A flurry of media stories last Winter announced, with evident surprise, the sudden reappearance of fur on designer runways and in the streets, with Gen Z consumers leading the way. Could the fashion pendulum really be swinging so far? Are new opportunities really opening for those in a trade that has suffered from years of unfair and misleading anti-fur campaigning?

The New York Times (Feb. 16) led the pack with a piece entitled "What happened to the stigma of wearing fur?” "[I]n January," it observed, "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, journalist Jessica Iredale wrote, 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 (Feb. 18) followed suit with "Fashion turned on fur. Young customers want more". Then the New York Post (Feb. 19) ran with "Real fur is making a comeback after years of exile. 'You'll see it on the runway again'".

The stories just kept on coming. On Feb. 28, Women’s Wear Daily featured lamb shearling on its cover, declaring that “Furry textures – some real, some faux” were all over the runways at New York Fashion Week. “Welcome to the latest downtown uniform as a new generation looks at fur a different way.”

It was the same across the pond. On Feb. 21, for example, The Standard of London reported "How luxury fell back in love with real fur and crocodile skins". “Despite the bans and the rise of faux fur, it looks like fashion is falling in love with the real thing again,” declared journalist Rebecca Cope. Pip Chawner, whose brand Philippa London repurposes vintage fur, agreed: “If you walk up and down King’s Road, pretty much every fifth person is wearing a piece of fur.”

Fur was also prominent at the Paris and Milan fashion weeks, at upmarket Aspen and St. Moritz ski resorts, and on celebrities including Rihanna and Kendall Jenner.

So, what did happen to the stigma of wearing fur, as the New York Times asked? Or perhaps, for someone like me who has spent much of the past 40 years defending this much-maligned North American heritage industry, a better question would be: “What took so long?” But I am getting ahead of myself.

SEE ALSO: Adventures of a pro-fur warrior. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur, 2017.

Microplastics Scare

Until recently, promoters of fake fur – or "faux" fur, as they call it – insisted that the main reason for choosing it over the real thing was that it was “cruelty-free”.

But there is growing awareness that fake fur, like most synthetic textiles that now account for some 60% of our clothing, is made from petroleum. As such, it doesn't biodegrade, and it sheds clouds of microplastics each time it’s washed or worn. These tiny pieces of plastic are now being found in marine life, and even in breast milk. Cruelty-free, indeed!

SEE ALSO: What is "vegan fashion" and how true is the hype? Truth About Fur.

As trend forecaster Tiffany Hill, interviewed by The Standard, put it: “Some consumers are questioning whether banning fur was truly an environmental win, given the environmental impact of synthetic alternatives. As concerns over fast fashion and microplastic pollution grow, some argue that natural fur – when sourced responsibly – is actually a more sustainable option.”

Sweet words indeed!

Shearlings and Vintage

But the fight is not over yet. While fur is creeping back into the fashion limelight, decades of anti-fur campaigning have left their mark. The confusion these campaigns have caused can be seen in the way fur is now being embraced with claims that vintage fur is more virtuous than new, and that shearling is not really fur at all!

As any fashionista knows, vintage furs have been a huge hit for the past few years, and their appeal is obvious. As designer Carly Mark spelled out in the New York Times, the draw of vintage fur is that “it already exists”.

Rebecca Cope of The Standard agrees. “Gen Z have embraced fur more wholeheartedly than other generations for a specific reason – it can be argued that vintage fur is entirely sustainable, while the majority of faux fur alternatives are not, due to the plastic content.”

In other words, vintage fur satisfies the ecologists’ call to reduce the enormous waste generated by disposable “fast fashion”. The next step, of course, will be to recognize that the same arguments support using new furs too: A quality fur coat can be worn for decades, and can even be taken apart and completely restyled as fashions change – an important environmental advantage.

A long-term problem with vintage furs, obviously, is that supplies will run out if folks stop buying new furs. On the plus side, vintage gets unused older furs out of the storage vaults and onto the streets, to remind people of the warmth and beauty of this remarkable natural material.

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

The renewed popularity of shearling is another example of how fashionistas are rationalizing their return to fur ... by pretending that it isn’t fur at all!

“Well, it’s shearling, not fur,” said Matteo Tamburini, creative director of Italian fashion house Tod’s, in Vanessa Friedman's New York Times report from Milan Fashion Week (Mar. 2). “It’s all shearling,” echoed Maximilian Davis, creative director of Ferragamo. “Fur is something we can’t use today, we shouldn’t use today ...”

Shearling definitely is fur, of course, just like mink or fox or any other fur: they are all animal skins tanned (dressed) with the fur (wool, hair) still attached. Shearling, however, comes with the handy moral buffer that it’s just left-over packaging from someone’s rack-of-lamb.

This by-product-of-food-production argument doesn’t cut it with animal-rights groups, since PeTA et al. also want to “cancel” the use of animals for food. But few people seem ready to follow PeTA’s call to such heights of ethical purity. A recent Gallup poll found that only 4% of Americans now say they are vegetarian (no meat in their diet), while just 1% identify as vegan (no dairy, eggs, or other animal products).

