulting and non-moulting rabbits, we can also suppose that all the rabbits shown are non-moulting German Angoras. The burning question is now unavoidable: Was the violent plucking of a non-moulting rabbit in the opening sequence staged for the camera? It would not be normal practice on a commercial Angora farm, insists Dawn.

"If animal lovers would use their heads, they wouldn’t be taken in by sensationalist publicity stunts," she says. "However, the addition of poignant music seems to ensure that one’s heart is going to overrule one’s head and voila! Misinformation is spread exponentially, the lie repeated until it’s accepted as fact. There are a number of excellent teaching videos on plucking and/or shearing Angora rabbits on YouTube; the lack of screaming, struggling or any pain is the norm, not the exception. This PETA video certainly does not reflect the reality of Angora farming as I know it!"

Postscript

If PETA's Angora rabbit video was indeed staged to misrepresent normal practice, we should not be surprised. This ignominious tactic by animal activists traces its roots all the way back to 1964, when the urban myth about seals being "skinned alive" began with a film that was later proven to have been staged.

While people have a right to believe that humans should not kill or use animals in any way, they lose all credibility when they manipulate images to attack the reputations of those they disagree with.

COOL FACT #1: Fur may have saved the human race

New research suggests humans (Homo sapiens) survived the last Ice Age and Neanderthals didn’t because humans were serious about fur clothing. Animal remains around Neanderthal sites lack evidence of furbearers, while human sites have fox, rabbit, mink and notably wolverine - the same fur still preferred today by Canadian First Nations for hood liners.

COOL FACT #2: Everyone's heard of the California Gold Rush, but how about the California Fur Rush?

In the early 19th century, trappers came from far and wide to the US west coast to harvest huge populations of furbearers. It was these trappers, not the gold prospectors who followed, who opened up the west and put San Francisco Bay on the trade map. But no one remembers because no one named a football team after them. Go 49ers!

COOL FACT # 3: Beaver butts are used in food flavouring

Next time you see the words "natural flavouring" on a food package, it might be referring to Castoreum, secreted from the castor sacs of beavers located between the tail and the anus. Usually it's used to simulate vanilla, but it can also pass as raspberry or strawberry.

COOL FACT #4: The fur trade determined much of the Canada-US border

The search for fur drove Europe's exploration and settlement of North America, and many of today's towns and cities began as fur-trading posts. In fact, much of the border between Canada and the US traces the territories once controlled by Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company and the Montreal-based North West Company.

COOL FACT #5: Mink farming plays a key role in our food chain

Have you ever wondered where all the animal leftovers from human food production go? Fish heads, chicken feet, expired eggs, spoiled cheeses? If you live in fur-farming country, chances are they go to make nutritious mink food. And the mink manure, soiled straw bedding and carcasses are composted to produce organic fertiliser to enrich the soil, completing the nutrient cycle to produce more food.

COOL FACT #6: Mink wastes provide biofuel

In Nova Scotia, Canada, pilot projects are transforming mink wastes into methane for bio-energy production. In Aarhus, Denmark – the country that produces the largest number of farmed mink – the public transit buses already run on mink oil.

COOL FACT #7: Mink carcasses make great crab bait

Crabs will eat just about any seafood you offer them, but so will seals and sea lions, and they'll trash your crab pots to get at it. Enter mink bait! Crabs find their food by smell, and apparently the smellier the better because they love mink musk. But seals and sea lions can't stand it and will give your pots a wide berth!

COOL FACT #8: Canada's beaver population has never been bigger

The national animal of Canada has been prized for its luxuriant fur for hundreds of years, yet wildlife biologists believe there are as many today as there were before Europeans arrived. They also believe coyotes, foxes and raccoons are more populous now than ever. Truly modern trapping, regulated to allow only the removal of nature's surplus, is a perfect example of the sustainable use of renewable natural resources!

SEE ALSO: Abundant furbearers: An environmental success story.

COOL FACT #9: Farmed mink enjoy company so farmers house them in pairs

After being weaned from their mothers, farmed mink are often raised in pairs, preferably a brother and sister, and sometimes even threes. Farmers have learned that keeping siblings together results in calmer and healthier mink.

COOL FACT #10: Fur garments are very labour-intensive

Fur garments are created individually, with all the cutting and sewing done by hand. Not counting all the work involved in producing the pelts, an “average” mink coat might take 35-40 hours of hand work, while an intarsia sheared beaver by Zuki could take 100 hours. That's longer than it now takes to assemble a car!

