furISgreen.com: News and views about fur, ecology and animal right's extremism

North Atlantic whaling and sealing in 2010 and beyond

9/7/2010 1:41:34 PM

PRESS RELEASE, NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission)

The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission held its 19th annual meeting from 31 August to 2 September 2010, in Tórshavn, Faroe Islands. The member countries of NAMMCO, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway again confirmed their commitment to ensuring the sustainable utilisation of marine mammals through active regional cooperation and science-based management decisions.

In his opening address to the meeting, the Faroese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Jørgen Niclasen, stressed the vital importance of marine mammals as renewable resources for economies and cultures across the region. Mr Niclasen noted that it is the regional basis of cooperation through NAMMCO that makes it a more effective organisation. Fisheries and hunting nations in the North Atlantic share many of the same practical experiences and challenges and agree on the fundamental principles underlying cooperation on conservation and management of whales and seals.

The Governments of Canada, Denmark, Japan and the Russian Federation are represented by
observers at meetings of NAMMCO.

Key events and conclusions from the meeting included the following:

Canadian sealing in focus
Mr Denis Longuépée, a professional sealer from the Magdalen Islands in Canada, was the guest speaker at the opening of the 19th meeting of the NAMMCO Council. His illustrated account highlighted the importance of the traditional seal hunt in the Magdalen Islands, Quebec, the growing abundance of seal stocks in the region, problems arising from the EU seal import ban, as well as the economic prospects for the development of new seal products and new markets.

Status of whale stocks
Stock assessments based on the final outcome of estimates from the Trans North Atlantic cetacean sightings surveys (T-NASS) in 2007 are now available for fin, minke and humpback whales. Management procedures applied have been derived from those already developed in the IWC using the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) approach with accepted tuning levels.

A priority task for the NAMMCO Scientific Committee in coming months will be the finalisation of an updated abundance estimate for pilot whales in the North Atlantic.

Planning of the next regular NASS survey at some time between 2013 and 2015 will now get underway.

Ecosystem Management and Modelling
NAMMCO, through its Scientific Committee, is now committed to an extensive and unique modelling programme that will involve experts from countries both within and outside NAMMCO and included Canada, Japan, Russia and South Africa. This ambitious ecosystem modelling programme is likely to become a major step forward in this field on a global scale. It will run over 2-3 years to progress work towards achieving NAMMCO’s commitment to using ecosystem-based management of marine resources in the North Atlantic region. Four different models will be applied in two geographical regions: the Barents Sea and the waters around Iceland.

Expert Review of Whale Killing Data
The Committee on Hunting Methods convened an expert working group in early 2010 to undertake a review and evaluate the large whale killing data from member countries and Japan, as well as examine data and information on recent and ongoing research on improvements and technical innovations in hunting methods and gears used for the hunting of large whales in NAMMCO countries. The expert working group made a number of recommendations. The report is available on the website www.nammco.no

A similar expert working group will also be planned in the near future to examine in more detail data on killing methods used in catches of small whales.

Humpback Quotas for Greenland
Greenland informed the Council that it has resumed humpback whaling in West Greenland with a quota of 9 humpback whales allocated by the IWC, including “struck and lost” and a carry-over system. So far this year, one humpback whale has already been taken.

Based on the most recent advice from the NAMMCO Scientific Committee, the Management Committee on Cetaceans concluded that a total removal of up to 20 humpback whales per year from 2010 to 2015 would be sustainable.

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
Postbox 6453, Sykehusveien 21-23, N-9294 Tromsø, Norway.
Tel: +47 77687371; Fax: +47 77687374; E-mail: nammco-sec@nammco.no
Website: www.nammco.no

How environmentalists killed a proud enterprise

8/23/2010 2:33:57 PM

by Rex Murphy, National Post

Thanks mainly to the determination and energy of some of Canada's Inuit leaders, the European Court of Justice has suspended the European ban on seal products until further notice. National Inuit leader Mary Simon quite naturally welcomed the ruling, but emphasized in a statement that it is not a full win, just a stop "to the implementation of the ban" as scheduled.

Nonetheless advocates for the seal hunt, aboriginal or otherwise, will welcome whatever victories -- however partial or temporary -- they get. In every other venue and in every other forum the seal hunters have been losing for years.
Activists and urban animal rights groups, abetted by a bevy of high-bosomed B-actressess, have raged against the seal hunt -- particularly the one of the East Coast of Newfoundland -- for nearly half a century. Yes it's been that long. With their relentless messaging and hype, they have fixed the image of this great and worthy venture in a dark and mean light, and left it beyond repair. In the salons of Los Angeles, London and Paris the seal hunt is a synonym for barbarity, and the peasants who prosecute the hunt are sadists and savages. It is a "blood sport" for cruel and careless man, unbecoming of our "sensitive" age. The tide of activist description has overwhelmed the reality of the hunt and -- more poignantly -- the great story of its history.

The seal hunt was never a game, and certainly never a sport. Its pursuit was littered with hazard, hardship and death -- to the hunters. Anyone familiar with its actual history (historian Shannon Ryan's The Ice Hunters is a great introduction to the subject) will recognize something close to the heroic in the strength, skill and daring that had men and boys collide with the brutal forces of the ice fields of the North Atlantic merely to gain a pittance's reward to keep their families in bread for another year. An honest accounting of the seal hunt shows it as an awesomely formidable enterprise of the early east coast settlers -- a proving ground of courage, self-reliance and stoic endeavour.

However, the tale now told is the tale fashioned and retailed by the activists and the campaigners, the new "enterpreneurs" of the 20th-century environmental movement. But there is a bigger story, or at least a more contemporary one here, as well. The campaign to Save the Seals -- as it was first known -- actually represents the birthing ground, or nursery, of the modern environmental movement itself.

It was on the Labrador ice fields that mid 20th-century environmentalism sharpered its sense of how to conduct a campaign and grew into an international force and presence.