Perhaps it’s time for furriers to promote the “food-by-product” story to beaver, muskrat, sealskin, and other fur animals which are also eaten?!

SEE ALSO: Top 5 tasty furbearers. Muskrat stew and more. Truth About Fur.

Turning Point

For those of us who have tried for years, often with little success, to explain the fur trade’s ecological credentials, it is music to our ears to read in a prominent newspaper that, "Some consumers are questioning whether banning fur was truly an environmental win, given the environmental impact of synthetic alternatives."

For too long, facts were no match for sexy photos of celebrities who would “rather go naked than wear fur”.

But now we may be at a turning point. Just when it looked like fur was headed for the dustbin of history, the tectonic plates of societal consciousness have shifted again.

Of course there are still serious obstacles to overcome. For example, anti-fur activists continue to call for bans on fur production and sales in many regions, and prominent fashion media like Vogue are refusing to cover fur fashion or even accept advertisements.

But younger consumers are clearly ready to look at fur differently.

It’s now up to the fur trade to take advantage of this new openness to promote the comfort, beauty, and, yes, the environmental and ethical credentials of this remarkable heritage industry.

When New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who represents the Garment District, announced a proposal back in March to ban future sales of fur in the city, many viewed it as another case of politicians blindly following a trend. After all, the animal rights industry has made a national business out of vilifying the animal consumption world - regardless of what’s fact or fiction.

But what animal rights activists and political sponsors assumed would be an easy steam-roll over “rich white women” and “redneck trappers and farmers” who support fur usage, has proven shakier than imagined. Perhaps the large majority of Americans who recognize the regulated usage of animal by-products as both sustainable and practical, wasn’t quite anticipated.

We sure do live in interesting times in American culture! If I sound punchier than usual, it's with good reason.

When the public just won’t pay attention to self-righteous anti-fur diatribes, it's become a national trend to politically force legal bans upon the masses of your fellow citizenry instead.

California knows this process all too well, with the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco both imposing bans on the sale of fur recently. Political pressure has also been applied with current legislation seeking to totally snuff out regulated trapping and the sale of wild fur statewide.

It doesn’t take a business strategist to see what’s going on. Clearly, in the eyes of the animal rights industry, the “east coast” was in need of a dust-up with some good ol’ frivolous (and completely egregious) hunting and garment restrictions. Hopes were quickly imposed to ensure New York City becomes the next “fur-free” urban mecca.

The only difference from the antics playing out on the west coast: the Big Apple isn’t going down without swingin’… hard!

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

We Don't Care How They Do It in California

According to trade group FurNYC, the city still has the largest retail fur market in the country, stating the 150 remaining fur businesses in New York create 1,100 jobs and produce $400 million in revenue per year.

And it's not just backwoods fur trappers supporting the industry. As the NYC fur ban really started to heat up this May, folks from all walks of American life came out to fight the proposal.

African-American and Jewish faith leaders added to the protests in opposition, stating that the ban discriminates against their cultural heritage. Outspoken immigrants weighed in regarding the potential loss of skills and careers. Celebrities jumped into the mix to criticize government who thinks it can tell its people how to dress. Anyone who recognized fur as a sustainable material made sure to join the vocal movement against the ban.

"People feel complete when they put on something that they worked hard for, they have sacrificed for," said the Rev. Phil Craig, who was among 75 clergy and other advocates who turned out at one protest against the ban.

In a Tweet sent out in May, The Coalition For Blacks For Fur stated: “This fur ban will destroy jobs, the environment, and critical tax revenue.”

Apparently, the pushback from a ban on fur in NYC was more than the city’s politicians expected.

“Maybe I should have thought more about this before I introduced it because I didn’t realize the amount of pushback there would be,” Johnson told reporters at City Hall. “I was actually moved by some of the furriers and their testimony,” he said.

Animal rights proponents, on the other hand, still desperately contend the usage of fur is trending downward. (All the more reason to force a ban I guess, right? These folks clearly aren’t famous for their rationale.)

On the contrary, a national locavore movement seems to be fueling a revival in sustainable materials, like fur, which is probably why industry leaders like PETA and the Humane Society of the US are scrambling to support restrictions on fur usage and regulated hunting of fur across the country.

SEE ALSO: HSUS and PETA: Top fur ban proponents not credible. Truth About Fur.

We reported just a few months ago about the booming demand for coyote fur-trimmed winter jackets produced by Canada Goose. And it's not just fashion - more and more rural citizens are interested in ethically utilizing fur-bearing species that pose problems to homes, property, and livestock.

With synthetic fibers from “faux fur” coats flushing 1,900 fibers into our world’s waterways every wash, it's no wonder that eco-conscious citizens are turning to more natural ways to reduce the “plastic footprint” that all parties seem to agree is a global issue.

