The Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) is now an official rodeo sponsor, looking to educate fans about fur in general and in particular about its brand Canadian Seal Products. In return, bull rider Benjamin Shaw gets to put his life on the line without the added worry of paying to compete and travel between venues.

Widely known as the national voice for Canada's fur sector, the FIC also represents the sealing industry through the Seals & Sealing Network. The SSN unites the country's commercial and Indigenous seal harvesters, processors, manufacturers and retailers to promote high-quality and sustainable seal oil, meat and fur. This it does via its two brands: Canadian Seal Products and Proudly Indigenous Crafts & Designs.

Fixture of Rural Communities

Western culture is growing in popularity across Canada, with such events as bull riding, bronco riding (bareback and saddled), and trick riding, against a backdrop of musical performances and kitchen parties.

“Rodeos, agricultural fairs and Western festivals are a fixture of rural communities, much like Canada’s fur and sealing sectors,” says FIC's Executive Director Doug Chiasson. “Benjamin brings determination, discipline and perseverance to his sport – qualities which make us proud to support him while spreading the word about fur and seal products.”

FIC's sponsorship deal kicked off on July 29 at the Expo agricole de Saint-Hyacinthe in Quebec, and most recently came to Nova Scotia for the Sept. 24-27 Cape Breton Pro Rodeo in Sydney.

Debut of FIC/CSP Booth

Aside from providing a change of scenery from Quebec Province, the Cape Breton festival also marked the debut of CSP's very own information booth. Manned by Catherine Moores of Carino, visitors learned all about Canada’s sealing sector, including its communities and their wide range of clothing, oil and food products.

“Cape Breton is a natural place for us to connect with people who understand the importance of rural communities, tradition and the sustainable use of Canada’s natural resources,” says Chiasson. “We’re excited to support the Cape Breton Pro Rodeo, cheer Benjamin on in the arena, and meet people from across Atlantic Canada throughout the weekend.”

By partnering with Benjamin Shaw, CSP will gain visibility at such festivals both through its information booth, and also via its branding on Benjamin's competition vest and trailer, and photos and videos documenting his experiences on the rodeo circuit.

The Man Himself

Originally from the Gaspé Peninsular and now based in Montreal, Benjamin, 24, came to bull riding after serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. Drawn to the sport’s intensity and constant demand for improvement, he gained recognition in 2025 by winning the Jackpot at Ranch Gagnon and BullMania in Sorel-Tracy.

“Having the support and trust of the FIC and CSP makes a meaningful difference as I continue competing and developing as an athlete,” says Benjamin. “Rodeo has a long history in Canada, and so do the fur and sealing sectors, so this is a great opportunity to bring these two parts of our heritage together.”

Benjamin rode twice in Cape Breton, on 1,800-lb bulls called "Chilly" and "Equalizer". In what was just another day at the office for a bull rider, Chilly managed to smash his free hand against the chute before the gate had even been opened!

Truly, bull riding is not a sport for the faint of heart, so we hope the celebrities Benjamin got to rub shoulders with helped make up for it!

***

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

Wild turkey populations are declining throughout the US, but what role is played by predators? With study sites in nine states, a team led by the non-profit Turkeys For Tomorrow (TFT) plans to find out.

You’ve hunted the same farm for 30 years. In the beginning, turkeys inhabited every available roost limb along that river bottom. You couldn’t sound a barred owl’s call without setting off an echo chamber of gobbling symphonies. Today, miles of winding river separate roosted gobblers.

Sadly, one of the purest sounds of America’s countryside is in decline. Fewer and fewer people get to hear this sweet music, and not because they don’t want to. Rather, the presence of the bird we love — the wild turkey — is fading. But why?

Are Predators to Blame?

Without question, a decline in turkey populations has spurred a response from biologists and conservation authorities. Pick any recent contemporary study in the eastern U.S. — they all show relatively low productivity. Nest success, brood survival, and hen survival are all low. Along with other factors, this indirectly (but unofficially) points to a rise in turkey predators of all shapes and sizes.

Other factors that may lead to a decline in turkey numbers include disease and a loss or decline in wild turkey habitat. There have been some disease implications detected in some areas of the country, but nothing that points to disease as a cause for the widespread declines that have been documented. Habitat loss, however, has been widespread. As the human population and associated infrastructure have increased, we have lost a tremendous amount of rural area that once supported turkeys. Associated, average property ownership size has decreased, and many landowners have not maintained open lands, but have allowed them to grow rank and woody, which favors many turkey predator species.

“Productivity has remained relatively low for the past 15 years,” said Craig Harper with the University of Tennessee. “After peaking in several states, apparent declines in the turkey population have occurred, as we’ve seen harvest rates and poult-per-hen ratios decrease in many areas. Breeding Bird Survey results also have indicated a population decline in many areas.”

Existing data suggest predator numbers are notably greater than 30-40 years ago. The eastern U.S. has more coyotes than ever before. They’ve moved in and aren’t going anywhere but to a good turkey-hunting property near you. Bobcats, and other toothy critters, are doing the same.

“In many areas, people are reporting more adult predators and nest predators than ever before,” Harper said. “Pretty much anyone who is managing a property for wild turkeys has cameras on the property, and they are detecting increasing numbers of predators.”

Determining Relationship Between Predator and Turkey Abundance in Nine States

As a response to shocking decreases in wild turkey populations throughout various portions of the eastern US, the Alabama-based non-profit Turkeys for Tomorrow (TFT) is leading the charge by supporting a four-year predator-prey study to assess the impact of predators on wild turkey numbers.

Leading researchers of the project include Craig Harper and David Buehler at the University of Tennessee, Marcus Lashley at the University of Florida, Will Gulsby at Auburn University, Mark Turner and Colter Chitwood at Oklahoma State University, and Dwayne Elmore at Tall Timbers.

“This predator-prey study is needed because there is a lack of credible information to suggest predator management might be needed to reverse the decline in wild turkey populations,” said TFT CEO Jason Lupardus. “I feel that, with everyone coming together and trying to figure out what the issues are, we're hoping to come up with some solid solutions for the future.” The National Trappers Association, the National Trappers Foundation, and OnX have made commitments to this research as well.

“We have 11 sites in 9 states, and each site is approximately 1,500 acres,” Harper said. “We are using arrays of remote cameras and automated recording units (ARUs) to monitor relative abundance of wild turkeys and predators — including nest predators and those that prey on adult birds.”

The nine participating states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. There are two study sites in Tennessee and Florida and one study site in the other states.

“We’re going to develop a predator index across these properties to determine the relationship between the relative abundance of certain predators and wild turkeys,” Harper continued. “The team also will establish artificial nests across study sites to determine relationships between predator relative abundance and nest depredation.”

According to Lupardus, ARUs will pick-up the presence of the birds remotely. Remote cameras will further validate not only turkey numbers but also predator numbers.

“I think, when we start comparing these two, it might be a remarkable way to understand population dynamics,” Lupardus said. “It's something that we as managers — from public and private lands — have an issue with, which is to determine even baseline population indices. All we can do is track harvest year to year, but this study should help us understand relationships between predator and turkey relative abundance.”

The coalition of researchers will maintain the study with the support of TFT, but the respective landowners and managers of each property will maintain control and execution of any and all land, habitat, and wildlife management practices, representing a real-world approach that will provide useful information to anyone trying to manage their property for wild turkeys.

Pre-Study Expectations

TFT and this body of researchers obviously can’t speak to results until the data are analyzed. However, we are confident that the study should inform us when predator management may be necessary to reverse the decline in wild turkey numbers, and it will equip landowners and land managers with the knowledge needed to recognize predator-specific impacts on these birds, when best to trap for increased survival, and much more.

Some say all you need is habitat improvement, and not predator management, to boost turkey numbers. Harper, who is a staunch advocate of applied habitat management, says you might need both.