It was there environmentalists first learned the value of "internationalizing" a campaign, grew savvy in the ways of media and learned the arts of scenic press conferences and the value of brocading their enterprise with a clutch of the B-list celebrities of their day. Yvette Mimieux and Loretta Swit ( "Hot Lips Houlihan" from M*A*S* H) were brought along to make sure the issue found its way into the pages of People magazine and other venues of high enlightenment.

The seal hunt provided the master template of modern environmental activism.

All of which is perhaps merely trivial information for those who have never seen the hunt. But to Newfoundlanders, and I suspect to the Inuit, the story is a greatly different one. For them, this long and ardent attack on a nearly symbolic aspect of the deeply traditional pattern of life in the outports suggests other, darker considerations. For one, that the "agents of conscience" were reckless in their portrayal of people most of them never cared to meet. And that the Save the Seal heroes neither knew, nor cared to know, of the hunt's history; of the momumental tragedies that scarred its long tenure; and of the astonishing endurance and courage of the generations that prosecuted it.

So the sprig of news that there is a "stay" on the ban of seal products sounds no real victory. It rather tells me that the days of the seal hunt, regardless of what the European court eventually decides, are effectively over. A victim of ignorance, propaganda and our age's appetite for trendy causes.

But before the hunt fades utterly from memory, let it be registered that the campaign against it was meretricious from the beginning, conducted with minimal regard for the fortunes and history of those who pursued it. Let us remember that this whole half-century of aggressive opposition to the seal hunt is not a triumph of enlightened modern sensibility. It is a monument to a peculiar form of cynicism that flies all too frequently under the banner of self-proclaimed idealism and sensitivity.

- Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV's The National and is host of CBC Radio's Cross Country Checkup.

Beaver Boom - CBC Radio report

7/7/2010 12:01:41 PM

CBC Radio today reported on problems caused by expanding Quebec beaver populations -- and need for trapping to prevent excessive damage to roads and property. Report includes comments by trapper (and Cree Income Security exec-director) Serge Larivière.

To listen to the report, click here

Fur is Beautiful... and Eco Friendly

7/7/2010 1:59:54 PM

A must read by Naomi Padowicz for her blog, Retro Home Tips for Today's Households. Apart from the fur story, I love the theme of the blog. I have often thought that our parents and grandparents were much more "green" without talking about it. (My parents still have the same AM-only warm-up radio they did when we were kids; the same pliers and screw-driver, etc in the kitchen drawer, etc...) Wonderful to see a fresh take on fur by someone outside the trade with an interest in eco-friendly living. - Alan

Fur is Beautiful and Eco Friendly

by Naomi Padowicz, Retro Home Tips for Today's Households

I was raised a child of the cult of Disney, as a young girl I was ritualistically indoctrinated into the religion of Bambi and 101 Dalmatians. A belief system that made it clear that cruelty to animals of any kind was wrong, eating meat was cruel, wearing leather was vicious, and fur was murder. I will not deny that I was a one time member of PETA when I was a teenager, I will also not deny that for 5 years I was a strict vegetarian, terrified of eating anything that was given to me for fear it had once breathed and lived. I had allowed my mind to be brainwashed by trite cartoons, and Pamela Anderson. As someone who has been concerned with the state of the environment since I was 8 years old, doing the right thing and being responsible has always been uppermost in my mind. So imagine the shock, when I inherited a full length white mink coat with white fox collar and matching hat. The bizarre thing is that as soon as the coat rested on my shoulders I felt fantastic, right so it was a bit small as I am not a 4 foot tall Polish woman but rather 5 ft 11 inches tall. The lining needs replacement, and the sleeves have seen better days. But other than that the coat is in perfect condition, and I felt like a 1940s film star in it. As soon as the realization that the wearing of fur was this intoxicating washed over me, an inbred feeling of intense guilt took over. Research was in order I was not going to wear something if I was torturing small furry creatures. Even if they were incredibly luxurious and warm.

To read the rest of the blog post, click here

The European Parliament Shuts Down Seal-Products Imports - Again

6/9/2010 11:22:17 AM

by Aaju Peter for Above & Beyond Arctic Journal

In the spring of 2007, my son, Aggu, and I went to the Netherlands to oppose that country’s proposed seal ban. A crowd of protesters assembled in front of the Canadian Embassy. Youth holding posters of bloody seals on the sea-ice told us that we should grow vegetables instead of hunting seals. The simple truth they apparently failed to grasp is, we live in a very different geographical area from them. We live in the Arctic. Ten months of the year, the land is covered with snow. We cannot grow crops such as potatoes or wheat, or many of the foods that others can, who live in warmer climates, for reasons that should be obvious to them: months of darkness and the permafrost, just to mention two. Inuit, like many others around the world, harvest that which our land and waters provide for us. We harvest and rely upon the seal.

How can these same people pass a regulation that will have such grave effects on so many lives in remote Arctic communities, yet remain so totally unaware, untouched?

Two years later, the movement, which began in the Netherlands, had spread throughout the European Union. On May 5, 2009, I was sitting inside the European Parliament building in Strasbourg, France. The Members of the 27 countries that form the European Union were voting on whether to ban the import of seal-products into the European Community. The vote was cast: 550 for, 50 against. After all the work that anti-sealers had done over the past three decades, the outcome did not come as a surprise. Still, this was a very sad moment. My thoughts went to the families in Nunavut and the other Arctic regions whose lives would be so gravely affected by this ban, and yet, they were, at that moment, so very far away.

A couple of days earlier, I had travelled to Europe as part of an Inuit delegation, along with representatives of the Canadian east coast sealers, to meet with some Members of the European Parliament in Brussels, to tell them that we were opposed to the ban and to explain why. Canadian and European media interviewed Meeka Mike, Natsiq Kango and Joshua Kango, members of the Inuit delegation from Iqaluit, Nunavut, who had travelled for three days in advance of the crucial vote in Strasbourg. They all said the same thing: that they were opposed to the proposed ban and that the Inuit exemption was not going to save them, or other Inuit, from the effects of the ban.