In the case of wild fur especially, the regulated seasonal trapping and usage of fur pelts from abundant wild species such as raccoons, skunks, and beaver is nationally considered wise use of resources that are otherwise destined for the landfill when they’re struck by vehicles, lose habitat due to urbanization, succumb to disease, or cause conflict for landowners and municipalities.

Environmental and wildlife management aspects aside, an underlying theme heard from citizens in the NYC fur ban debates is clear - freedom of choice.

The “my closet, my choice” meme seems to be resonating with a growing sector of the American population that has grown tired of hollow protests and frivolous government bans.

It appears as though the “freedom of choice crowd” carries the bigger stick - at least for the moment.

SEE ALSO: Progressive politicians should promote fur, not ban it. By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

Wrong Info Creates Wrong Decisions

While some people are certainly foaming at the mouth to drive another nail in the coffin of rural culture, many more are lighting their torches and wielding their pitchforks against fur-supporters based on hearsay rather than tangible information.

“All-knowing” celebrities like fashion designer Tim Gunn have been outspoken supporters of the fur ban. Gunn told reporters that “Foxes, rabbits, chinchillas and even dogs and cats are anally electrocuted, gassed, bludgeoned and often skinned alive.”

Even Speaker Johnson, in explaining to reporters why he proposed the ban, said he “really just did it because I felt like it was the right thing to do in my heart.”

Apparently Johnson and Gunn, and also PETA representative Dan Matthews who echoed similar statements, did not do their homework before pushing for a city-wide ban. They also haven't been paying attention to the news lately.

In March, two Chinese workers came forward stating they’d been paid by animal rights activists to skin a dog alive on video. That video, which has been circulated around the internet, is the only crutch the animal rights industry has been able to rely upon for the out-of-left-field (and inherently false) statement that licensed trappers and fur farmers “skin animals alive for their fur”.

SEE ALSO: Notorious "skinning fur animals alive" video exposed as complete fraud! By Alan Herscovici, Truth About Fur.

Of course, licensed fur trappers and fur farmers know full well skinning animals alive isn’t part of the pelting process - but who asked them, right? Not the mainstream media, not the government officials imposing these bans from city to city, and certainly not the anti-hunting/anti-fur crowds.

While some may argue that fur pelts aren’t “needed” in the modern age, some could also argue that the detractions against regulated fur usage are also in dire need of some evolutionary creativity.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreements in opinion, the usage of animal byproducts, or even wildlife management fundamentals. A disagreement however, is far from shoving cult-like laws and legal bans down the throats of the American people.

No Such Thing As Bad Publicity

For the animal rights industry, I suspect the battles over fur bans from coast to coast (and coat to coat) present themselves as a win/win situation.

Even if the NYC fur ban caves to the pressure of citizens’ right to choose, the animal rights organizations spearheading the ban still walk away with profitable notoriety as a byproduct of their latest PR stunt.

Which is why, despite the lunacy of strong-arming a ban on the usage of a natural resource, the organizations, celebrities, and politicians involved in perpetuating the NYC fur ban will continue the circus act from city to city, state to state, country to country, and, inevitably, closet to closet.

Let's be real, if anyone supporting a ban on fur garments actually cared about animal welfare, they’d do their due diligence by researching all aspects of the debate, rather than selfishly hiding behind a protest sign or online petition. But alas, ignorance breeds ignorance; and a false sense of “moral superiority” just breeds more lackluster grandstanding - an obvious hot commodity surrounding the topic.

Perhaps it's time the (already heavily regulated) hunting, trapping, and fur-garment communities take a page out of the animal rights industry playbook and soak up a slice of the publicity pie themselves.

At the end of the day, groups like PETA don’t care if they win or lose another media-fueled public cage match - I’m talking about them aren’t I? And that’s what ultimately sells - whether the facts lean in favor of their views or not.

Supporters of the regulated usage of natural fur materials would be hard-pressed to find a better microphone than the one they’ve been forced to fight against in New York City - and it's time for those invested parties to take full advantage of this circus while it's still in town!

Suffice to say, the animal activism industry has a PR problem: the men and women protesting the NYC ban on fur aren’t your run-of-the-mill rural fur trappers and mink farmers the American public has been conditioned to demonize. Collectively, the folks most outraged over the proposed fur ban represent a cross-section of modern America - all creeds, all races, all classes, all political affiliations.

Sometimes, a government-backed “ban” on a particular material or chemical makes sense to protect the health of its citizens (or the natural resources we all cherish and have been tasked with conserving). The NYC fur ban, clearly, is not one of those instances.

A ban on clothing choice? Especially from a material that is regulated, and has proven no modern negative impact on our environment (while the alternative product has proven to cause environmental harm) - well now, we all know that’s just silly.

At the end of the day, whether NYC moves forward with its ban on fur or not, one thing has been made painfully clear: the animal rights industry can’t claim the “moral majority” any longer.