The news about fur is so muddled these days, it’s no wonder some people are confused.

Take the surging popularity of used furs. As we reported recently, GenZ is embracing “vintage” as a guilt-free way to enjoy the comfort and beauty of fur. After all, the animals died long ago, and reusing old clothing is better for the planet than contributing to mountains of discarded – usually petroleum-based – fast fashion. Fine, but why stop there? After all, today’s new furs will be tomorrow’s vintage.

Similarly, shearling is trending on fashion runways, with politically-correct designers claiming it is not fur at all. But isn’t it? Shearling is an animal hide (sheepskin) processed with the hair attached, the same as any other fur. Some find it reassuring that sheep are raised for food, that my shearling jacket is just the packaging from someone’s rack of lamb – a distinction that probably wouldn’t impress sheep. In any case, Indigenous and other trappers eat beaver, muskrat, seal, and other fur animals. What’s the difference?

Meanwhile, anti-fur campaigning continues: governments are lobbied to ban fur production; many apparel companies have stopped selling it; and Vogue – following the retirement of their dauntlessly independent editor, Anna Wintour – recently announced that fur will no longer appear in the magazine, even in advertising.

So, is fur back in fashion, or isn’t it? Why is sheepskin now cool, but mink and beaver not so much? And how does fur become more ethical with age, or is it just the lower price point that draws young people to “vintage”?

Quite the muddle.

Why All the Fuss About Fur?

Of course, there’s nothing new in muddled thinking about fur. Animal activists have spent decades tarring fur trapping as cruel – even as millions were invested by governments and industry to assure the humaneness of trapping.1

Activists also denounce mink farming, claiming that it’s cruel to keep “wild animals” in pens. But mink have been raised on farms in North America since the 1870s. After more than 150 generations of selective breeding they are very different than their wild cousins – they are twice the size, much tamer, and well adapted to life on the farm.2

The fur trade is not a rogue industry, it has adopted responsible practices just like other agricultural sectors. From an animal-welfare perspective, it sometimes scores better: wild furbearers roam freely in nature until the moment they’re captured; farmed mink – precisely because they are not used for food – are spared the long truck ride to distant abattoirs. And yet, in a society where literally billions of animals are eaten each year, the fur trade has been treated as a pariah. Go figure.

Sustainability

Another example of muddled thinking is the belief that we should stop using fur if we wish to protect nature. When Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri announced that his prestigious designer label would go “fur-free”, in 2018, he claimed this demonstrated “our absolute commitment to making sustainability an intrinsic part of our business.” Other companies followed suit, revealing how little they understood (or cared?) about what sustainability really means.

Many wild species are indeed threatened by climate change, pollution, urban sprawl, and other challenges. Some fear we are witnessing a “Sixth Mass Extinction”. But the modern fur trade does not deplete wildlife populations; the fur we use today comes from abundant populations. Government regulations ensure that only part of the surplus that nature produces is taken each year – which is true sustainability. This is why Greenpeace, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other serious environmental conservation groups do not oppose the fur trade. The North American fur trade is a conservation success story that deserves to be better known.

And so, anti-fur campaigners – and companies that yield to their pressure – are not promoting sustainability at all. Quite the contrary: because “animal rights” groups oppose using any animal products – no fur, no leather, no wool, not even silk -- they provide cover for petroleum-based synthetics that are not renewable or biodegradable, that leach micro-plastics into the environment each time they are worn or washed – but are now often marketed as virtuously “vegan”.

The Medium Is the Message

Confusion about fur is not accidental. Animal-rights advocates are not interested in acknowledging the animal-welfare and conservation achievements of the fur trade because they oppose any use of animals. As PeTA’s website clearly asserts: “Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.” But because few people are prepared to follow PeTA to such lofty heights of moral purity – only 4% of North Americans are vegetarian; barely 1% say they are vegan – attacks on fur (and other animal-based industries) are disguised as animal-welfare campaigns, sensationalizing real or purported abuses.