“I believe maintaining and improving wild turkey habitat is the most critical issue facing declining wild turkey numbers,” Harper said. “However, in many areas, some level of predator management may be needed to help reverse the decline in wild turkey numbers. It is going to be very interesting to see how predator relative abundance affects turkey abundance.”

“If we determine the relative effects of predator densities on wild turkey abundance, then people will have better knowledge of whether or not they should trap, how much trapping should be done, and the best time to target trapping,” Harper continued.

Harper is excited about this research effort because he wants to see if we can move the needle with regard to wild turkey abundance. He emphasizes the need to study the composition of the predator community over a large geographic area.

“The hypothesis is that predators are having a negative impact on turkey production,” Lupardus said. “We're hoping to demonstrate that, by monitoring birds over a number of years, we will be able to draw conclusions for wild turkey production improvement.”

For now, this research effort is designed to be implemented over 4 years. However, depending on project outcomes, it might be extended. If results are promising, there is discussion of how it may be extended further.

“We’re doing more at a scale that's never been done before,” Lupardus said. “We’re talking about a project that spans across the eastern US. It’s a huge endeavor that should help guide wild turkey management into the future.”

Those who love wild turkeys, enjoy hunting them, and hope to see these birds in abundance for many years to come should support this research initiative. Furthermore, support a conservation organization that tackles the biggest issues that wild turkeys face, even when bureaucracy and politics make it difficult to do so.

***

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

The following article was first published by The Wildlife Society on July 8, 2026, and is reproduced with permission.

Debates over wildlife products increase nationwide

Fur is once again a flashpoint, exposing debate around the sustainable use of wildlife. Despite wildlife biologists’ stance that regulated trapping occurs sustainably and in concert with conservation, efforts to restrict the fur trade are moving beyond company policies into online marketplaces and local and state wildlife policy. As a global online marketplace, Etsy, prepares to implement a ban on fur in August, battles ensue over the regulation and use of fur in Colorado and Massachusetts, creating a tapestry of varying regulations, bylaws and legislation across the country.

SEE ALSO: Etsy ignores pleas to rethink fur ban. So what happens next? Truth About Fur, May 2026.

One Ban for Two Industries

Furs come in two forms: farmed and wild-caught. The difference between farmed fur and wild fur is significant, although the two are often grouped together in public debate. Each source raises different animal welfare, conservation, disease and wildlife management concerns. In the United States, mink (Neogale vison) account for most commercially farmed fur, although people raise foxes and a small number of other species for their pelts. Farmed fur is subject to its own regulations and sustainability certification programs, which are separate from wild furs. These distinctions are often lost in public discussions.

Broad fur bans, including Etsy’s, typically apply to both sources and do not make distinctions.

What is colloquially referred to as the Etsy fur ban is a change in policy that impacts products that can be sold online. On top of existing bans on the sale of threatened and endangered species, which are in line with current rules from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the platform will now ban independent artists from selling raw pelts, finished garments and accessories made with real fur from animals, such as mink, foxes and rabbits.

“Etsy prohibits products made from or containing natural fur from animals killed primarily for their pelts, regardless of age or origin,” the website states.

“Etsy’s policy sets a new standard for online retailers. Fur is losing. Designers are dropping it, publications are not promoting it, and now, Etsy, one of the world’s largest e-commerce marketplaces, is banning it,” the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) said in an article for Fashion United.

CAFT conducted a 58-day protest campaign across 17 cities that targeted Etsy headquarters, board members and affiliates. The ban was announced after CRAFT confronted the Etsy CEO at the Morgan Stanley investor conference, saying they are “continuing to profit off the bloody fur trade” in front of investors.

CAFT claims to have one mission: to put an end to the fur trade once and for all by dismantling the retail market because, “the animals rotting away in fur farms do not care how hard we tried. They care about their liberation.”

“If you cut off the reasons [a product] gets used, eventually it goes away—in theory,” said TWS member Geriann Albers, furbearer and gamebird program leader at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, commenting on the economic theory behind why the Etsy fur ban is significant. With some products like fur, it’s often not that simple.

The email that went out to artisans cited “ongoing biodiversity efforts” as the source of the ban, although the current web page does not mention biodiversity. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) spoke out against the Etsy fur ban, stating that wild fur is not a threat to biodiversity and that practices are guided by internationally recognized standards, including the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, supported by decades of collaborative research among state, federal and academic partners.

Etsy is not the first company to move away from fur in recent years. Companies like Canada Goose stopped making fur-lined hoods in 2022, and New York City Fashion Week went fur-free this year due to public pressure. CAFT has taken responsibility for several companies banning fur and has been most recently focused on Milan Fashion Week. The Etsy ban does go beyond many state restrictions, and it is the first instance of a market platform limiting sales.

Fur Regulations Vary Across the Country

As debates over fur continue to evolve, states and municipalities have increasingly become the battleground for competing and sometimes divergent approaches to regulation as the lines between farmed and wild-caught animals become blurred.

Massachusetts is experiencing a patchwork of proposed and enacted legislation. Eight Massachusetts towns have banned the sale of new fur products since 2020, often citing animal cruelty and disease concerns. Similar ordinances have been proposed in other towns but have been rejected. These ordinances ban fur, regardless of whether the fur originated from farmed or wild animals, and some go as far as banning internet purchases.

The growing momentum has led to statewide initiatives in Massachusetts, including House and Senate bills, but these are narrower in scope. The bills would specifically prohibit the sale of new farmed fur products to address concerns about animal welfare in commercial fur production. Unlike some town ordinances, the bills do not prohibit the sale of wild-caught fur and fur products. They reflect a policy approach focused on fur farming rather than the management of wild furbearer populations.

Elsewhere, proposals have gone further by seeking to restrict the sale or trade of fur from legally trapped wildlife or banned trapping altogether, bringing wildlife management directly into the debate. California was the first state to ban recreational and commercial trapping with the Wildlife Protection Act of 2019. California halted the sale of furs through the Fur Products Prohibition Act the same year.

A recent debate in Colorado exemplifies the divide between wildlife professionals and policymakers when a citizens’ petition to amend regulations related to commercial fur sales was accepted. The petition, put forth by the Center for Biological Diversity, looks to limit fur sales to a narrow set of circumstances related to flies tied for fishing and hats. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff recommended denying the petition because the division lacked solid evidence that commercial fur sales are leading to unsustainable harvest levels of these animals. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission has asked the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife to initiate a formal rulemaking process for the petition. Division staff are drafting a paper that will articulate the issue and potential changes to current regulations. They will present their findings in a meeting in July and vote on the issue in September.

TWS’ Hunting, Trapping and Conservation Working Group and the Colorado Chapter of TWS spoke out against the petition, saying that the proposal was inconsistent with science-based wildlife management and could undermine the use of regulated trapping as a conservation tool. The letter also stated that prohibiting the sale of legally harvested fur would not reduce trapping but would instead result in more animals being discarded rather than fully utilized, a sentiment that Albers echoed regarding the Etsy ban.

Bans Receive Public Pushback

Some extend the debate surrounding fur beyond wildlife into a democracy and rights context, arguing that fur and trapping bans raise questions about protecting minority rights within majority decision-making. “Within the public, furbearer trappers and hunters are a minority group, but their opportunities to access wildlife that is allocated by law should be protected if we are truly a free people,” AFWA said in a Conservation Brief. Collecting, processing and selling fur is more than product; it is a way of life for some groups.

In a letter to Etsy, Senator Dan Sullivan [R-AK] expressed his concern regarding the impact the Etsy fur ban would have on indigenous communities and their ways of life. In the letter, he urged Etsy to find a way to allow indigenous artists to continue to sell their goods on the platform.

