Unfortunately, this could happen to anyone working with fur these days, especially retailers selling any sort of fur or fur-trimmed… Read More
Ingrid Newkirk, queen of the animal-rights bullies.
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:
First, he introduced himself and explained that his company had supported this charity event since its inception, a decade ago.
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.)
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?)
Then he asked what they were serving for dinner for the fashion evening ... (She was chuckling now.)
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!”
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!
The world is changing and, with it, our approach to consumption. As the impact of global warming worsens, many consumers… Read More
The world is changing and, with it, our approach to consumption. As the impact of global warming worsens, many consumers are rethinking what they buy, and how much of it. "Local", "organic" and "minimalism" are all buzzwords many of us are drawn to, and some people question the need to eat animals, or wear leather and fur. Where does that leave us with animal use?
The use of animals is an ethical dilemma that many people question, but most people agree that if animals are well-treated, they are not in danger of becoming extinct, none of the animal is wasted, and the animal is put to good use, then it is acceptable for us to use and consume them.
Animal use is an integral part of many people’s lives, and is linked to essential products in our everyday life, such as medication, food, and clothing. Animals are used in medical testing in order to find cures to life-threatening diseases. We eat animals and while some people question the need to do this, there is plenty of evidence it can be done without harm to our planet. In fact, lots of land is better suited for pasture than for cultivation. And remember that animal manure is used to replenish the soil to grow crops. But if we are concerned about possible impacts, a small reduction in the amount of meat we consume – and waste – can go a long way. And lastly, we wear many types of animal products in order to protect ourselves from the elements. Fashion may not be essential, but clothing is. The need to keep warm in cold weather is a matter of life and death.
If you live in a cold country, you’ll need clothing that can protect you from the elements, and your choices should involve leather, fur, and other animal products. Why? Because there are no viable alternatives.
If we really care about the environment (and we all should because nothing else matters if we don't have water and food and clean air), we will want to buy sustainable fashion products that use production processes that are not too harmful to the environment, that are long-lasting, and that are biodegradable. That is exactly what animal skins are. Yes, they aren’t perfect; leathers and furs use chemicals in their processing and finishing (like all other textiles), and sometimes the farming has an environmental impact. But when you consider how long a good fur coat or high-quality leather bag lasts, you’ll realize that the environmental damage is minimal compared to the lifespan of the item.
So here they are, the five reasons why we must all wear leather and fur, and these reasons all point to the fact that there are simply no viable alternatives.
1. There are no alternatives that are biodegradable. The synthetic alternatives to fur and leather take much longer to biodegrade (50 years for treated leather vs. 500+ years for pleather), and even when they have “biodegraded”, there are still remains of the plastic particles in the soil, which we are now finding in our oceans and inside fish. Truth About Fur is in the process of conducting an experiment to prove that real fur biodegrades much faster than “faux”, and the results are more dramatic than even we expected.
2. There are no alternatives that are sustainable. Synthetics are made from petroleum by-products. You probably know that petroleum is not a renewable resource. The problems caused by the extraction and transport of petroleum are only a part of the issue, let’s not get started on the political issues (read: wars) that are caused by petroleum. Animals are a renewable, sustainable resource. (Actually, wool, down, and cashmere and other similar materials are sustainable, so these are certainly viable alternatives when it comes to winter coats. But the animal rights activists are against those, too, since they come from animals. Usually a sensible winter wardrobe would combine fur, leather, down, wool, and cashmere – you’ll never be cold.)
3. There are no alternatives that are as long-lasting. While a fake fur or leather jacket may be sitting in a landfill for a few hundred years longer than its real counterpart, that doesn't mean it is longer lasting in a fashion perspective. When well cared for, fur and leather items can last for decades, but fake leather and fur hardly do the same. Both look worn out much faster (and not in a cool way – like worn out leather), and they also don't maintain their warmth or waterproof qualities. You don’t find many fake leather bags being handed down from one generation to the next, do you?