The regulation on trade in seal-products grew out of public concern in Europe that seal-hunting is inhumane, that stunning seals with hakapiks, bludgeons or guns provides undue suffering for the animals.

The ban on importing seal-products into the European Union provides for an Inuit exemption, requiring that all exempted Inuit seal-products result from hunts conducted “traditionally” which contribute to the “subsistence” of Inuit. The regulation does not contain a definition of “a
traditional hunt” or of “subsistence.”

Following the vote, many in attendance went downstairs to a buffet luncheon. Hundreds of people lined up. Rows of tables were set up in the large cafeteria displaying a vast array of meats, salads and desserts. Tiny pictures of cows on little sticks were sticking out of steaks. There were also veal, pork, and chicken dishes. We all filled our plates and went to sit among others who I assumed had also attended the vote.

Everyone seemed to enjoy their lunch. Just moments before, we had witnessed 600 parliamentarians passing judgement on the livelihoods of thousands of people in Canada, denouncing their sustainable harvest of seals in the wild, calling it inhumane. Yet, strangely, no one seemed to make the connection that the meat they were biting into came from animals raised in confinement and slaughtered in abattoirs, and no one questioned whether they suffered during their captivity or whether they experienced pain as they were being slaughtered. That was the biggest display of hypocrisy I have ever witnessed.

For me the central question was simple: how can these same people pass a regulation that will have such grave effects on so many lives in remote Arctic communities, yet remain so totally unaware, untouched? Do they not see the connection here? What, in their minds, is the difference between their own farmers and our seal harvesters?

In the evening we were taken to a local restaurant where we were treated to local delicacies: big juicy sausages and pâté de foie gras. Foie gras, I was told, is made from the livers of ducks that had been force fed for no other purpose than to make them nice and fat, supposedly making this European delicacy much tastier. That very same day, their parliament had voted to ban cruel, inhumane killing of seals. Somehow that evening, however, it was perfectly okay to feast on a delicacy made from birds that had been force fed in their own backyard.

For me, the proposed seal-products ban is a very one-sided proposition. Hunting is our way of life. We have depended on the seal for as long as Inuit have occupied the Arctic regions. In fact, the seal made it possible for us to survive there. Seal harvesting provided for many, sometimes all, of the needs of our people and our dogs for millennia.

It is no surprise, then, that Inuit would unanimously object to the European seal ban. Inuit leaders, government, Hunters and Trappers Organizations, and individuals have all expressed their opposition to the ban on seal-products. The opposition coming from Nunavut cites the dire effects that the 1983 ban* had on Inuit, saying that despite the fact Inuit were not targeted at that time, the legislation had devastating social and economic consequences for Inuit. There is ample evidence to support this assertion, which perhaps needs to be more effectively communicated to European parliamentarians.

The Nunavut Legislative Assembly has passed motions stating their opposition to the ban. It also has issued press releases claiming the exemption is “pointless” and that the hunt is sustainable. One of the studies conducted for the Government of Nunavut concludes that promoting sealing is one of the most economical and healthy options for the territory today.

Recognizing that sealing offers the benefits derived from country foods, the Government of Nunavut has committed to purchase the sealskins harvested by hunters, even after the ban on importing seal-products, which resulted in no Nunavut sealskins being sold at the annual fur auction last year. Even if $500,000 is paid to hunters for the sealskins, the replacement value of country food harvested in Nunavut is estimated at more than $30 million annually, so it would be a worthwhile investment. This estimate does not factor in the health benefits of country food, the cultural and social importance of hunting, or the opportunities it provides people to participate productively in their community’s economic and social life.

There are distinct difficulties with the so-called Inuit exemption to the regulation. One real problem is that there is no definition of what constitutes hunting for subsistence. If the hunter’s wife prepares the skin and makes mittens out of the skin and sells them, is this subsistence?

Another is that for a seal-product to be exempt from the ban it not only has to “contribute to Inuit subsistence” but also must be “traditionally hunted” by an indigenous member of the Inuit homelands. This stipulation is very colonial — it implicitly paints a picture of Inuit out on the land, without any contemporary aid, such as store bought clothes, snow machines, or rifles. The regulation defines Inuit as “members of the Inuit homelands where they hold aboriginal rights.” This does not recognize that according to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, 1993, Inuit in Nunavut have the right to define who is Inuit, not the European Parliament.

The regulation does recognize that under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “the hunt is an integral part of the culture and identity” of indigenous peoples. However, the regulation omits to mention that the UN Declaration also states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

In trying to limit Inuit economic development to subsistence hunting, the regulation does not recognize the fact that Inuit are not frozen in time, but must pursue economic opportunities just like everyone else in Canada or Europe. The anticipation of this European ban already led to zero sales at last year’s fur auction, despite the promised Inuit exemption. The longer-term consequences will be devastating. Income that hunters receive from selling sealskins enables them to go hunting again for food for their families, and allows their families to purchase goods from the stores. What will replace that income?

***

In May, 2009, right after the European vote to ban seal-products, Canada’s Governor General, Her Excellency, Michaëlle Jean, made a seven-day visit to Nunavut. Her first stop was Rankin Inlet, where she was offered a piece of seal heart to eat. For her, this was an act of respect for Inuit and their culture. To the Inuit, her acceptance was a demonstration of respect for both Inuit culture and for the seal. To the anti-sealing lobby and the European Union, the act was both bizarre and disgusting.

This is a custom that has been practiced by Inuit for thousands of years. It is a matter of pride to serve the best that nature has to offer, part of our ancient tradition of shearing. Her acceptance was labelled by some European media and politicians has "bloodlust". These people owe the Inuit an apology.