“Notably, the materials used in Alaska Native handicrafts are not ‘killed primarily for their pelts,’ the language of Etsy’s own Animal Products Policy, but are harvested as part of a subsistence lifestyle with a deep respect for the land and wildlife,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan argues that the ban goes against Etsy’s own mission to keep commerce human because these traditions are central to indigenous groups. Indigenous artisans that used Etsy have spoken out about the impact of the ban on their livelihood and their ability to connect and share their ways of life with others.

Supporters of wild fur, like AFWA, state that fur is part of a broader lifestyle involving other pursuits of self-sufficiency and argue that these communities, specifically rural and indigenous communities, will be significantly impacted with no conservation benefit.

Opposition to broad fur bans and restrictions is not new and has long been part of debates. The Sportsmen’s Alliance pushed back against the first statewide ban in 2019 on trapping in California, commenting on the loss of a wildlife management tool and potential increases in interactions between wildlife like coyotes (Canis latrans) and humans. While some parts of California are reporting increased conflicts with species like coyotes, there is little published evidence directly examining whether California’s trapping ban has measurably affected human-wildlife conflicts.

The Case for Regulated Trapping

Wildlife biologists say that for them, the debate is not simply about fashion, trends or rights. They worry that restrictions on selling legally harvested fur could have unintended consequences for wildlife management.

“Trapping provides a wide range of benefits to society, and it’s a very important component of modern wildlife management,” said Matt Peek, a wildlife research biologist for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.

A comprehensive study published in Wildlife Monographs supports that regulated trapping benefits extend beyond fur harvest and highlights the efforts made to ensure wildlife trapping is more humane. The authors note that contemporary trapping programs are closely tied to harvest monitoring and population management, making them an integral component of science-based wildlife conservation in North America. Wildlife agencies use trapping to relocate animals, protect endangered species, restore habitats, reduce human-wildlife conflicts, protect agricultural production and safeguard the public. Populations of sea turtles, Atlantic puffins (Fratercula arctica) and whooping cranes (Grus americana) have benefited from trapping by removing predators.

Some of the bans and muddling between farmed furs and wild furs may come from public misconceptions. While trapping awareness appears to be increasing in some states and disapproval to be declining, there seem to be misconceptions that endangered species are used for furs.

Peek and Albers agree that even in the private sector, furs are usually a byproduct of reducing human-wildlife conflict, such as beavers causing flooding or property damage. “Two-thirds of trappers are contacted every year about nuisance work,” Albers said. “Most of their trapping is because someone has called them with a problem.”

Trapping primarily for fur continues to have low approval ratings, according to a phone survey of 600 residents of Connecticut, Indiana and Wisconsin, yet trapping for ecological, damage control or food purposes was over 50% and as high as 90%. The findings suggest that public support may depend on how trapping is framed, reinforcing arguments that voters and shoppers should understand the different purposes trapping serves before broad restrictions are presented.

“The public deserves an honest opportunity to make an informed decision,” Peek said.

Wildlife biologists argue that this distinction is often lost in public conversations surrounding fur. While the debate frequently centers on whether people should wear fur, many of the animals are being trapped and killed regardless of whether the pelt is sold or not. Some feel that it is best to make the most of the animals that are going to be killed. Simply killing an animal for a conflict with humans and discarding it doesn’t increase their value, and some perceive it as decreasing wildlife to pest status.

For wildlife professionals, the conversation is ultimately about balancing conservation with practical management. As legislation, marketplace policies and public opinion continue to evolve, the future of trapping will likely be shaped by more than science alone. The challenge is ensuring that decisions about fur and trapping are informed by scientific evidence that ensures sound wildlife management and policy.

The Wildlife Society recognizes that regulated trapping can be an effective and ecologically sound practice of selectively taking furbearers. Lethal and non-lethal trapping is a key technique used in wildlife research and management. Read more about TWS’s position here.

Award-winning journalist David Pugliese recently reported that 30 soldiers from Canada's Armed Forces – the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment (3RCR) – suffered severe frostbite while participating in a near-Arctic training exercise at the Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center near Fairbanks, Alaska.

Too many Canadians forget that our nation is fundamentally an Arctic one. Vast expanses of Arctic territory, stretching from the Yukon North Slope in the West to Labrador in the East, and the entire Arctic Archipelago, make up a major part of Canadian geography and heritage. These unforgiving landscapes have been the home to various First Nations and Inuit communities for thousands of years.

Because of this experience, it stands to reason that the people in these communities know a thing or two about survival in Arctic climates. Using natural resources and materials found in the Arctic, Indigenous Peoples have relied on sealskin, caribou hide, beaver fur, and other hide and fur products to keep warm.

SEE ALSO: Amazing facts about fur: Dressing for the Arctic. Truth About Fur.

In 2022 and 2023, the National Research Council put this to the test in a series of studies designed to test Indigenous-made garments directly against the predictable issue of extreme cold. Deployed out of interest for the Canadian Armed Forces, Canadian Coast Guard, and Parks Canada, these studies measured the “clo value” – a unit used to measure the thermal insulation properties of clothing, indicating how much heat a garment retains. The higher the clo value, the warmer the garment.

According to Evaluation of Canadian Armed Forces cold weather clothing with supplemental Indigenous clothing, apparel and gear that incorporated Indigenous-made garments had higher standardized total insulation values compared to base ones that did not use them.

Another paper published at the same time, Thermal evaluation of Government of Canada cold weather clothing and Indigenous garments, affirms that apparel or gear composed entirely of Indigenous-made garments had the highest measured clo value out of all those tested, which would allow a physically active person to remain warm in -60.0°C air.

Superior Option

Conducted with complete transparency by our Federal Government, these studies were published in 2022. Therefore, hundreds if not thousands of Canadian observers and certainly relevant members of the Canadian Armed Forces knew that Indigenous-made fur and sealskin garments are the superior option to keep the men and women who serve our country safe in extreme cold weather environments.

SEE ALSO: Why fur trim keeps us warm. Truth About Fur.

Though the exact details of what happened during this recent exercise are not known, it is clear that the equipment provided to the members of 3RCR was not sufficient. We know that equipment made from fur or sealskin would have protected them better than what they had, and likely would have helped some of the injured soldiers.

In an increasingly uncertain time, with more than a few countries posturing for Arctic expansion, it is high time to return to outfitting our soldiers with the equipment they need to be safe. On this point, both traditional knowledge and leading-edge scientific research agree: natural fur is the right choice.

You may recall that Coloradans recently defeated an anti-fur ballot initiative, and probably assume that the state is safe for now. But your assumption would be wrong. Now opponents of fur are looking to introduce a statewide ban on the sale of all wild fur – something they've not tried in the past.

As recently as November 2024, Coloradans chalked up a major pro-fur win when they defeated ballot initiative 308, 58% to 42%, that would have banned the sale of all fur products in Denver. Leading the charge against the proposed ordinance was Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM).

That battle, which garnered a lot of news coverage, especially for the slogan "Hands off our hats", sent a clear message that most Coloradans would not stand for animal rights groups telling them what they could and couldn't trade. But perhaps the message was not clear enough. Now a petition from the anti-fur Center for Biological Diversity has accused the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission (CPWC) of violating sound conservation practices, with the aim of forcing a statewide ban on all trade in wild fur.

Attacking Wild Fur

As Executive Director of the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC), I frequently attend meetings, auctions, trade shows and the like, across Canada and around the world, where fur is the number one topic of conversation. But at many of these events, I am also in a minority. Why? Because our organization represents the interests of all kinds of fur, including wild fur.

Much of the global fur trade deals only with ranch fur. Many designers and manufacturers, for example, are concerned above all with the different colour phases of ranch foxes and mink, but have no interest in where or when the best coyotes are harvested. (This reality is also why fur ranchers attract so much attention from anti-fur activists.)

When combined with the strong and easily understood arguments in favour of regulated trapping, this explains why many folk assume wild fur is comparatively “safe”. Trapping plays a key role in wildlife management, it's an important part of livelihoods for Indigenous communities, and its heritage underpins so much of our shared history across North America.