4. There are no alternatives that are as environment-friendly. The points above do a good job of making this argument, but we can add to this by talking about the processing. Yes, leather and fur require chemicals for processing (leather requiring more than fur as you need to remove the hairs from leather, whereas with fur you are aiming to protect them). But two important things to consider here are that (1) the chemicals used to “dress” furs are really quite benign, e.g., alum salts (which are sold in the pharmacy to add to your bath water for sore muscles), and (2), the longevity of leather and fur items means that the chemicals per wear are much less than a synthetic alternative. Your leather bag or fur coat may have used chemicals in its production, but the fact that it lasts you 30 years makes it a more environment-friendly option than the synthetic version, made from a non-renewable resource that requires chemicals in its processing, which then looks tatty after two seasons. Another important thing to consider is that no synthetic material looks good in its natural state, while fur is frequently used in its natural state (meaning its natural colours), reducing the need for bleaches and dyes.
5. There are no alternatives that are as safe. We’ve yet to fully understand the bodily harm coming from wearing synthetics, but there’s a great deal of research that shows that synthetic materials may contribute to health issues such as infertility, respiratory diseases, and cancer. Why take the risk when there are natural alternatives?
If you truly care about the planet and its inhabitants, you’ll make consumption decisions based on what’s best for us all. You might refuse to eat animals or watch them being used as entertainment, but it is impossible to deny that synthetic clothing is causing irreparable harm to our planet. Choose materials that are sustainable, long-lasting, and biodegradable. Choose fur and leather because there are no viable alternatives.
***
To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.
The Sportsmen’s Alliance is a US organisation that protects the outdoor heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting in all… Read More
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.
Brian Lynn: "Trappers are the most active, passionate, and engaged audience there is." Photo: Sportsmen's Alliance / Brian Lynn.
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.”
"[Trapping] is a hard sell for us to protect, it is an easier sell to misrepresent," says Brian, seen here hunting duck in Alaska. Photo: Sportsmen's Alliance / Brian Lynn.
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.
Great sport and great eating too! Hipsters are "taking responsibility for their food, and ... relaying their message in a way that their friends can understand." Photo: Sportsmen's Alliance / Brian Lynn.
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:
Every month, as I read through the past month’s fur news headlines, I think to myself, “Wow, this animals rights… Read More
Every month, as I read through the past month's fur news headlines, I think to myself, "Wow, this animals rights activism story is even stupider than the ones from last month." This month is no exception. In fact, June might be hard to beat because the activists have been up to some seriously stupid stuff. Let's have a look.
Can you handle a bit more stupid? Here are our top three seriously stupid animal rights shenanigans from June.
Third place goes to the woman who spent $300 to get a lobster from the grocery store back into the sea. I guess she doesn't realise that buying lobsters only contributes to demand, and her particular lobster was probably caught again 20 minutes after its release. (Grocery stores are all, like, "Lobster sales are going up! Even vegans are buying 'em!")
Second place goes to the vile, disgusting PETA people who are using the Orlando shooting as ammunition (pardon the pun!) for their anti-hunting agenda. America's largest mass shooting does not, I repeat, DOES NOT, deserve to be compared to hunting deer. EVER!
Deer Vasectomies?
Speaking of deer, the first place spot goes to the imbecile who thinks the best way to control the deer population on Staten Island is to start a 2 million dollar a year male deer vasectomy program, which the New York Department of Environmental Conservation thinks is a bad idea, and will have “limited effectiveness” and be “unable to quickly reduce deer-human conflicts.”
And let's give the special runner-up award to Kimberly Sherriton, a housewife in Long Island who organised a series of protests outside a farm because she wanted to save the life of a cow that they were going to slaughter to eat. The best part? Her solution was, "Please, tell him to go to Whole Foods and go get some antibiotic-free beef there." Because Whole Foods sells beef from cows that weren't slaughtered, right? I can't even deal with this level of stupid.