BONUS FACT: Animal activists have no sense of proportion

Each year, North Americans use about 7 million animals for fur. That's one sixteenth of one percent of the 12 billion animals they use for food. Yet animal activists focus more attention on the fur trade than on all other livestock industries combined. Go figure!

There's a common misconception that if you wear fur in public, you’ll get red paint or pig's blood thrown on you. This is an urban myth that's been around for decades, and we are here to reassure you that it will not happen! In fact we, and others, can’t find any evidence of this ever having happened to a regular person, and believe incidents involving celebrities can be counted on the fingers of, well, two fingers!

So prevalent was this myth in the 1980s and '90s that some North American furriers offered to clean their customers' furs for free if they were attacked with paint. But they never had to follow through on their pledge because it never happened. In fact, some animal activists even complained that the myth of attacks with red paint was invented by the fur trade to discredit them!

So, to answer the question, no, you will not get paint thrown on you if you wear fur. Here’s why.

1. Animal rights activists don’t carry around buckets of paint or blood in the hope they will find someone to throw them on. It is massively inconvenient to have a bucket of paint in your bag, plus it might spill onto your vegan energy bar.
2. Most people cannot distinguish fake fur from real. Not only does fake fur look very realistic these days, some of it even feels real. Would an animal rights activist risk attacking a fake fur wearer by throwing a bucket of paint on them? Not likely.
3. It is illegal. Not only is it obviously illegal to throw paint on a stranger for any reason, if you throw it because you think that person is wearing real fur, in the US you could be classed as an animal rights terrorist. Only a fool would risk 10 years in a federal prison for throwing paint on someone who might not even be wearing real fur.
4. It is counter-productive. Fur lovers are not easily cowed by animal rights activists, and if one of them has their fur ruined with paint, they will probably just replace it. And since fur coats are frequently insured, they won't even have to foot the bill. What is the point of destroying one fur coat, when it is only going to be replaced with another?
5. Animal rights activists rarely commit crimes in public. They protest, shout, take their clothes off and are really annoying in public, but rarely commit crimes in public. Instead, they vandalise farms under the cover of night or sneakily film animals being “mistreated” for months before showing anyone the evidence. Or they threaten violence in the comments section of an article without revealing their real identity. Does this sound like the type of person who is brave enough to throw paint on a passerby in the middle of the street? No.

If you're concerned about other crimes that may be committed against you and your mink coat, consider this. Spitting on someone is a crime and leaves DNA. Plus CCTV cameras are everywhere. At worst, you might be at risk of having a post-it note stuck on your back, but even this childish prank happens very rarely.

So confident are we that wearing fur is safe, we set out to prove it! A few years back, one of our team wore visible fur pieces in public for 100 days over the winter. Mostly she was in Vancouver, Canada, a hotbed of anti-fur sentiment, but she also spent time in London, England, also reputed to be intolerant of fur. The result? Lots of compliments, not a single negative comment, and of course, no paint attacks. The experiment, called 100 Days of Fur, confirmed that fur is a very safe fashion choice.

Of course, animal rights activists do like their publicity, so celebs should be a more attractive target, right? But even then, our count currently stands at two: the late comedian Joan Rivers once got red paint thrown on her sable, and Vogue editor Anna Wintour once got hit with "fake blood". If you're a celebrity who's been sloshed with red paint, please tell us about it, and we're flattered you're reading our blog!

The Sportsmen’s Alliance is a US organisation that protects the outdoor heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting in all 50 states. Between fighting in the courts, political lobbying, and countering campaigns by animal activists, they are kept busy. We talked to Vice President Marketing and Communications Brian Lynn about trappers, hipsters and sound bytes.

Alexandra: What percentage of your members are trappers versus hunters and fishermen?

Brian: I’d say somewhere between 10 and 20%. It’s not a huge number, but the trappers are the most active, passionate, and engaged audience there is.

Alexandra: Interesting you say that, because we think that too.

Brian: Trappers are the ones on the front lines. They are constantly under attack.

Alexandra: Are you referring to the amount of legislation that people are trying to put into place to try and ban trapping?

Brian: Yes. Animal rights organisations, legislation, the ballot box – trappers are constantly under attack. Whether it is changing the seasons, eliminating the seasons, or regulating traps, they are getting hammered left and right.

Alexandra: Do you think that trappers are getting attacked more because they are fewer in number? Or perhaps because in the US hunting is more associated with a weekend pastime?