But that idea is now being challenged in Colorado. If successful, the anti-fur lobby will use the CPWC to introduce a statewide ban on the sale, trade and bartering of all wild fur.

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur.

Different Approach

Over the last 40 years or so, trappers have grown used to attacks that focus on the welfare of individual animals caught in traps, but this time things are different.

This time, the aim of the anti-fur lobby is not to attack wild fur for how it's harvested, but rather to claim that the mere act of trapping violates the North American Model of Conservation, as spelled out by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

When the CPWC meets next on March 4–5, it will discuss a proposal from the Center for Biological Diversity that says the state's current science-driven regulations are not fit for purpose, and that there needs to be a statewide commercial ban on wild fur.

As a community, we must stand together against efforts to restrict, reduce or eliminate the fur trade. That includes trappers, hunters, farmers, ranchers, First Nations, rural landowners, fur buyers, manufacturers, retailers, designers and artisans, from all parts of North America. Everyone who enjoys our world-class garments and accessories needs to be heard.

Both the FIC and the CRWM firmly believe that by standing together, we can be far more than the sum of our parts. Now is the time for all of us to support efforts to keep commercial fur trapping alive in Colorado. And that is why the FIC will be joining CRWM in Denver next week, giving voice to all Canadians who support science-based, well-regulated wildlife management.

ESSENTIAL READING:

Follow this link for:

• the Citizen Petition Form "Prohibiting the sale of furbearer furs with exemptions", June 16, 2025;
• "Petition to amend 2 CCR 406-018 to prohibit the commercial sale of wildlife fur in Colorado", submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity, June 16, 2025; and
• the recommendation to deny the above petition submitted by the Division of Parks and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources, February 19, 2026.

Consumers are receiving mixed signals, with some saying fur is back and others saying it’s on its last legs. So does someone have the story wrong? Let’s see where the evidence points.

Compared with the 1980s, when fur sales were strong in all traditional markets, today’s trade has shrunk, a fact it blames on the anti-fur lobby. But it also says fur is making a modest comeback. In contrast, anti-fur campaigners insist the fur trade is terminal.

Meanwhile the media can't decide. Some editorialise that fur is fashionable again, while one presenter flaunts fur at a football match and another wears coyote at a New Year's Eve show. Yet others say fur is finished, though they are sometimes transparent about pushing an agenda.

In our quest for the truth, let’s journey back in time, hoping this will help explain where fur really stands today.

Animal Rights Playbook

The modern animal rights playbook was written in the 1970s on the blood-stained ice floes of Atlantic Canada. With a cast of cute seal pups and “evil” sealers wielding hakapiks, protesters learned that all they had to do was provoke a fight (think Paul Watson) while Brigitte Bardot added credibility and sex appeal. The media lapped it up, and the campaign was hugely effective.

Another landmark came in 1990 when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched the campaign “I’d rather go naked than wear fur”. Everyone knew that sex sold, but this was the first time animal rights had been conflated with naked women. Again the campaign was a media hit, prompting PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk to tell The New Yorker in 2003: “We are complete press sluts”. (PETA officially “retired” the campaign in 2020, but this was probably just to give media an excuse to run old campaign photos.)

Meanwhile, the fur trade was losing ground. The media (and their viewers) were by now hooked on images of stressed animals and naked women, and the fur trade couldn’t compete. Plus, funds were running low for public relations, and while some people were determined to fight back, they couldn’t agree on how to do this.

New Tactics

Then the 2000s arrived and the anti-fur lobby expanded its already strong arsenal with some new tactics.

Pushing local fur bans: One tactic has been to push US city governments to ban production and/or sales of fur. The fur trade must then file lawsuits to have ordinances overturned.

Almost all of the anti-fur lobby's victories so far have come in Californian cities, followed by a statewide ban from 2023. Notably absent has been the snowball effect campaigners hoped for in major cities and states elsewhere.

Still, it’s an effective tactic even when ban attempts fail, since it generates media exposure and costs the fur trade money. This has happened in cities where fur is more entrenched, like New York City in 2020, Denver in 2024, and Chicago in 2025.

Pressuring players to switch from real fur to fake: Another tactic has been to get key players to drop real fur in favour of fake, with the anti-fur lobby then taking credit for players “seeing the light”. While a few early converts required little persuasion, most victories have only come about after harassing executives with methods like demonstrating outside workers’ homes. Targets have been diverse, ranging from luxury brands and designers, to department stores, fashion shows and even magazines.

Fur farming bans: Yet another tactic has been to pressure governments to ban fur farming or pass regulations so draconian that it makes no sense to continue.

Though in its third decade, this campaign gained fresh legs during the Covid-19 pandemic as activists stoked fear that mink farms breed zoonotic diseases. This fear was key in the 2020 move by Denmark – then the world's leading mink farmer – to cull its entire herd, and British Columbia’s 2021 decision to phase out mink farming.

This campaign has been especially effective in the European Union, with most members having already introduced partial or total bans, the latest being Poland. Meanwhile, the "Fur Free Europe" citizens' initiative gathered over 1.5 million signatures opposed to fur farming and the sale of farmed products, obliging the European Commission to decide by next March whether to propose an EU-wide ban.

Whether an EU-wide ban happens is still unknown, plus the issue of wild fur will remain on the table. But with some 70% of fur currently coming from farms, and global output contracting steadily, who, if anyone, will pick up the slack?

So kudos to the anti-fur lobby. Though it has often fought dirty, its tactics have undeniably hurt the fur trade.

Plastic Windfall

But another version of this story has it that fur is making a comeback. If true, it all began with a windfall for the trade: a miscalculation by its opponents.

When the modern animal rights movement emerged in the 1970s, Western society was made keenly aware of animal welfare issues. These remain important today, but have been superseded by existential issues threatening the very future of the planet.

In recent years, society has undergone a sea change, with terms like “sustainability”, “climate change”, “global warming” and “renewable energy” entering everyday usage. And the cause célèbre is how to wean ourselves off fossil fuels like petroleum.

Of course, the fur trade has always known fur is sustainable: it’s durable, biodegradable and renewable, and its environmental footprint is a lot smaller than the anti-fur lobby claims. So logically, society's shift in priorities should benefit real fur, and work against fake fur made of non-renewable, polluting, non-biodegradable, petroleum-based plastics that only add to the tons of microplastics already in our watersheds and oceans.

So what have most anti-fur groups done? Rather than keeping their message simple and opposing all fur, real and fake, they have thrown their support behind fake fur as a replacement for the real deal, falsely claiming it is more sustainable!

This is now backfiring. Not only has fake fur kept the furry look (real or fake) on the fashion radar, it has also exposed the anti-fur lobby as dishonest.

Perhaps the biggest shock for the fur trade came in 2017, when Gucci announced it was dropping real fur. Both the world-famous brand and its animal rights handlers effused about how the move enhanced sustainability, and for a while the fur trade feared society would simply fall for this deception. But now, the media and consumers are at least questioning whether fake fur was the right way to go.

The anti-fur lobby, meanwhile, has attempted damage control, such as by calling plastic garments “vegan clothing”, and promising we'll all be wearing “bio-fur” soon, made of fungi, nettles, pineapple and the like.

Maybe one day we will. But for now, almost all manufacturers of fake fur still prefer the petrochemical kind, so the harm it does to the environment continues.

Recycled Vintage Fur

Then, to confuse matters further, along came vintage fur.

As any fashionista knows, recycled and remodeled vintage furs have been in vogue for a few seasons. Many come from thrift stores and are at least 40 years old, though with demand still strong, it's inevitable that dwindling supplies are seeing ages fall.

For an example of just how vintage furs have confused the picture, look at media coverage last February of the New York and London Fashion Weeks.