Moving on to the furry stuff! We just posted this piece about a renowned Canadian trapper on our blog (pictured below), definitely worth a read and if you want to know more, he's written a book about his life! This is a great video on trapping, entitled Meet Your Local Trapper, and Vice has once again shown its support for hunting and trapping by publishing How to Make It as a Fur Trapper in Northern Alberta. Ever wondered why mink is the world's favourite fur? We sure did, and that's why we wrote this blog post about mink fur.
If you are struggling to find ways to include fur in your summer wardrobe (the struggle is real, people) then Vogue's piece 14 Ways to Wear Fur All Summer Long has some really useful tips. If you are in a shopping mood, then you'll be pleased to hear that Kluger Furs has expanded and Adrienne Landau is now selling online, thanks to Beyoncé and Madonna. And if you are looking for a few soft materials to fill in the gaps of your fur wardrobe (maybe the summer mink ideas weren't working for you?) then keep an eye out for this new blend: perino.
When activists tell you that the majority of Americans think wearing fur is wrong, then they are lying. Americans think wearing fur is more acceptable than medical testing on animals, cloning, and extramarital affairs.
If you’ve worked in the fur industry or been vocal about your love for fur, then you have probably suffered… Read More
If you’ve worked in the fur industry or been vocal about your love for fur, then you have probably suffered some verbal abuse from animal rights activists. Animal activists like to claim they hold the moral high-ground and that they are the compassionate ones. Well, let’s look at some of the things these models of compassion say ...
What they say about ... using foul language in front of farm animals:
"[it's] conceivable that verbal abuse of an extreme nature [against any animal, including sheep] could constitute an act of violence"
Nicolah Donovan, president of Lawyers for Animals (source)
I guess they never heard the old adage, "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me."
What they say to ... a homestead farming family when they post a photo of a cow they have just raised and then slaughtered for food:
"What if I start raising children for raping? Would that be acceptable? Would that be better than raping another child? It's stupid to think it is OK to kill animals."
It’s time for our monthly Fur In The News roundup, and as always, we’ll be looking at the latest fur stories,… Read More
It's time for our monthly Fur In The News roundup, and as always, we'll be looking at the latest fur stories, but we'll start with a couple of more general interest. First up, there's a new illustrated parasite guide doing the rounds (above) that speaks for itself. Please share widely!
Then there's the story of how nasty scorned vegans can be, which surprised even us. When a group of Californians found out one of their favourite vegan restaurants had owners who raised their own animals and then slaughtered them, they got a bit upset. Actually, more than a bit upset, they started sending the restaurant owners death threats. We are still trying to figure out how someone can claim to care about animals' lives, but threaten human lives. It makes no sense! Then again, neither does not eating meat or not wearing fur.
LESLIE BALLENTINE: And last but certainly not least, in late May we lost a dear friend and a remarkable collaborator. Leslie Ballentine worked for some 30 years to help producers tell their stories and reply to animal rights challenges, including work with Ontario egg producers and later as founding Director of Ontario Farm Animal Council, and more recently as communications consultant for the Fur Institute of Canada and Truth About Fur, among other clients. Leslie’s knowledge, commitment and passion for our work will be sorely missed. We send our sincere condolences to Leslie’s husband Alan, to her daughter Kailin and to other family and friends. You left us too soon and we miss you already, Leslie. Thank you for all your hard work in our field.
It's time for our April Fur in the News roundup, so here's our summary of the media's coverage of trapping, sealing, fur fashion and stupid activists ...
Let's start with trapping, and this fantastic guest blog post by "modern trapper" Jeff Traynor (pictured), who talks about his love for this age-old skill and its traditions. Outdoor Canada recognized the importance of trapping and why hunters need to support Canada's oldest profession. "There was some income involved, there certainly was a pursuit involved, and it's an accumulative hobby,” veteran trapper Victor Blanchette is quoted as saying. It rings true, of course; Blanchette has been trapping for 50 years and knows what he's talking about.