Brian: It is both. There aren’t as many trappers, so it is more of a fringe endeavour. Also it lacks the idea of a sport – of you versus the animal. To the uninitiated, it just seems like you are going out there, putting some bait out, and whether a wolf, bobcat, bear, or your dog comes along, they get snapped up and killed cruelly. It looks barbaric, and it is a hard sell for us to protect. It is an easier sell to misrepresent. People already are ignorant about it; urban people are like, “You do what?” It is a harder thing to protect because of the ignorance, and it lacks the perception of sport and the “you versus the animal.”

Active or Passive Management

Alexandra: It's interesting how urban folk don’t mind trapping when there’s a coyote eating their cats, or beavers flooding their home.

Brian: That’s the whole thing. People say, “This doesn’t seem fair, that doesn’t sound right,” until it impacts them. Once the deer come in and start eating their petunias, now they're mad. Or they're hitting deer with their car. Now they want something done. Don't kill the bears until the bears start eating your kids. It boils down to active management versus passive management.

We did a piece on defensive trapping a couple of months ago in our newsletter, and without trapping, state agencies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on trapping nuisance animals and flooding. Nobody understands that until it happens. The animal rights activists try to couch it as, “We don't need to manage populations." They try to pass off the Disney idea that “nature will balance itself”, which never really happens. But even they are saying passive management is ok. When the mountain lion becomes overpopulated and one starts eating their cats, then it's ok for the state to come in and kill that one lion. Well, it costs a ton of money, and it's not fixing the problem. With active management, you are mitigating the booms and busts and managing them actively with hunting and trapping. The animal rights groups just want to let everything go wild, and passively manage it when it becomes an issue with humans, which is just not going to work because we see disease, starvation, plus human-wildlife conflicts.

Alexandra: What are some of the biggest issues that you are dealing with right now, and have the kinds of issues evolved much over the past 20 years?

Brian: They go in waves and trends. In the 1980s, animal rights groups went after bow hunting, in the ’90s they went for mountain lions and some bear-hunting tactics. Last year we saw a lot of dog-related activity: kenneling, breeding, selling legislation. A lot of it is aimed at puppy mills, but if enforced to the letter of the law, it will stop hound hunting, kenneling, or selling those dogs.

We also saw a lot of apex predator issues – black bears and wolves. And now we are seeing them setting the table to come back for more of what they attacked in the ’90s - black bears and mountain lions in the west, and the Great Lakes wolves.

They hit something hard, in multiple states, for a couple of years, then let it rest. They let the social consciousness of the non-hunters absorb it a bit, they’ve made it an issue. Then they let their fundraising base rest, then come back and hammer it again several years later. It makes for a better news story again. Then it seems like a big issue that keeps coming out so they can get more funding, and it psychologically resounds with the public. “Oh, this is an issue, we need to do something about this!”

Great Lakes Wolves, Maine Bears

Alexandra: What are some of the activities that you do to fight the activists, and which campaigns have been successful?

Brian: Right now we are the lead on the Great Lakes wolves lawsuit. It is the Humane Society of the United States vs. the Sportsmen’s Alliance, the Department of the Interior, and the State of Wisconsin. So that is one we have been fighting for several years, and that should be moving through the court system, and we are appealing the last decision that was made in December 2014.

One of our more successful campaigns was the Maine Bear Ballot issue in 2014. The HSUS decided to go after bear hunting in Maine and hired a California firm to collect signatures and force it onto the ballot. The HSUS just self-funded the whole thing. If that had been successful, it would have basically put an end to bear hunting in Maine. It would have removed the use of traps, bait, and hounds to hunt bears, and that is 93% of the harvest. We went in, organised the grass roots groups, bought air time, created the messaging, and we ended up beating them by 8 points. And there was a couple of lawsuits out of that, that we fought and were successful in. We were successful all the way around and have a good base set up to protect it again, should they come back, and they have stated they are coming back again to stop it.

The thought is that they will just go after hounds and traps, because few people use these, so most people don’t care. This is when we get into apathy within our own ranks. If HSUS removes 85% of its opposition and 85% of its opposition’s funding, those who remain make easier targets.

"Sticking Up for One Another"

Alexandra: Some graphics in your social media send a message about uniting hunters, fishermen and trappers. What is the thinking here?

Brian: We need to be sticking up for one another, despite method of take. Even if you don’t participate in trapping and you don’t use bait, we can’t stand around and say, “That’s doesn’t affect me.” Once hound hunting falls, once bait hunting falls, once trapping falls, they are coming after what you do want to do. We need to be united regardless of how we are participating in these activities.

Alexandra: What percentage of Americans do you believe support hunting, trapping and fishing, and how many are opposed?