Hoping as always for a new angle, on Feb. 16 the New York Times ran a piece titled “What happened to the stigma of wearing fur?” “[I]n January,” wrote Jessica Iredale, “women and men all over town were busting their furs out of storage in what felt like an abrupt reversal of social values.” For years, wearing fur in the US and Europe had felt taboo. “Except, suddenly, people don’t seem to care – especially if the wearer can assert the mantle of ‘vintage’, as no animals were freshly killed and upcycling old clothes is more virtuous than buying new.”

The Wall Street Journal followed suit on Feb. 18, with “Fashion turned on fur. Young customers want more“. Then on Feb. 19, the New York Post ran with “Real fur is making a comeback after years of exile. ‘You’ll see it on the runway again’“. And on Feb. 28, Women’s Wear Daily declared that “Furry textures – some real, some faux” were all over the runways in New York. In short, America’s most populous city was awash in fur again!

The irony was that last December, New York Fashion Week announced a ban on fur from 2026!

Even more ironic was a report in The Standard (Feb. 21) during London Fashion Week titled “How luxury fell back in love with real fur and crocodile skins”. It was commenting on the street scene rather than on the show’s runways, because it couldn’t do otherwise. London Fashion Week had already banned fur, in 2023, followed the next year by exotic skins and feathers!

What message were these reports sending to consumers?

Was the real story not about vintage furs, but about the resurgence of fur in general? Were the likes of New York and London Fashion Weeks just part of an ivory tower trying to move past fur, while the streets said the opposite?

Predictions

So where does this leave the fur trade today?

Let's first agree who we’re talking about. I'll call it the Western fur trade, that caters primarily to certain consumers in two regions: North America and Europe, and an East Asian bloc, centering on China and South Korea, that buys a lot of pelts at Western auctions and has designers showing on Western runways. Millions of fur users, especially Indigenous peoples in the High North, don't belong in this category, and won't stop using fur just because of a few bans passed in Western capitals.

That said, the Western fur trade has been under attack for decades, giving the anti-fur lobby plenty of time to refine some highly effective tactics.

No one will deny that these tactics have hurt the fur trade, but many believe the trade has now turned a corner to recovery. Assuming this is true, how durable that recovery is depends on the trade's ability to change.

One change that may be unavoidable is a fall in total output of farmed fur, plus a shift in suppliers. When shortages seemed likely in the past, North American, European and (in this century) Chinese farms simply increased production. But this time around will be different.

Obviously, EU production is falling and may stop entirely, but it's also down in North America due to bad publicity from the anti-fur lobby, and no one is expanding right now. So unless Chinese farmers step up again, or another country fills the breach, a supply shortage could be looming that requires the fur trade to operate at a reduced scale.

There are, however, a few avenues that are already expanding.

One is sales of wild fur. Pelt prices are edging up for some species; for example, at Fur Harvesters Auction last month, interest was strong in bobcats, marten and wild mink. Also, the number of trappers is increasing in many places. And since trapping is now widely recognised as an important conservation tool, choosing wild fur is one way consumers can show their support for sustainable use. There is still opposition to trapping where wildlife and human habitats coincide, notably among dog walkers, but also on the rise are problem animals like coyotes with mange, rabid raccoons and destructive beavers, so trapping won't disappear anytime soon.

Other avenues for expansion are better opportunities for artisanal designers and online retailers, especially in remote areas. Factors fueling this growth include the departure of most luxury brands and department stores from the real fur market, the closure of many brick-and-mortar furriers in expensive downtown locations, and of course the rise of the Internet, which makes it possible to run businesses in remote locations that were not viable before.

Whether all this translates into a comeback for fur remains to be seen, but the signs so far are promising. For now, there's a paradox: on the one hand, the anti-fur lobby continues its efforts to end the fur trade, with a lot of success. But on the other, many media reports and eye-witness accounts say fur is back in fashion. Who is right? Only time will tell for sure.

SEE ALSO:

Fur is firmly back in fashion - and even more divisive than ever. BBC, April 8, 2025.

Fur sure: In the era of sustainability, a winter icon makes a comeback. Buffalo Spree, Dec. 26, 2025.

As real fur creeps back into fash­ion, is faux the way to go? Daily Telegraph, Dec. 27, 2025.

This is the story of just one students' club in British Columbia, with a trapping component, that could use a helping hand. But hopefully it will also open eyes across Canada. You probably live far from BC, but maybe there's a trapping club nearby that faces similar problems. Can you help? Or maybe you're struggling to start your own trapping club, and can learn from this young man's experiences.

Meet Cole Mark, a 25-year-old born in BC's capital, Victoria, and a student at the University of Victoria, or "UVic" to those in the know.

By anyone's definition, Cole is an outdoorsman. When he is not studying forest biology or working for the BC Wildfire Service, he is hunting, rock climbing, backcountry skiing, fishing, scuba diving, spearfishing, shooting (guns and bows), and foraging. He also has "strong passions" for wildlife management and sourcing his own food.

It was in character, then, that in 2023 he started the UVic Freediving and Spearfishing Club, and followed this up in 2024 with the UVic Fish and Game Club – the one we're going to talk about today.

As the name suggests, the UVic Fish and Game Club dabbles in a wide range of activities, both hands-on and involving educational presentations and licensing courses. One of the most successful components has been shooting, with nearly 50 members completing their firearm safety training in the club's first semester alone.

The trapping component, however, is proving more challenging to get off the ground – something we'll circle back to.

Making of an Outdoorsman

Truth About Fur: In your own words, Victoria "offers limited exposure" to outdoor activities, while your parents are a teacher and a lawyer. How, then, did you become an outdoorsman?

Cole Mark: My love of nature was largely instilled in me by my late grandfather and my uncle. My grandfather and I spent days fishing, and he shared stories about hunting and fishing. My uncle, a commercial diving captain, often took me fishing and crabbing, further shaping my passion for the ocean and outdoors.

Ironically, as for Victoria, the capital of BC, its limited offering of exposure is largely because of considerable social pressure to oust these foundational pieces of Canadian tradition and heritage. This makes it awfully intimidating for people to take interest in, never mind trying to be a part of, outdoor recreation.

As many of you know, and starting well before I was born, there was a slow clawing at everything trapping, hunting, fishing and shooting. However, today it's been turned into more of a cutting away. As a young man who cares deeply about his country, neighbour, and having a family of his own one day; I quickly realized that I needed to be the change I wanted to see. I knew it wasn’t going to easy. The idea alone of starting a fish and game club that promotes the education of firearms and trapping at the University of Victoria was completely nuts. And it has been a wild ride for me to say the least. But, I knew I needed to make a difference where I could. I understand how intimidating these pursuits can seem to people with no background in them, and this is what drives me to make outdoor education more accessible. I want others to discover and appreciate this important part of Canadian tradition, heritage and culture.

TAF: Starting the Freediving and Spearfishing Club and then the Fish and Game Club was a logical step for you, then?

CM: That's right. The mission of both clubs is to provide a space where students can develop practical skills, build a deeper connection with nature and food, and promote safety, ethics, and conservation in all activities with friends and without worrying about backlash. Both clubs have been incredibly rewarding to start and run, and they have taught me a lot about leadership, community building, and sharing my passion with others.

TAF: Could society do with more such clubs?

CM: I certainly believe so, especially at the university level. I keep my club entirely apolitical. My goal is to give anyone an experience and working knowledge so they can make informed opinions from choosing whether or not to buy a fishing rod at a local store, getting a firearms license (restricted or not), or casting a ballot.

Additionally, many of the outdoor recreational activities that fish-and-game clubs foster, including trapping, are being phased out in my generation. And as they disappear, we are also losing the heritage, values and most importantly the virtues they bring and inherently teach.