Need to know when to sell your furs? This handy article from Grandview Outdoors gives some tips for trappers who need to decide whether to sell or store their skins. And if you ever get a cougar stuck in a trap, here is one way to release him (pictured.) But kids, it is best not to try this at home, or outside.
Of course trapping isn't without its controversy; like most animal-related activities, there is always someone complaining. The latest uproar is about a beaver derby in Saskatchewan, which sees beavers getting trapped and their skins getting used. But activists want the derby stopped so that the beaver carcasses get left to rot in fields instead. Speaking of beavers, some residents of this community don't want the local beavers to be trapped, even though residents' homes are at risk of being flooded. They claim it is unfair for the beavers to be killed because they are only doing what "is natural to them." It would be natural to a coyote to eat your cat, or a cougar to eat your toddler. Should we let them get away with that, too?
Activists just don't get it, do they? Case in point: this story about an ostrich who was released from a circus, and who died after being hit by a car ten minutes later. Another "liberation" gone desperately wrong. What is wrong with these people? A lot, we think, especially after reading this article about an "escalation workshop" for activists. The content in there was so messed up that we decided to include it in our new column, Things Animal Rights Activists Say (pictured). Read it to hear activists showing zero compassion for humans, including sick people and suicide victims, because animals are more important, right?
And to round out the month, activists put their misguided zeal into practice on the night of April 29, "liberating" mink from a farm in Ontario. A sizeable reward has been offered for the capture of the perpetrators. Let's hope someone can claim it!
On the bright side, it was nice to hear that a store in Vancouver, Canada, who has been dealing with militant anti-fur protesters in front of its store for three years, has announced that this year has been its best ever season for Canada Goose parka sales. It warms our heart when we hear that activists' actions fail.
April was sealing month, which means fundraising time for the animal rights charities who get donations by fooling people into thinking white coats get clubbed on the ice. (They don't, and that hasn't happened since the '80s.) Our favourite sealing spokesperson, Tanya Tagaq, had this to say about the matter. These incredible photos show a side to the hunt that we don't see portrayed in the media enough. And here is an innovative way to use seal skin - we can't wait to stock up on Aurora Heat next winter. And there is no shortage of sealing memes around, including one showing the incredible size of the seal populations, another making fun of protestors (pictured), and this one highlighting yet another celebrity fur hypocrite.
Let's finish off with a couple more things...
Wearing fur is a great way to celebrate Earth Day.
If you’ve worked in the fur industry or been vocal about your love for fur, then you have probably suffered… Read More
If you’ve worked in the fur industry or been vocal about your love for fur, then you have probably suffered some verbal abuse from animal rights activists. Animal activists like to claim they hold the moral high-ground and that they are the compassionate ones. Well, let’s look at some of the things these models of compassion say ...
What they say about ... poor labour practices in garment manufacturing in poorly regulated countries:
"I dont care about humans being exploited. animals arent in control of their destiny. period. i realise humans are massively destructive to everything. thats why i hate em.” [sic]
Welcome to the fifth installment of our Hypocrites series, dedicated to exposing celebrities who use their star power to attack the fur trade – while failing to see their own glaring contradictions. Today we turn the spotlight onto brash British funnyman Ricky Gervais, who fancies himself as a defender of animals. He has spoken out strongly against the use of animals in laboratories, trophy hunting, bull-fights ... and fur.
“Animals are not here for us to do as we please with. We are not their superiors, we are their equals. We are their family. Be kind to them,” says Gervais. Unless, of course, we fancy them breaded and fried.
It’s time to look back at last month’s media, so here is our Fur in the News roundup for January… Read More
The Revenant has struck a chord not just with mountain men, but the whole of the fur trade.
It's time to look back at last month's media, so here is our Fur in the News roundup for January 2016! Let's start with some cinema. The Revenant has been one of the most talked-about Hollywood films in the fur and trapping communities. Here's a Vanity Fair piece about the costumes for the film, the secret concoction they used in lieu of bear grease, and the grizzly pelt Leonardo DiCaprio's character Hugh Glass wore throughout the film.