Instead, the regulation to ban the import of seal-products into the European community comes into effect in August 2010. The development of this ban arises out of the sort of thinking evident in the reactions described above, and was done without consultations with Inuit. We remember the devastating effects of the 1983 ban on white-coats, even though that ban also claimed — more logically, then, one might say — not to target Inuit seal hunting. With the cost of living in the Arctic regions many times that of southern regions, it is important that Inuit are able to sell sealskins at a reasonable price and that Inuit artisans and fashion designers have equal opportunity to develop a viable world market for their inspired creations. Even with an Inuit exemption, the effect of a ban on seal-products will render the price of sealskins so low as to make it virtually pointless for seal hunters to sell them.

Regardless what the Europeans may do, the seal-hunt remains an integral part of our culture, our identity and our economy. Just as the seal has been an essential source of sustenance for millennia, their harvest remains an important and necessary right, central to our healthy, sustainable existence and economic viability, now and for the generations to come. We are, and shall remain, a seal-hunting culture, and a seal-eating people.

Aaju Peter is a lawyer and activist originally from Greenland, now living in Iqaluit. She also designs, sews, sells, and wears sealskin clothing. Original article can be read here.

Also read the HumaneWatch Interview with Aaju Peter

* In 1983, the European Union banned the import of white-coats, the baby harp seal previously hunted on Canada's east coast. This is not even the same seal hunted by the Inuit, for the most part, but nonetheless the impact on Inuit sealskin sales was profound and long lasting.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO EDUCATE EUROPEANS?

For starters, why not send every member of the European
Parliament a copy of this article? It would help if they were
to read something written from the Inuit perspective, for
which they claim to hold some sympathy.

Then, to follow up, it would be a good idea if Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Makivik, and/or the Government of Nunavut — all together, and perhaps with the federal government’s help — were to present each member of the European Parliament with copies of two books. It would cost the governments and NGOs a minor sum, and it would probably be well received by the (let’s presume) intelligent members of the European Parliament, to provide each of them with copies of Animal Rights, Human Rights by George Wenzel, and Sacred Hunt by David Pelly. Together these books explain the unique relationship between Inuit and seals, the economic importance of the hunt and the negative impact of the European ban. They do this in a palatable, even engaging and attractive, manner and with more effectiveness than any lobbying or government publication can ever hope to accomplish.

Once that is done, the same bodies could consider funding production of a TV documentary — designed for broadcast in Europe, in English, French and German — on the special role that seals play in the lives of Inuit.

The objective of all this would be education. The assumption is that to date, the people of Europe have been misinformed by the animal rights activists. It’s time to set the record straight, in an intelligent manner, which can engage both the politicians and the public.

INUIT SUE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

In January of this year, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), representing Canada’s Inuit, along with ICC Greenland, several hunters and trappers organizations, individual Inuit and others, commenced a lawsuit in the European General Court to overturn the European Union’s pending seal ban
regulation.

The main legal argument is that the EU only has jurisdiction over the functioning of the market. The purpose of the seal ban is not to improve the market and facilitate trade, but rather the opposite, to prohibit trade in seal products. Its real aim is animal welfare, which is not within the EU’s jurisdiction.

Mary Simon, President of ITK, commented on the EU ban: “It is bitterly ironic that the EU, which seems entirely at home with promoting massive levels of agri-business and the raising and slaughtering of animals in highly industrialized conditions, seeks to preach some kind of
selective elevated morality to Inuit. At best this is cultural bias, although it could be described in even harsher terms.”

The matter will not be resolved in the Court before the August date when the regulation is due to come into force. It will take months, and the chances of success are uncertain at best. Perhaps more important is drawing public attention to the issue — this is, after all, a battle of public opinion and public education.

Canadians say “YES” to environmentally-friendly seal hunting

6/1/2010 10:41:58 AM

Ottawa, June 1, 2010 - Industry efforts to "set the record straight" about Canadian seal hunting are showing positive results, according to the Fur Institute of Canada.

A study conducted for the Fur Institute by an independent polling company in April indicates that two out of three Canadians (63%) accept commercial seal hunting, so long as the hunt is conducted responsibly (humanely) and sustainably (species is not endangered).

“We are pleased to see that, despite the hype by animal-rights groups about national opposition to seal hunting, only a small fraction of Canadians oppose the activity outright,” said Rob Cahill, Executive Director of the Fur Institute.

In addition to supporting commercial seal hunting, almost 85% of Canadians accept that seals can be hunted to maintain a balance and protect fish stocks.

This acceptance of seal hunting has emerged despite the fact that very few Canadians realize how dramatically the harp seal population has INCREASED since the early 1980’s – from about 2.8 million to 6.9 million today.

Other Quick Facts from the SSN Study

75% of Canadians think that the seal population is much lower than it actually is.
Only 16% of survey respondents said they were opposed to all forms of seal hunting.
More Canadians (30%) consider seal hunters/fishermen to be the most credible source of information about the hunt, than do those who trust animal activists (20%) or government officials (21%).

The Seals and Sealing Network Study was conducted using TNS Canadian Facts' national bi-weekly telephone omnibus service. A total of 1,017 nationally representative Canadian adults were interviewed between April 12 and 18, 2010. For a survey sample this size, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Grey seal mess a result of seal product market attacks, says Fur Institute

5/28/2010 12:55:14 PM

by Fur Institute of Canada

Ottawa, May 28, 2010 - A Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s plan to cull and incinerate up to 220,000 grey seals off Nova Scotia’s sable island is an example of an ecological “mess” created by the animal-rights movement against the sustainable-use of seal products, says the Fur Institute of Canada.

The plan, which could cost Canadian taxpayers up to $35 million, involves either a large-scale kill and disposal of grey seals, or a targeted contraception program aimed at Canada’s grey seal population, which has grown to 300,000 strong and is now considered a danger to the recovery of threatened groundfish stocks.