Our UVic club also just had our first hunting event approved! This event utilized an initiation hunting license where any student could get a license and hunt for the first time with a licensed student. It must be the first hunting trip a university club in BC, or maybe even in Canada, has done in decades.

TAF: You have no background in trapping, and yet your club offers this skill. How did this come about?

CM: I acquired my trapping license in 2021. I can thank Mr. Steven Rinella and a few whispers of stories about trapping here on the island for developing my interest. Ever since, it's been a defining part of my development as an outdoorsman and as a young academic. It has taught me lessons that my degree could not, from hands-on wildlife management and land stewardship to the practicalities of renewable resource management. It has taught me that there is a gap in understanding the vital role that trapping plays in sustainable wildlife management, land stewardship, and in renewable resources. It has instilled in me a profound respect for the delicate balance of ecosystems, the patience to observe and understand animal behaviour, and the discipline required to work ethically within nature’s cycles. And it has reinforced the values of responsibility, resilience, and humility, showing me that a true connection with the outdoors is not all from theory but also time spent in the bush.

These are the lessons I hope to pass on to my fellow club members.

Hurdles to Trapping

TAF: You say that two hurdles stand in the way of really getting trapping off the ground at your club: cost and limited opportunities to "get out".

CM: That's right. Overall, the club is doing well. We currently have around 130 members, and our numbers continue to grow as more students seek outdoor experiences and opportunities to learn. Of all the activities we offer, though, trapping presents unique challenges.

There's a decent amount of interest in trapping at UVic, but we need to provide more opportunities for club members to spend time on actual traplines, and we also need to provide a way for them to become licensed. Both face issues of accessibility and cost.

In BC, you can only trap on traplines or on private property. Traplines that were once hundreds of dollars, are now tens of thousands. BC only has around 1,800 licensed trappers, which is roughly a 40% decrease from the 1950’s. I fear what kind of future my own children will face. Will the lifestyle be reserved for a select few diehards and those willing to endure unnecessary scrutiny, criticism, and death threats? I sure hope not.

As for helping students obtain their trapping licenses, so far about 30 students have expressed interest in taking a course, but only one has done so. This was through the British Columbia Trappers Association. Courses cost around $800, are a two-hour drive from town, and only run once a year. So we've been working with the BCTA to offer a more accessible and affordable alternative for club members, but it's a work in progress.

TAF: So have you been able to offer members any opportunities at all to gain hands-on trapping experience?

CM: Thankfully, yes. A very generous local trapper and former instructor, Jerry Baker, agreed to host a workshop for just $30 per student! Unfortunately, he will be selling his line soon as he is unable to work it any longer due to age, so we're still looking for a long-term solution. I have had one trapper reach out to us about a line that's pretty close to UVic, however, they’re looking for ~$25,000 which is well more than I have.

My hope is to arrange a partnership or access agreement with a trapper or landowner here on Southern Vancouver Island. My vision is to secure a trapline that the club can use for education, mentorship, and hands-on learning. We have limited funding but I am more than happy to work on something that is mutually beneficial.

I also believe that having guaranteed access to a trapline could offer students unique research opportunities on local furbearing species, and provide new perspectives on how trapping can play a more active role in modern coservation efforts as a wildlife management tool.

Succession Plan

TAF: You'll be graduating from the University of Victoria soon. Do you have a succession plan to make sure the UVic Fish and Game Club continues once you've gone?

CM: I plan to continue my education in forest biology after graduating, with the goal of earning my Registered Professional Biologist (R.P. Bio) and Registered Professional Forester (RPF) accreditations. So I may not be leaving Victoria just yet. But as you say, I must ensure the club has been set up for long-term success, enabling it to thrive as a permanent part of student life at UVic.

To this end, we have a vice-president and an executive team to make sure our leadership succession is smooth and the club has capable hands to carry it forward.

I am also in talks with department heads (Program Coordinator and Dean of EPHE) to explore the possibility of making the club a funded program here at the university. This process is complex and takes time, but if successful, it will give the club access to stable funding and administrative support, which will go a long way toward ensuring its sustainability long beyond my own time here. It also sets a provincial precedent; in BC, there are no institutionally recognized Fish and Game or Shooting Clubs.

Meanwhile, we are gathering every bit of support we can, from organizations, sponsors, and individuals, because not only do we have very minimal funding but these also strengthen our application and demonstrate the value of what we are doing. I am proud to say that we have already received support from the BC Wildlife Federation, Safari Club International, Belisle Traps, the Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's Outdoor Fund, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. If you’re interested in seeing more you can check our Instagram page or email us at [email protected].

TAF: We wish you every success, and who knows, maybe your future partner on Southern Vancouver Island – be it a landowner or trapline operator – is actually reading this interview! And as we said in the introduction, it's almost certain that similar initiatives exist across Canada that need a helping hand. Could that helping hand be yours?

In 1997, the Fur Institute of Canada’s Aboriginal Communications Committee launched the Jim Bourque Award in honour of a man committed to the sustainable use of wildlife, animal welfare, development of Canada’s modern fur trade, and recognition of Indigenous People’s role in the conservation and management of wildlife. This year's award went to Patricia Dwyer, a Métis resident of northern Alberta and director of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Here is her story.

SEE ALSO: Fur Institute of Canada holds 2025 AGM in Edmonton. Truth About Fur.

***

The Wild Path: A Personal Journey

The first traces of my passion for wildlife etched themselves into my mind long before I could spell “conservation.”  As a child in northern Alberta, I would explore outdoors with my brother and my cousin. The skies held a fascination of large and small birds, some quiet voices and some joining each other in raucous laughter, while the fields and forest floors provided small mammals like squirrels, skunks, rabbits and porcupines. Occasionally a mink or an otter would be spotted down by the Burnt River. Deer and coyotes were plentiful.

I wanted to be a veterinarian working with wildlife. I never got there, but found other ways to fulfill my passion. I was the granddaughter of a Hudson’s Bay factor and an Indigenous woman who lived in a town of about 300 people and relied on the fruits of nature. After living up there for my early formative years it was no surprise to my parents that I would choose an occupation along that path.

Personal Growth: Lessons Beyond the Curriculum

While studying wildlife biology and management at the University of Guelph, two of my student colleagues, Richard Popko and Robert Stitt, introduced me to the Ontario Trappers Association at a conference in North Bay. I was smitten. There were at least 250 trappers, men and women from all over Canada to Texas. They were happy, friendly and welcoming people. And they accepted me without question.

Upon graduation I accepted a position from Neal Jotham and Diana Manthorpe, with the Federal Provincial Committee on Humane Trapping, the predecessor to the Fur Institute of Canada. I took a course in trapping from Lloyd Cook, the then president of the OTA. The work I did was to film animals going into traps which we wanted to prove humane. The traps were kill traps, and locked open. There was a trajectory which could be determined with the very little movement we provided and the animals’ movements. No traps were used to kill animals unless they were determined able to hit hard enough at a vulnerable spot. I would film at night and eventually in an indoor space with adequate cameras and lighting. I housed and cared for marten, mink, fisher and raccoon for research, as well as a lynx, and a fox.

SEE ALSO: Humane trapping research program leads the world. Truth About Fur.

My supervisor was Dr. Fred Gilbert, and I had two employees. Eventually the FIC trap development work moved to Vegreville. I had also moved to Alberta and was working for the Alberta Government as a fur biologist. I was still working with traps and trappers and had several trappers outfitted with new humane traps and new technicians to test over the winters. I also worked with government people from the other provinces who held similar positions to mine – such as Bob Carmichael (Manitoba), Mike O’Brien (Nova Scotia) and Pierre Canac-Marquis (Quebec).

Eventually I left to do a master’s under Dr. Frank Mallory on lynx cycles producing my thesis “Location and Characterization of Lynx Refugia of Ontario”, at Laurentian University in Sudbury, supported by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and my many friends and family. During that time, I collaborated with Jim Baker on a chapter in the trapping bible by Milan Novak, Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America.