Industry efforts to correct misinformation face the problem that, in an age of information overload, attention spans are limited, especially for subjects remote from most people’s daily lives. One gory photo trumps volumes of expert testimony.

Meanwhile, to retain fickle audiences, the media are drawn to controversy and confrontation. Trappers and mink farmers diligently tending their traplines or barns are not news; a dozen shouting protesters make better television – especially if some are topless. “We’re media sluts,” says PeTA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk. “We didn’t make the rules but we learned to play the game.”

The game is also rIgged demographically. Not so long ago, most North Americans still had family living on farms; summer vacations provided hands-on education about where food comes from – and respect for the skills and knowledge of people who fish, hunt, and raise livestock.

Now, for the first time in human history, most of us live in cities, with little or no contact with the land. Children are raised on Disney fantasies of nature, where the lion frolics with the lamb. The animals we frequent are mostly our pets, which increasingly are treated as “children”. Often, they sleep in our beds. When the only canine you know is your dog, it is easy to be upset by images of coyote trapping or fox farming – especially when the images are carefully selected to shock.

Fur is denounced as an “unnecessary luxury”, catering to spoiled rich people. But, despite its luxury image, the fur trade remains small-scale and artisanal; it lacks the financial and other resources that larger industries can deploy in response to misleading activist campaigns.

Protection Racket

Confusion is also caused when anti-fur campaigns become self-reinforcing feedback loops. When Canada Goose and other prominent apparel brands stop using fur, it suggests that something must be wrong with it; people must no longer want it. But the real reasons why companies drop fur have little to do with ethics or consumer demand. Store invasions, rowdy protests at the homes of CEOs, social media attacks, and other aggressive tactics simply make fur too hot to handle. When security and brand-reputation costs for a small segment of a company’s sales become too great, dropping fur is a business decision.

Consumers could also be bullied – especially because most were women. (A leading animal-rights theorist once told me he thought PeTA would show more integrity if they protested biker gangs for wearing leather jackets!) Many women stopped wearing fur, not because they thought it was wrong but for fear of having paint thrown at them. Ethics, indeed!

The Future of Fur

So where do all these mixed messages leave us? Is the recent popularity of vintage fur and shearlings just a fashion blip, or the beginning of a real shift in the tectonic plates of social consciousness?

One encouraging sign: despite decades of negative publicity, most people have a more positive view of fur than animal activists would have us believe. An opinion poll commissioned by the Natural Fibers Alliance, in 2022, found that two-thirds (65%) of Canadians think wearing fur is acceptable so long as the industry is well regulated and animals are treated humanely. Only one-in-five (21%) disagrees – with just 10% saying they “strongly disagree”.

In the US, same story: 61% agree that brands and retailers can responsibly use and sell animal-based products including leather, wool, silk, and fur. Only 9% strongly disagree.3

More than three-quarters (77%) of Canadians also believe that wearing fur is “a matter of personal choice” – similar to findings in previous US studies – putting the lie to activist claims that the public supports their call for the governments to ban fur farms and retail fur sales.

Especially interesting: for the first time in the 25 years that I have reviewed such surveys, younger people (18-25) now see fur in a more positive light than their elders. GenZ’s love affair with fur is not a fluke.

People are becoming more aware of the environmental costs of non-biodegradable, petroleum-based “fast fashion” – not to mention concerns about the leaching of micro plastics into the food chain each time these synthetics are worn or washed. Bits of plastic are now being found in marine life, breast milk, and in our brains. Cruelty-free indeed.

Bottom line: people do need clothing, and if our goal is to embrace more sustainable lifestyles, fur checks all the boxes. Made from a natural, renewable resource, fur apparel is extremely long-wearing, can be re-styled as fashions change, and is often passed from one generation to the next – as highlighted by the current popularity of vintage. From an environmental perspective, fur is not a “frivolous luxury”.