If you don't have $10,000 for a new jacket, then why not try making one yourself? This is a brand that sells fur accessories, but what is stopping you making some of your own? Or how about a cushion? StyleCaster has some great ideas on how to decorate your home with fur.
Paris-based furrier Yves Salomon, now on New York's Madison Avenue, saw record sales in 2015.
Vancouver fur retailers got some great news when this animal rights activist was banned by police from entering, or even walking by, any of the fur stores he has been harassing for the past few years.
Speaking of crazy animal rights activists, a group of them in Shanghai forced some "animal abusers" to eat cat poop, only to find out later that they had targeted the wrong people. Now they are up sh*t creek, pending sentencing after they pleaded guilty for being total idiots.
Once again, a PETA video features a woman being violently attacked.
But that's not all the activists have been up to! A heinous activist, whose name I don't even care to mention, made some horrible comments about two hunters, including country singer Craig Strickland, who went missing when their boat capsized during a duck hunt.
PETA launched a new video (pictured above) showing a violent scene where a woman gets brutally beaten up to push its anti-wool agenda. It is truly sickening. But on the bright side, PETA has had some problems with its recent mink farm allegations. It released a video depicting "animal abuse" at a farm in Wisconsin, so investigators were sent in. Its expert fur farm investigator found no violations and instead asked PETA to provide its unedited video content and make the witness available for questioning. If PETA really cared about the welfare of animals, it would provide this, but knowing PETA, it probably won't.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dons a sealskin vest at the Northern Lights Trade Show.
And here's something to bookmark: 5 Reasons Why It’s Ridiculous to Claim Animals are Skinned Alive. We wrote this piece so that everyone has a resource they can refer to when they are trying to explain to people that animals are NEVER skinned alive. We all know it never happens in our industry, but the activists have done such a good job of making everyone think it does. It is time to fight back.
And that's it for January! Let's end it with this beautiful deer dancing. Or is it an elk? Or are elk a type of deer? It doesn't matter today. We just love how cute this guy is.
This is the second installment in our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing influential figures whose anti-fur arguments are full of holes. Today… Read More
This is the second installment in our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing influential figures whose anti-fur arguments are full of holes. Today we're talking about pop singer Pink, a PETA spokesperson and meat-eating "vegan" who loves wearing leather shoes.
The Hypocrite: Pink, pop singer, "vegan", and current model in PETA’s “Rather Go Naked” anti-fur campaign.
The Hypocrisy: Pink helps the animal rights organisation PETA to campaign against fur. PETA, not coincidentally, also promotes veganism. So, depending on the day of the week, Pink describes her diet as "mostly vegan".
On the subject of fur, Pink entreats us in her PETA poster to "Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs." But she has no problem with a cow losing its skin so she can wear suede boots.
"Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs," says PETA spokesperson Pink, seen here resplendent in her suede boots. Photo: GC Images
What they say:PETA says, “P!nk has become known for being super-comfortable in her own skin—so comfortable that she teamed up with PETA and photographer Ruven Afanador to make her point perfectly clear: She wants animals to keep their own skin.”
What we say: Pink, your suede boots are lovely, but they're made from animal skin. So stop asking the rest of us to let animals "keep their own skin" while wearing it yourself.
Also, your diet of mostly veggies, but with chicken, fish and cheesecake thrown in, sounds great, but don't call yourself "mainly vegan", or even a vegetarian, just because you think it sounds cool (or because PETA told you to). You're an omnivore.
You and PETA are clearly a mismatch, so please stop endorsing them immediately.
We’ll eat our steaks, and you can wash down your chicken with a wheatgrass smoothie.
We’ll wear our fur, and you can wear your suede boots.
And we'll all refrain from telling each other what to do and how to live our lives. Fair enough?