Following that and before graduating, I attended University of Ottawa at the Law school. I graduated from my master’s and law degrees on the same May weekend in 1992. Upon graduation I worked for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the trapping section, doing consultations with Aboriginal peoples on humane traps. Brian Roberts and Smokey Bruyere were my mentors and supervisors in this position.

I was soon asked to join the Canadian Wildlife Service, to do consultations and help facilitate the changes to the Migratory Birds Convention 1916. With the acceptance of the Constitution Act, 1982 it was necessary to acknowledge and accept the rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada to hunt migratory birds during the closed season for subsistence purposes. I requested and was given permission to form a negotiation committee with Aboriginal peoples on the team. The Honourable James Bourque, who was the Deputy Minister of Environment in the Northwest Territories, worked with me along with Philip Awashish from the Crees of Quebec and Rosemary Kuptana, the then president of the Inuit Tapiirisat of Canada. I have always thought of this successful endeavour as one of the first Federal government actions of reconciliation to Indigenous peoples.

At CWS, I was Chief of Aboriginal Affairs and Transboundary Wildlife for 20+ years. Presently, I am on the Executive of the Canadian Wildlife Federation (NGO) and slated to become in two years the first woman, and first Indigenous president. 

The Power of Community and Collaboration

Conservation, I discovered, is not a solitary pursuit. Through workshops, conferences, and collaboration with other students and professionals, I became part of a network dedicated to wildlife conservation. We shared findings, debated best practices, and supported each other through successes and setbacks. One of my most formative experiences was working on co-management agreements in the new treaties with Indigenous peoples. The project required coordination between hunters and trappers, Indigenous communities, and government lawyers and biologists – a reminder that conservation is as much about people as it is about animals.

I learned to listen as much as to speak, absorbing traditional ecological knowledge and local stories that textbooks never capture. The wisdom passed down by Indigenous Elders about the cyclical nature of animal populations and the importance of gratitude after each successful track or capture added depth to my scientific understanding.

I am humbled and so grateful to so many people who helped me to understand and to grow along my journey, and to have been able to express myself throughout. Receiving the Jim Bourque Award is an amazing gift of recognition which I never expected. Jim was a close friend of mine and a person I highly respected.

Did you know that the province of Quebec has a thriving trapping group whose members are all women? While it's true that the trapping world is dominated by men, every other trapping organisation opens its doors to male and female trappers alike, so why bother? Truth About Fur spoke to the founder of this unique group, Cathy Naud, to find out.

Truth About Fur: You started Trappeuses du Québec in 2020. What inspired you, and does it meet a real need?

Cathy Naud: Women-only communities are nothing new, and their aim is not to segregate women from men. They're about creating environments in which women can shine, grow, and contribute to fields traditionally dominated by men.

So when I launched Trappeuses du Québec, we already had women-only groups for hunting and fishing, but female trappers had been overlooked.

We offer a safe environment for women to empower themselves, and the fact that we already have over 1,500 members clearly indicates the demand was there.

TAF: You say you offer a "safe environment" for women as if mixed-gender groups are somehow unsafe. What do you mean?

CN: By a "safe environment" I mean one where women can express themselves freely without fear of judgment. This builds their pride and confidence, and encourages them to share their expertise.

Of course we work with mixed-gender organisations all the time, and have received strong support from the Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires du Québec and trapping businesses. But the reality is that mixed-gender groups, especially online, can be unwelcoming to women.

Some men are still dismissive of our skills as trappers and struggle to accept that we can trap as well as they do.

For example, sometimes a woman asks a genuine question, only for a man to give an unhelpful or mocking response. Or she'll ask a novice question and be ridiculed. Or she might recount her success in trapping a more challenging species, only to be met with surprise or even disbelief.

Of course, we must also deal with inappropriate comments like "nice beaver".

TAF: So how does your group ensure women have a more positive experience?

CN: We have several unofficial rules that I go through during the interview process. For example, every question deserves a respectful and thoughtful answer. Experienced trappers are expected to be generous with their time in mentoring beginners, and they are.

We also encourage members to share their successes, learn from their mistakes, and grow – all without fear of judgment or hostility.

TAF: In general terms, who are your members?

CN: We are more than just a group of individuals; we are a network where women help one another, celebrate their shared passion, and contribute to ethical and sustainable practices. From beginners to seasoned trappers, every member plays a role in fostering a welcoming and supportive atmosphere.

We come from all over the province, are from diverse backgrounds, and have different skill levels. Most of us speak French – the language of our website and social media – but it's not a requirement, and thanks to artificial intelligence, online translating is easier than ever before!

TAF: More specifically, how are your members involved in trapping?

CN: A significant portion are part-time hobbyists who trap to connect with nature, practice traditional skills, and harvest materials ethically. Many of these are also passionate about hunting and fishing.

But we also have several professionals engaged in nuisance animal control or managing wildlife populations for parks or municipalities.

And then we have artisans and craftswomen who work with fur, bones, and even beaver tail leather. They create beautiful, handcrafted items that honour the animals they harvest.

TAF: So aside from emphasizing respect and support for one another, are there areas where female trappers can teach men a thing or two?

CN: Women bring a distinct approach to trapping that often emphasizes patience and precision, and respect for animals and the environment.

Women tend to be more meticulous and careful than men when preparing animals they have harvested. For example, they may take more time skinning them to avoid damaging the hide. Men, in contrast, may prioritize speed and quantity over quality, which is more likely to lead to mistakes.

Women also tend to be more empathetic and ethical towards the animals they trap. They may spend extra time to ensure their traps are set perfectly to minimize harm to an animal and maximize efficiency. Again, some men prioritize speed and quantity.

And female trappers tend to share more and compete less than their male peers. They are more likely to ask questions, seek advice and collaborate, which can lead to a stronger sense of community.

Another important difference is our physical strength. Many women face challenges with trapping tools, and would like to see more of them designed specifically for us. For example, one member is currently developing an easier-to-use clamp for activating Conibear 330 traps.

TAF: It sounds like the differences between male and female trappers are the same as between men and women in general. Indeed, most men would agree that women are nicer, or at the very least are less likely to start wars! Is this an accurate assessment?

CN: That's correct. Women tend to be more patient, more empathetic, less competitive, and of course physically weaker than men. Trappeuses du Québec understands these differences, and seeks to provide a supportive environment in which women can feel empowered in their journeys as trappers.

Now available on the web are a new series of instructional videos showing trappers how to avoid accidental catches of non-target species, and what to do if they occur.

Trapping associations take this matter very seriously, for a few important reasons. Among these, catching the wrong species can be wasteful, or could interfere with conservation efforts. It also poses an existential threat to the future of trapping: when a pet dog is accidentally caught, anti-trapping campaigners use this as ammunition to call for an end to all trapping.

SEE ALSO: When pet dogs are accidentally trapped, why are media reports so unbalanced? Truth About Fur.

Eight original videos have been produced in French by the Fédération des Trappeurs Gestionnaires du Québec (FTGQ), with the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) then dubbing on English translations. The websites of both organisations are showing the French versions, while FIC is also showing the English versions. The role of host in all the videos is played by trapping instructor and FTGQ managing director Gaétan Fournier.

The videos cover strategies for avoiding accidental catches in restraining traps, killing traps and snares. They also cover a range of animals, including semi-aquatic furbearers (muskrat, otter and mink), birds of prey, cervids (moose, deer, elk and caribou), and domestic animals (mainly pet dogs).

No fewer than three of the videos focus on pet dogs, including one that deals exclusively with what dog-walkers and trappers should do if a dog is accidentally caught.

"No trapper wants to catch a pet dog," explains Pierre Canac-Marquis, Coordinator of the Canadian Trap Research and Certification Program, who collaborated on the project along with fellow FIC member Ryan Sealy, a trapping instructor in Yukon. "Indeed, most of us have dogs of our own, so we understand the grief a family goes through when they lose their pet."