According to the Fur Institute, all industry efforts to utilize the animals in accordance with government-set quotas have failed in recent years, due in large part to the strong animal-rights lobby against the use of the animals.

“We have said for years that there are only two options for managing abundant populations, as a sustainable resource, or as a pest,” said Rob Cahill, the Fur Institute’s Executive director.

Members of the Fur Institute involved in the seal processing sector have indicated that it has not been possible to develop a viable plan for the commercial use of grey seals in recent years, due to anti-sealing pressures.

“We hope that this announced cull will be a wake-up call for Canadians who have questions about the commercial use of harps seals, the population of which dwarfs the current grey seal numbers by 23 to 1,” says Cahill.

Quick Facts on Sealing in Canada

- An April 2010 poll conducted by TNS Canadian Facts indicated that 2 out of 3 Canadians accept seal hunting where populations are not endangered and animal welfare is respected.

- The same poll indicated that fully 85% of Canadians appreciate the need to manage seal populations in relation to the abundance of important fish stocks.

- Canada’s harp seal population consumes approximately 8 million metric tonnes of fish annually. By contrast, Canada’s entire fishery yields less than 1 million metric tonnes annually.

The Seals and Sealing Network Study was conducted using TNS Canadian Facts' national bi-weekly telephone omnibus service. A total of 1,017 nationally representative Canadian adults were interviewed between April 12 and 18, 2010. For a survey sample this size, the margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Fur industry starting to rebound

5/7/2010 4:50:00 PM

by Mike King, The Gazette

The country's fur industry is enjoying a warm and fuzzy feeling after the cooling effects of the latest recession.

Last year "was a very bad year for luxury products, but the energy is back in our trade and there's renewal," said Alan Herscovici, executive vice-president of the Fur Council of Canada. That turnaround is reflected in the record prices for mink - which Herscovici calls the benchmark fur - at recent North American and European auctions.

"Global prices are up an average 30 per cent, and it's selling out," he said.

While Canada's competitive edge is in traditional wild fur, Herscovici said that farmed mink prices still have an overall impact in that the rest of the trade usually follows suit..

"But when mink is too cheap, it squeezes us out."

The economic downturn saw total Canadian fur exports drop to $335 million last year, down from $430 million in 2008.

Until two years ago, Herscovici said exports had been "increasing quite nicely since the 1992 recession."

Better international branding and the fact fur is a leading trend in spring designer shows are contributing to the rising prices.

Herscovici said a branding and marketing initiative jointly coordinated and launched by the Fur Council and the Canadian Fur Trade Development Institute two years ago is also paying dividends.

He credits the Beautifully Canadian label and Fur Is Green campaign launched globally in Russia and China in the fall of 2008 for gaining access to high-end customers in those two leading fur markets.

"The strategy was to develop partnerships with key fur retailers already familiar with that country's complicated import system," institute president Betty Balaila said in a statement last fall.

Herscovici said Beijing-based White Collar, a Chinese chain of 47 high-end stores, this month placed its second big order of Beautifully Canadian-labelled furs

The fur trade contributes more than $800 million to the Canadian economy yearly and employs about 65,000.

More than 80 per cent of Canadian-made fur apparel is manufactured in Montreal, which Herscovici said "makes us the centre of the world in fur."

Interview with Aaju Peter

5/10/2010 4:26:30 PM

by Humanewatch.org

It's time to channel your inner Inuit.

The Canadian seal hunt is a topic I began thinking about at an early age, right around the time a girl in my elementary school tried to persuade many of us to wear little harp-seal pins. I never did, but lots of Americans donate money and wear t-shirts proclaiming their love for seals—and their disdain for sealers.

I think that's the easy way out. And I believe very few of us will ever meet someone who hunts seals, much less listen to his or her stories.
Now, HumaneWatch can't fly you all up to the arctic circle, but today we have the next best thing.

Her name is Aaju Peter. (Pronounced "Ah-YOO"). She was born in the northern part of Greenland in 1960 and moved to the Canadian arctic at age 21. Aaju has lived there ever since. She has five children and one grandchild. And she's a lawyer (Akitsiraq Law School, class of 2005).

Aaju promotes the right of the Inuit to earn a living from sealing. She promotes sealskin products. She personally sews and sells sealskin garments. And she's a heck of an engaging character.

After a lengthy phone conversation last week, Aaju Peter was kind enough to answer my questions about the Canadian seal hunt, the European Union's ban on seal product imports, and how much the Humane Society of the United States (and its international affiliates) seem bent on destroying her native culture.

I’ve lived in the United States all my life. I’ve traveled as far North as Stockholm, but here in North America I’ve never ventured past Montreal. Those of us from comparatively warm climates probably can’t wrap our minds around what it’s like to have permafrost for most of the year. For the benefit of my readers, can you briefly explain what the Inuit lifestyle is like? What is it that makes seal hunting such an important part of your culture?

We have permafrost year-round. The top of the soil melts during the summer for two to three months, which allows for vegetation to grow. Small flowers grow very rapidly, and in Nunavut nothing much grows taller than my hand. Snow will disappear in July but will come back beginning of September. Right now, it is the middle of April and everything here is covered by snow; the land, the ocean, the lakes, everything.

Because we live in snow most of the year, we can’t grow crops or raise animals for food. We are dependent on what nature has to provide. We are dependent on what lives here: the caribou, the seals, arctic char, wild berries, clams, walruses, and whales. We also have snow geese, Canada geese, and ducks that migrate here in the summer.

For centuries our ancestors were able to survive hunting the seals that stay in the arctic regions year-round. The seal fat was used to light the oil lamps which provided light and heat, a place to melt snow for water, a place to cook the food, dry clothes, etc.