From a cultural perspective, the fur trade preserves a treasure-trove of human knowledge, skills, and culture. Indigenous and other trappers are some of the last representatives of our hunter-gatherer heritage; with most of us now living in cities, they are our eyes and ears on the land, often the first to sound the alarm when pollution or habitat destruction threaten wildlife. Mink are raised on multi-generational family farms, providing income and employment for embattled rural communities. Fur artisans (my own grandfather was one) maintain extraordinary handcraft skills that have been transmitted through generations.

None of this means that everyone will want to wear fur. But the popularity of vintage furs and shearlings bucks the – until recently – seemingly irresistible push to “cancel” the fur trade. As Leonard Cohen sang: “There’s a crack, a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in!” Time will tell whether GenZ’s new interest in fur will open the door to a more honest appreciation of this remarkable North American heritage industry.

FOOTNOTES

1) The program directed by the Fur Institute of Canada (since 1983) allows new trap designs to be rigorously tested and certified. It has supported new state and provincial regulations, trapper training programs, and, in 1997, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) – the world’s first international animal-welfare treaty. See also: Neal Jotham: A life dedicated to humane trapping. Truth About Fur, 2016.

2) Mink housing, nutrition, and care standards are set out in codes of practice developed by animal scientists and veterinarians, under the auspices of the National Animal Care Council.

3) Natural Fibers Alliance, personal communication.

Something that keeps writers like me employed is that no matter how good we are at spreading the truth, when the next generation comes along there are things we have to teach all over again. Such is the case with the clothing material popularly known as sheepskin, lambskin or shearling. And the lesson that needs constant repetition is that it is not wool, it is sheep fur, and animals die to produce it.

In defence of those who find this confusing, it's true that the word "fur" is popularly used to mean the skin and hair (or pelt) of particular types of animal, like mink or fox. But in fact, every hairy animal can provide fur, including sheep, which do so in vast amounts. We just don't call it fur. Sheep fur is variously called sheepskin or lambskin, while the fur of a sheep which has been recently sheared is called shearling.

And just for total clarity, when we use sheep hair without the skin attached, it's called wool, and no animals are killed to produce it.

In the context of the great fur debate, these are important distinctions because many people are wearing fur without even knowing it, including some people who should know better.

Pam's Ugg Boots

The most memorable case of someone not being able to put two and two together was Pamela Anderson. During her Baywatch days, she almost single-handedly turned Ugg sheepskin boots into a major fashion trend. She then took up the cudgels for PETA, campaigning against the practice of mulesing sheep while still wearing her trademark Uggs.

For some unknown reason, PETA decided not to tell Pam what Uggs were made of, but finally the penny dropped. "I'm getting rid of my Uggs," she wrote on her website in 2007. "I feel so guilty for that craze being started around my Baywatch days. I used to wear them with my red swim suit to keep warm never realizing that they were SKIN! I thought they were shaved kindly. People like to tell me all the time that I started that trend - yikes!"

"It's Clear It's Sheep's Wool" – Vogue

But the point here is not just to have a laugh at Pam's expense. She is a high-profile example of a pervasive ignorance found not only among the general public but even in the world of fashion.

This November, Vogue (UK) interviewed Gucci's new handler, the Humane Society of the US, about the brand's decision to go "fur-free". As we shall see, there's cause for scepticism when brands like Gucci, which use a lot of shearling, make this claim. Will they be dropping all furs, including sheep fur, or just the mink and fox?

Never fear, reported Vogue's interviewer, Emily Farra; Gucci had all the bases covered. "Gucci has already made its signature Princetown loafers in lamb, sheep, goat, and alpaca fur, which do not require the animals’ pelts," she wrote. Really? What is "alpaca fur" if it's not a pelt? More significantly, Gucci is quite open about its sheep-based Princetown loafers being lined with shearling, and, yes, that means the whole pelt – skin and hair.

We called out Ms. Farra on Twitter, but she refused to see the light ...