Brian: Hunters and anti-hunters are about the same size, 5-10% of the population. And all of the polls show that 75-80% of the general public support hunting as a management tool. That’s great. But the problem is that all that support goes right out the window as soon as emotion gets into it. People's minds are changed really quickly if they are shown an animal flopping around in a trap or a dead trophy shot. We move from the logical “That makes sense, I support hunting,” to the emotional “Oh, but I don't support it in this instance. It seems cruel.”

The other side can just throw words around like “slaughter” and sway those non-hunting voters.

Our biggest challenge is telling our story, why we have to do it, why it makes things better, the funding of conservation, managing populations, habitat, carrying capacity of the land. That’s a long story which can be boring if you aren’t into it, and if there is legislation or a ballot initiative, and a news anchor puts a microphone in your face and you try and explain carrying capacity of the land and funding of conservation, it is long, boring, and not sound-byte stuff. Then they ask the other side why we need to stop it and they say, “It's cruel, they are slaughtering animals with babies.” There’s your sound byte.

"Hipster Deal Big Move Forward"

Alexandra: Have the demographics of your supporters and members changed? There is a hipster trend now, with people doing things themselves, growing their own food and maybe hunting. They were traditionally more on the left of the political spectrum, whereas hunters tend to be on the conservative side. Do you see this new demographic supporting outdoor activities?

Brian: We are seeing a bit of a bump, which is great from a branding and messaging perspective. This is important for the hunting and trapping industry in general, but here at the Sportsmen’s Alliance we are very engaged, political, more hardcore. The new people coming in are a more holistic type of person, who may not be political.

For the broader industry, though, the whole hipster deal has been good. From the perspective of acceptance within the mainstream, those people are sharing with other people, within city life. It is about taking responsibility for their food, and them relaying their message in a way that their friends can understand. That’s where I see it as being the biggest move forward for the industry. How do you reach someone in LA? We aren't going to reach some hipster in LA, but some guy at an LA party who went out, harvested his own food and killed a deer, that is going to do more good than anything we are doing as an industry to disseminate the proper message.

Alexandra: Do you cooperate with a Canadian counterpart?

Brian: There is some run-over, but nothing official. In Maine, we are involved in two lawsuits on trapping Canadian lynx. In Maine, Canadian lynx are on the Endangered Species List, but north of the border they are not.

There are incidental take permits, and a certain number of Canadian lynx can be caught in traps without the trapper or the state being in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The HSUS is trying to stop that; they are trying to get the incidental take permits revoked. If they succeed, that would mean that anywhere there is an endangered species of any kind, trapping can be stopped. If you take it a step further, anywhere there is an endangered fish in a river, you could apply the same logic. You can’t fully control what steps into a trap, therefore you can’t trap anywhere there is an endangered species, just like you can’t always control what is going to bite your hook, therefore no one can fish anywhere there is an endangered fish. So that’s a lawsuit we are involved in in Maine.

"Educate Those Not Within Your Group"

Alexandra: Is there any advice you have for trappers about protecting their rights, proactively?

Brian: They need to educate non-trappers about what they do: about how trapping is regulated, how hard it is, what you do to prevent non-target by-catch. People need to understand that, and it is not the people that are already in your social groups, it needs to be the non-trapper or the hunter that doesn’t understand it, so you can help eliminate that issue of hunters not caring. For example, there are a lot of bird dog hunters that hate trapping because traps will be out during grouse season and they are worried their dogs might get snagged up in them. We need to try and educate those people. It is all about educating those not within your group.

As for state and provincial organisations, they need to start collecting funds and putting these aside. This is something we are saying in Maine, start a war chest, because the attack is coming, it is just a matter of time. The HSUS is so rich they can self-fund any campaign they want to. They are a $130-150 million a year organisation, so they can just decide “this is where we are going to go, and we will spend $3 million.” If HSUS comes and you sit there fundraising for the first six months, that's a six-month head start they have in swaying public opinion. If you can hit the ground running, and you already have a war chest, you are better off. That’s hard for groups to do, though, because unless there is a bogeyman right there, those funds start to look very attractive to dip into and use for other things.

Alexandra: Thank you for taking the time to speak to us!

---

For further reading, check out this great Sportsmen's Alliance content:

The Anti-Hunter’s Playbook
A Defense of Trapping (full issue)
A Defense of Trapping (article)
Why All Sportsmen Need to Defend Trapping
Introducing Youth to Trapping
And connect with them on their website, Facebook page, Twitter, and Youtube.