The fur provided for the clothes, tent, and rope. Fur from the arctic has been traded with southern companies such as the Hudson's Bay Company for centuries. This enabled Inuit to purchase goods such as sewing needles, fabric, rifles, ammunition, tea, sugar, and tobacco.

Today 30,000 Inuit live in 27 communities spread over an area one-fifth of Canada's landmass. No roads connect any of the communities. Everything that is brought into the communities is brought in by plane. In the summer months when there is no ice, or the ice conditions are such that they are good for sailing, a ship will come in bringing the year's supply to the stores in the communities. The fact that it is cold and wintery for most of the year, the remoteness of our land, and the lack of roads makes the cost of living in the arctic is very high.

Formal education came in the 1950s and ’60s. We have the highest unemployment rate and the highest cost of living. When you combine these two factors it is of the utmost importance that our hunters are able to hunt to support their families and other members of their communities. The seal has always provided for our much-needed nutritious meat, fur to keep us warm, and skin, which is a byproduct, to sell.

In addition, it is important for the younger generation to learn to hunt so they can provide for their families. It is of the utmost importance that the knowledge and skill it takes to go out on the ice when it is -45 degrees Celsius for hours and days is passed on.

The seal meat contains all the nutrients we need to survive in the arctic. A piece of seal meat that fits into my palm contains as much iron for my body as 56 pieces of sausage.
The income derived from the sale of sealskins in the Inuit communities is of necessity, both to continue to feed our families and to continue an ancient tradition that has made it possible for us to survive.

We are one of the last traditional hunting cultures in the world. Knowledge about the land and the animals has been passed down by our ancestors. It is important that we pass the knowledge on to future generations.

Recently the European Parliament voted (550 to 50) to ban the import of products made from seals. There are a few loopholes for “traditional” Inuit culture and “subsistence” hunting, but it seems like these far-off politicians don’t understand what those words mean to you and your people. If an Inuit hunter’s wife uses sealskin to make a pair of gloves and a local store sells them, does that make her husband a “commercial” hunter? Are 600 people in Brussels really allowed to define the terms of your existence?

The anti-sealing campaign has been going on for many decades, as far back as the 1950s. During all that time the anti-sealing groups have had a lot of time to collect money and do a lot of lobbying. In the 1970s they started targeting politicians in Europe, and today we are actually witnessing the second ban on seal products.

The European legislation that will come into force in August of this year exempts Inuit traditionally harvested seal products for trading purposes. But it does not define what a “traditional” harvest is. The legislation also seeks to define who is Inuit. Who gave Europeans permission to do this?

And who will be out there on the ice in -45 degrees to ensure that the hunt is conducted “traditionally”? Do you think that any customs official in Europe will know the difference?

As for the example with the sealskin mittens made by the hunter's wife for sale, I am certain that the European legislators will have an answer for that as well.

We are able to survive in the arctic because we can adapt while utilizing what nature has to offer. We combine and make the best use of modern technology, and yet still maintain our hunting culture. We need money to pay for our rent, our clothes, even our computers. Yes, we are connected to the outside world. The Europeans are trying to impose cultural colonization on us and I take offence to that. Our hunters need money just like European farmers need money.

I’m stunned by the cultural imperialism at work. It seems to me that a European ban on seal imports would be an awful lot like an American ban on the import of New Zealand possums, or Vietnamese catfish, or even Russian caviar. If we tried that, the world would be looking for an ulterior motive—perhaps some trade issue or a quid pro quo. international NGOs would complain about Americans squashing indigenous cultures. How come your situation hasn’t aroused the same sort of international righteous indignation?

Our society changes, and with it our sense of morality has changed.

What used to be immoral is now moral, and vice-versa. Once upon a time we all originated in hunting cultures. But over time, people moved into large urban centres—so voters are no longer farmers or hunters. They live in cities, far removed from a life that depends on hunting.

A majority of these people don't have to kill a cow to eat a burger. The meat merely appears at a supermarket, packaged in a way that avoids any signs of it having been an animal. (So convenient.)

The 27 countries that form the European Union are not the only ones that have made the sale of sealskins difficult. The United States passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972. Since then, we have not been able to sell sealskin to the States either, and this is despite the fact that seals are not in any danger of extinction.

The population of the European Union is about 500 million. Their economy generates an estimated US $18.4 trillion. That’s a lot of people, and a lot of money. The Inuit have only 30,000 people and no funds to spare for politicking. So it’s very difficult for us to lobby and get our message out.

It’s my opinion, watching this issue evolve from afar, that the Humane Society of the United States and its international offshoots (like Humane Society International and the World Society for the Protection of Animals) really made the EU seal ban happen. They seem to have decided that a specific group of animals is more important than a specific group of people. How badly have these animal rights groups wounded the spirit of the Inuit? How angry have they made you? If you could say something to the people who send them money every month, what would it be?

I have been deeply saddened by the European ban on seal products, because it makes our lives harder. I am saddened for the families in remote Inuit communities, because their voices are not being heard.

It is true that seals look cute. They have big black eyes. I’m sure that to some, they look cuter than other animals. As consumers who donate money to these organizations, we all become complacent. We don't try to find out facts for ourselves. This becomes even more complicated by the fact that we don't know whose facts to believe.

And money speaks loudest. If you think about it, passing a piece of legislation that will please their constituents (as opposed to saving the livelihoods of people in some far remote place, people who have no vote) is a no-brainer for politicians.

Of course they will vote to save their own seats in the European Parliament.

I am glad that we live in a world that gives money to better the living conditions of both people and animals. But this generosity is sometimes abused.

We all wish for a place where no animals are abused and where they don't suffer. Seals are not abused. They are not raised in captivity. They are not in danger of extinction.

My suggestion is that we should all try to make informed decisions. Your audience should read books like Animal Rights, Human Rights by George Wenzel; and Sacred Hunt by David Pelly.