Animal Rights Groups, Designer Brands Conspiracy

Ignorance about sheep fur persists in part because neither designer brands that use it, nor the animal rights groups that handle them, are forthcoming with the truth. It's a trade-off. In return for brands declaring themselves "fur-free", their animal rights handlers turn a blind eye to the fact that sheep pelts are fur.

SEE ALSO: Why is Giorgio Armani really quitting fur?

A shameless example of this duplicity is Ralph Lauren. Since 2006, it has been "100% fur-free" and compliant with "PETA guidelines". In reality, it uses a huge amount of sheep fur, often disguising it as other types of fur, necessitating the following footnote to the show notes of a recent collection: "Ralph Lauren has a long-standing commitment to not use fur products in our apparel and accessories. All fur-like pieces featured in the collection are constructed of shearling."

Talk about double-speak! Both Ralph Lauren and PETA are surely aware that shearling is fur, and yet they insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise. And they get away with it because, as Pam Anderson and others have proved, intelligence is in short supply where sheep fur is concerned.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, here's the short version: Sheepskin, lambskin and shearling are all fur. And yes, animals die to produce them.

Fashion house Giorgio Armani announced this March it will no longer be using any fur in its products because, in the words of its patriarch and namesake, “Technological progress … allows us to have valid alternatives at our disposition that render the use of cruel practices unnecessary as regards animals.” While this tortuous explanation may sound sincere, it’s not. It’s PR bunkum. So why is Giorgio Armani really ditching fur?

OK, first I need to explain why Giorgio Armani's statement is bunkum - and add a general disclaimer that I don't actually know what went down here!

Giorgio Armani's statement is bunkum because he almost certainly never said it, or even thought it, or had a hand in picking the words. It's just part of a script prepared by his animal rights handlers.

How can I be so sure? Let’s start with some context.

• Fashion designers don't use fur for years and then quit of their own volition. There's always pressure involved from animal rightists.

• Like all fashion houses that use fur, Giorgio Armani has been harassed by animal rightists for years, but unlike some, has shown stiff resistance. Even now, its commitment to quit fur may not mean anything. In 2007, Giorgio told the press, "I spoke with the people from PETA and they showed me some materials that convinced me not to use fur." But a year later he was back with a collection of fur coats for babies! PETA responded with a poster campaign of Giorgio with a Pinocchio nose and has been gunning for him ever since.

• Giorgio Armani is a huge name in everything from ready-to-wear to haute couture, but in the world of fur is barely a player anymore. For the past several years, rabbit trim has been its thing. So quitting fur will hardly impact its collections. Add to this the fact that two major markets that have buoyed fur's revival this century are now in the doldrums (Russia) or slowing down (China), and we can say that quitting fur will have a negligible impact on Armani's profits.

Make This Problem Go Away

Against this backdrop, we can perhaps understand the real reason Giorgio Armani is ditching fur.

As Keith Kaplan of the Fur Information Council of America explained to WWD, when designers are harassed by animal rightists, "I think they consider whether it is worth the threat of store protests and disruption of business and so forth. Right now, because of the economic conditions in Russia and China, I think designers are evaluating and saying, 'Perhaps at this juncture, it might not be. We’ll give in at this point to make this problem go away'."

And that, in a nutshell, is probably it. Giorgio Armani just wants to get the animal rights lobby off its back, at a time when the business is already tough enough.

The deal would follow what is now a standard template. The animal rights groups pen a statement to be issued in the name of the designer, claiming he has "seen the light" and will be going fur-free. The animal rightists then trumpet victory, claim full credit for their powers of persuasion, and promise to stop picketing stores and generally making the designer's life miserable.

In the case of Giorgio Armani, its decision to cave was announced by HSUS and the Fur Free Alliance, “a coalition of 40 animal protection organizations in 28 countries that are trying to end the fur trade”. “Pursuing the positive process undertaken long ago,” Giorgio's prepared script said, “my company is now taking a major step ahead, reflecting our attention to the critical issues of protecting and caring for the environment and animals.”