"But the reality is that on those rare occasions that a dog is accidentally caught in a trap, anti-trapping campaigners seize the opportunity to present all trapping in a bad light."

"For this reason in particular, trappers must strive to eliminate accidental catches of dogs. The future of trapping, with all the benefits it brings for conservation and communities, could depend on it."

SEE ALSO: Reasons we trap. Truth About Fur.

The current crop of reality TV shows suggests that not only are many North Americans interested in living closer to nature, they actually crave it. This should bode well for the future of all outdoor activities that involve the taking of animal life, including fur trapping.

This is not a new idea, at least not for me. A decade ago I wrote a piece entitled "Mountain men wannabes: Allies of the fur trade", asking whether we were doing enough to tap into a large base of reality TV fans interested in getting their hands dirty in the great outdoors.

What I wasn't sure of was how many other people were thinking the same thing.

And then I read a July 29 article entitled "Interest in trapping doubles in five years". Town and Country Today had interviewed Alberta Trappers Association president Bill Abercrombie, and one of his comments caught my eye:

"I’d say definitely there is some increased popularity and interest from reality TV shows," said Abercrombie, "but most of all I think because trappers have many skills based on self-sufficiency, sustainable living on the land and bushcraft knowledge."

Agreed, reality TV shows don't deserve all the credit, or maybe even a large part of it. Above all, people's interest in "sustainable living on the land" is growing because of our hugely improved awareness of issues like climate change, pollution, and habitat loss.

SEE ALSO: As society’s grasp of sustainability improves, is fur making a comeback? Truth About Fur.

Still, reality TV is playing a role in all this, whether it's because producers are setting trends or pandering to those that already exist. It's also vindicating for me to hear someone else actually say it!

Swamp People

A major exploiter of this genre is the History Channel, though there are several others.

For an impressive 15 seasons, History's Swamp People has been shooting Louisiana alligators in the head, while dispensing tidbits of advice on family values, protecting communities, and occasionally wildlife management. The show is also now on its third spinoff series, Swamp People: Serpent Invasion, in which cast members bag giant Burmese pythons in the Everglades. A lot of the action is surely staged, but the conservation message about invasive pythons is very real.

Then there's Mountain Men, now in its 12th season, that teaches viewers to chase mountain lions with dogs, haul logs, roast squirrels, and grow shaggy beards.

And for 11 seasons, the survival series Alone has taught us how to fish with thorns, trap rabbits, shoot grouse with a homemade bow and arrow, and build an earth shelter.

Sanitised Killing

An important part of these shows is that they don't – can't – dodge the fact that killing animals is an intrinsic part of whatever lifestyle they are promoting.

Sure, the actual killing process is sanitised (i.e., not shown), but it takes little imagination to guess what happens off-camera.

Thus in Swamp People, we never actually see a gator take a bullet in the skull, but we do see a rifle muzzle being discharged while someone yells "Choot it!"

In Mountain Men and Alone, we know the wounded rabbit or grouse had its neck wrung, though we are spared the sight.

Serpent Invasion is more ambiguous. Pythons are caught live and by hand, then thrown in sacks, so sensitive viewers can kid themselves they end up in pet stores or zoos. But local law says they are actually dispatched on site by a trained professional, usually with a captive bolt pistol.

History Channel even gives us scenes of butchery, albeit minus the blood and in an unlikely setting. On its hugely popular reality show Forged in Fire, newly crafted blades are often tested for sharpness and strength on bled-out pig carcasses, salmon and ram skulls.

PETA and Friends Silent

Against this backdrop of animal slaughter and butchery, the silence of animal rights groups has been remarkable.

It's tempting to trot out an old argument that since most people hate crocodilians and snakes (and spiders) anyway, campaigning for their rights would be a lost cause. But that doesn't quite hold water given that PETA et al. are now fighting hard to ban "exotic skins" from croc and python farms.

Another old argument that no longer works is that you don't protest against leather at a Hell's Angel rally. Sure, gator hunters tend to be large and survivalists are ridiculously healthy, but in this age of remote protesting afforded by the Internet, the chances of them gutting and skewering you are zero.

My explanation is far more positive.

Commercial TV executives, and the bodies that regulate what programs can show, are all about giving us what we want – with obvious exceptions. And that means that a group of people sat down somewhere and discussed topics like:

• Is it ok to show alligators being shot in the head?

• Is it ok to show rabbits being trapped or grouse being shot with an arrow?

• Is it ok to show pig carcasses being cut to pieces?

Obviously regulators approved all these, with conditions, suggesting that showing such scenes has been judged beneficial – educational even – to society as a whole.

If my logic is sound, it tells me two things.

First of all, it tells me that the majority of North Americans accept the killing of animals as part and parcel of living close to nature.

And second, it underscores that the targeting by animal rights groups of wild fur trappers is arbitrary and therefore unjust. We need to stress this in our public relations.

If the North American public are ready for scenes of gators being shot in the head, rabbits being trapped, and pig carcasses being cut to ribbons, it's also ready for scenes of fur trappers at work.

And before you say it, many furbearers also make extremely good eating.

This May saw the launch of the Truth About Fur Podcast, a collaborative effort of the Fur Institute of Canada and the Blood Origins Canada Foundation, the national branch of a global nonprofit dedicated to telling the truth about hunting and promoting conservation. Hosting duties are shared by the FIC's Executive Director, Doug Chiasson, and Mark Hall, Director of the Foundation and host with his son Curtis of the Hunter Conservationist Podcast (Apple Podcasts; Spotify).

In this first episode, Doug and Mark discuss current trends in auction prices for wild furs, and the state of Canada’s Atlantic sealing industry. You can listen in on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, or watch it on YouTube.

So why has the FIC decided to dive into the world of podcasting?

"It's really a case of the right opportunity coming along," explains Doug. "The Hunter Conservationist Podcast has been around since 2019, and I've already been a guest on a few episodes, so I know the effort and attention to detail that Mark puts into his podcasts.. Plus the Foundation is the perfect fit for us. When it comes to sustainable use of wildlife resources in Canada, we're on exactly the same page."

SEE ALSO: Doug Chiasson: What does the Fur Institute’s new ED bring to the table? Truth About Fur.

Mark is also onboard with the new partnership.

"The Fur Institute of Canada is a global leader in the industry," he says, "so I'm honoured to be co-hosting the new Truth About Fur Podcast. Trapping and sealing are integral to Canada's economy and to the well-being of so many Canadian families. We live in the information era, so it is important that people in the fur/seal industry have a trusted source of news and updates from across the country and even abroad. Our goal is for the Truth About Fur Podcast to be that trusted source of information."

Target Audience

The first episode of the new podcast runs for 1 hour 10 minutes – a sizable chunk of time. So who do Doug and Mark hope will tune in?

“One of the most important tasks of the Fur Institute of Canada is to share information with anyone interested in the fur trade, and reaching as many people as possible requires multiple approaches," says Doug. "We already have a website, three social media channels and a newsletter for members, and we interact with mainstream media. Now we're adding a podcast, which fills a special niche. The audio format, plus of course the duration, enable us to dig deeply into issues while catering to people who can't be glued to a computer screen."

So who might these people be?

"If you enjoy listening to the radio, you'll enjoy podcasts," says Doug, "Maybe you're a trapper who spends hours behind the wheel of a truck, or in your fur shed. Your hands and eyes are occupied, but you can still listen. Or maybe you're just making dinner or washing dishes. With a podcast playing in the background, you can learn something while hopefully being entertained too."

"We also hope we'll attract listeners from the Hunter Conservationist audience. Trappers and hunters are both parts of the same outdoors community, and face many similar issues. So we're excited to explore these areas of common interest, and hopefully bring hunters and trappers closer together."