Alethea Arnaquq-Baril, Stacey Aglok MacDonald, and I are in the process of making a documentary that will be titled Angry Inuk. This film will seek to address the effect of anti-sealing campaigns on our lives. I look forward to sharing it with you.

Geography and tradition being what they are, I realize it’s easy to imagine that Europe is the be-all, end-all of international trade. But I don’t think Russia has any taboos about seal products. Neither does China or Japan. Might the Inuit be better off just redirecting their trade focus elsewhere?

Canada sells sealskins to China and Russia. I don't see any problem with expanding our market to those countries.

In principle it is wrong to ban sealskin, since the seals are not endangered. There is no reason other than what the animal rights groups claim. (They say it is immoral.)

On the other hand, once an animal starts growing out of hand or becomes a pest, then it seems it is okay to kill it without much of any regard for how it is slaughtered. Nations regularly control population sizes, or kill animals considered to be invasive pests, and that seems to be just fine.

It is not okay to leave this legislation alone and just redirect our commerce somewhere else. The legislation is based on incomplete information, and it bans trade agreements that Canada has with Europe. Not to mention the Inuit right to earn a living.

On so many fronts, this should not go into force. Instead it needs to be repealed.

You mentioned the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). I don’t think most Americans understand that it’s not just about protecting marine mammals in our own oceans. And you’re right—we’re not allowed to buy sealskin, which I imagine would be a great waterproof alternative to petroleum-based synthetic rainwear. If we ever revised the MMPA to exempt products from traditional hunting, what would happen in Canada? Would every sealer on the East Coast start claiming he was Inuit? (We sometimes have that problem with Indian casinos.) For that matter, if the Inuit wanted to start granting Honorary Citizenship to sealers in Newfoundland in order to get around the EU ban, could anyone stop you?

The real question is this: Why do we treat sealers differently? We are trying to earn an income from sustainably harvested animals. Isn't raising cows, sheep, and pigs for their meat the same thing—commercial harvesting? What’s the difference?

Harvesting seals ensures that their numbers don't spiral out of control. What if too many seals start consuming too many fish? That’s going to compete with human consumption of seafood. Would that suddenly make it okay to control the seals’ numbers?

If the MMPA is an attempt to protect seals, it’s trying to protect a species that is not endangered in the first place.

And how come it’s okay to buy sealskins from Alaskan natives and not from Canadian natives? We are all Inuit. And we all depend on selling sealskin to earn a living.

Lastly, this business of “traditional hunting” is another red herring. Somehow it’s permissible to buy sealskins that are hunted traditionally? (As opposed to what? Commercially?)

Who will decide what is traditional? And why should Inuit be frozen in time while the rest of the world is allowed to modernize?

We all run to the store or the Internet to get the latest and best products the market provides. Inuit should not remain in the Ice Age while the rest of the world is trying to go to Mars.

We wake up and smell the coffee every day. Just like everyone else.

FUR-ROCIOUS start to fashion week

3/29/2010 4:10:40 PM

By Liza Sardi and Rebecca Zamoi, QMI Agency - The Toronto Sun journal

If you're looking for where the wild things really are, it was opening night at Toronto's fashion week.

The fur was flying at the inaugural presentation of IZMA's fall-winter 2010 collection of innovative furs -- co-designed by celebrated Canadian creator Izzy Camilleri and former Fashion File host Adrian Mainella, with the pair inspired by Canada's natural resources.

There was nary a protester in sight as it kicked off the 22nd season of LG Fashion Week, Canada's premiere bi-annual fashion event, themed The Power of Style, in a new venue at Toronto's Allstream Centre.

The collection featured unisex-styled cardigans, shrugs, shawls, stoles, hooded vests, shirt dresses, sash bags and even a dickie that were surprisingly light considering they featured beaver, raccoon, fox, coyote and muskrat.

"We tried to stay away from the iconic fur coat," said Camilleri, of the label which is a combination of the co-designers names.

A far cry from the heavy pelts of years past, models trotted down the runway encased in 32 flowing and ethereal looking ensembles that were no less timeless.

Wearability, versatility, attainability and longevity are four key concepts. "I honestly think we created 32 of my favourite pieces," said Mainella, adding that the collection was edited down for the show.

Standouts included a black sheared beaver vest strung with metal chains, a long cardigan with shawl collar in both red and grey fox and a shawl with pockets. Pants crafted from light and creamy suedes and leathers acted as a counterpoint to the voluminous tops.

An ostrich A-line skirt and a cape which could double as a skirt were offset by sheer netted fabrics

All the furs were intentionally chosen from wild Canadian stock and each pelt was maximized to its full potential so there was little waste. The pelts were often bleached or dyed to further enhance their dramatic effect.

"Fur is green," said Camilleri, adding that the material has the lowest carbon footprint of any textile.

Immediately following the show, the pair were cornered by Canadian fashion icon Jeanne Beker who said she thought the show was "stellar" and "glamorous."

"You gotta get this stuff out there," she urged.

"That means a lot coming from you," blushed Mainella.

It wasn't all about skin -- the final three spectacular atelier dresses featured a swarth of tulle, beads and what might have been ostrich feathers with just a hint of fur as trim delicately translated into flower shapes.

Fur: In vogue and in the line of fire - PETA’s controversial campaigns bring it exposure. And that’s no accident.

3/29/2010 3:33:43 PM

By Susan Carpenter, Los Angeles Times

Somehow you don't expect to read the phrase "throwing kittens on barbecue grills" in an e-mail exchange with Pamela Anderson.

But there it was on the screen during an electronic conversation about her longstanding involvement with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, an organization that's at least as well known for its strategies as its causes. Whether it's splashing Vogue editor Anna Wintour and other fur supporters with blood-colored red paint or enlisting stars to bare all in glossy advertising, the group has been enormously successful, if incredibly polarizing, in garnering support — and gathering enemies.