Had Giorgio spoken his mind, he might have said, "After years of relentless pressure, I have decided to throw in the towel and give the animal rights nuts what they want because they're a pain in the butt and I just want them to go away!”

100% Fur-Free?

Meanwhile, inquiring minds are still asking two questions: Is the "100% fur-free" clause in effect? And was any hidden pressure brought to bear on Giorgio Armani?

The "100% fur-free" clause is an unspoken compromise between animal rightists and designers used in closing a tough negotiation. In essence, it is agreed that the animal rightists will praise the designer for abandoning fur completely - going 100% fur-free. Meanwhile, the designer quietly continues to use fur that is a by-product of food production.

Luxury goods manufacturer Hugo Boss recently reached such a deal. In its 2014 Sustainability Report, it explained that it had been "in dialog with several animal and consumer protection organizations for many years, for example with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." Presumably because of these "many years" of harassment (sorry, dialog), it announced that from 2016, it would be restricting the sources used for its fur supplies. Specifically, it would be "concentrating on furs that are byproducts of the food industry," while halting use of pelts from "raccoon dogs, foxes or rex rabbits". No mention was made of quitting fur, or even of reducing overall fur use.

HSUS and the Fur Free Alliance then announced that Boss was going "100 percent fur-free", a false claim that has been repeated widely, including in WWD.

SEE ALSO: IS NO FUR THE RIGHT MOVE FOR HUGO BOSS?

You might think Hugo Boss will get hauled over the coals the next time it trots out a collection of shearling (sheep fur), but it won't. Ralph Lauren, which uses an enormous amount of shearling, proves that.

FAST FACT: What is shearling? We all know that sheared beaver is the hide and hair of beaver that has been sheared to a short pile to make it lighter and less bulky, and give it a plush feel. Sheared mink is the same deal. When the hide and hair of sheep are used, it is known as shearling. All are types of FUR.

Ralph Lauren's deal with PETA, on the face of it at least, is the most shameless piece of self-serving, mutual ass-kissing in the history of the fur trade's relationship with animal rightists. A footnote in the show notes for Ralph Lauren's fall 2015 collection says it all: "Ralph Lauren has a long-standing commitment to not use fur products in our apparel and accessories. All fur-like pieces featured in the collection are constructed of shearling."

So Ralph Lauren is now "100% fur-free", and proudly compliant with "PETA guidelines" since 2006. And PETA loves Ralph Lauren right back. All Ralph Lauren has to do is stick to shearling (tons of it), while both parties insult our intelligence by pretending shearling is not fur.

Hidden Pressure?

Last but not least, we inevitably ask ourselves whether animal rightists finally found Giorgio's Achilles' heel. It's a reasonable question when we consider how long he held out. Maybe he really did fold because fur is not important to the company, or because the luxury fur market is slowing. Or maybe he was made an offer he couldn't refuse!

Yes, it's pure speculation, but that was the buzz when Hugo Boss made its deal. No one put it in print, or spoke it on the air waves, but people were thinking it. Could Hugo Boss have been threatened with a campaign telling the world how it got its big break?

Hugo Ferdinand Boss: Nazi Party member, sponsoring member of the SS, and admirer of Hitler. It's not much of a résumé, is it? This is the man whose company took off as an official supplier of uniforms to branches of the Nazi Party, including the Brownshirts, the SS and the Hitler Youth, using POW’s and forced labourers.

Animal rights groups know all this stuff, of course, and probably have a bunch of other cards up their sleeves just waiting to be played. And maybe they had the dirt on Armani too - we'll never know.

But one thing is for sure: Giorgio Armani did not quit fur because "Technological progress … allows us to have valid alternatives at our disposition that render the use of cruel practices unnecessary as regards animals"! As readers of Truth About Fur know, and hopefully Giorgio Armani too, technological progress – and a strong commitment by the industry – now allow us to produce beautiful furs without animal suffering.