This year, PETA celebrates its 30-year anniversary, and with it, many animal rights victories the Virginia-based nonprofit believes it's had a hand in winning. U.S. mink imports were down 30% in 2009 versus 2008, according to the fur trade journal Sandy Parker Reports. Demand for the alligator and crocodile hides used in handbags and boots dipped 40% worldwide from the first quarter of 2008 to the same quarter of 2009, according to the Associated Press. Late last year, the New York Times reported that the U.S. alligator farming business is tanking.

Numerous retailers, including H&M and Overstock.com, have stopped selling exotic skins, such as snake, lizard and ostrich. And designers such as Donna Karan, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger have all pledged to stop using fur in their jackets, boots and handbags.

But what's truly attributable to PETA and what's merely the result of a dormant economy, the cyclical nature of fashion or other cultural factors, such as the ever-growing green movement, is a matter of debate.

"PETA's done a remarkable job of making itself known," said Ilse Metchek, executive director of the California Fashion Assn., adding that PETA has not only "made faux fashion OK," but caused celebrity stylists to think twice about putting their clients in fur, lest they be photographed and targeted for their insensitivity.

But the change of attitude toward fake furs also coincided with the democratization of fashion, Metchek said.

"It happened with the onslaught of H&M and Forever 21 and Topshop and Mango, where you can be fashionable at any price," she said. "It takes money to wear fur. There is a lot less fur at the lower levels."

Toronto Fashion Week features fur: Runway event kicks off with a debut collection from designer IZMA

3/29/2010 4:30:39 PM

By The Canadian Press

The use of fur in fashion has long been a source of contentious debate, but recent shows in fashion capitals including New York and Milan saw fur emerging among the major trends featured on fall/winter runways.

Now, with the kickoff Sunday of the latest edition of Toronto Fashion Week, fur will be front and centre once again at the opening night show of IZMA, the collaborative fur line from designer Izzy Camilleri and fashion journalist Adrian Mainella.

Mainella said Camilleri came to him two years ago while he was still hosting CBC's Fashion File and the two discussed the future of Canadian designers in ready-to-wear.

Mainella said they starting talking about how one of the few real luxury products coming out of Canada was fur, and starting specifically discussing sustainable fur.

While Camilleri, an established design talent, is well known for her use of leather as a signature fabric, one of her most famous creations is a fox coat she designed for Meryl Streep's character Miranda Priestly, in The Devil Wears Prada.

Mainella said he sees fur as being green, in part because of its longevity compared to other materials.

"People don't typically discard fur products as readily as they do cloth products, windbreakers, coats, synthetic sweaters. They usually keep them and pass them down."

Mainella said their aim with their collection was to look at ways to make fur more versatile and to incorporate it in fashion in a way which women can use to dress it up or down.

To that end, the pair crafted pieces that have dual purposes: capelets that turn into skirts, or stoles that turn into purses, he said.
Handmade in Canada

Mainella said all of the pieces are handmade in Canada, and they are working in collaboration with the North American Fur Association. Of the 46 pieces in the collection, about 36 will be featured on the runway, he said.

While fur may be seeing a renaissance on the runway, it remains a source of contention particularly among those in the animal rights movement who are against its use in fashion.

Mainella said he believes the key is for everyone to be informed. He said the livelihood of trappers making a living from the fur industry is no different than the farming or livestock industry being supported through the purchase of food or leather goods.

"I'm not here to be the spokesperson for fur. I'm here to design a collection that I hope people really love and would like to wear," he said.

"For those who protest or speak to animal rights, I mean that's the beauty of this country — you should be able to voice your opinion," he added.

"But at the same time, those who care to participate in purchasing things like fur and buying meat in their groceries or poultry or those who enjoy leather products, they should be able to freely do the same."

Fur popular amoung the younger set - Young designers used fur this year, and retailers and fashion icons are asking for it. One reason? Innovations have led to lower costs.

4/6/2010 12:09:12 PM

By Emili Vesilind, Special to the Los Angeles Times

Listening to anti-fur activists, it's easy to assume that fur in fashion is, as the ad campaign goes, dead.

After all, the cause — spearheaded by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA — has progressed from a red paint-splattering fringe movement to a darn-near mannerly animal advocacy group boasting top-shelf celebrities, including Eva Mendes and "Project Runway's" Tim Gunn as spokespeople.

"Fur has become so far removed from the mainstream, it's now a very niche market," said Dan Mathews, senior vice president of campaigns for PETA.

But even a cursory glance at the fashion industry reveals that fur is still, for many, a hot commodity. And though furriers and the people who patronize them are less likely to shout their fur amour from the rooftops (it's definitely not PC), selling, buying and wearing fur in the U.S. is still big business — $1.36 billion in 2008, according to the Fur Information Council of America.

Even more surprising, perhaps, is that fur seems to have recently taken on a much higher profile in the subculture that counts on designers, celebrities and actors to fill its ranks.

In fashion's inner circles, fur is still a mainstay — magazine editors such as Vogue's Anna Wintour and Andre Leon Talley (and their Connecticut-bred interns) wear fur with abandon, as do contemporary style icons, including Kate Moss, Diane Kruger, Kanye West, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. And then there's fur's enduring popularity among the female social set in Los Angeles — attend any winter charity event in town and you're sure to see a number of fur-wearing attendees.

And though PETA's been slowly winning over veteran designers such as Donna Karan and Ralph Lauren — both of whom have agreed to go fur-free in their collections — and Karl Lagerfeld used 100% faux fur at his über-hairy fall 2010 Chanel show, fashion's younger generation has cleaved to pelts this season with surprising enthusiasm.

Counting all four major fashion cities — New York, Milan, Paris and London — there were more than 1,500 looks presented at the recent runway shows that included fur. That's up from 385 from fall 2009, said Keith Kaplan, executive director for the Fur Information Council of America. "It was an unbelievable year for fur," he added. "Young designers have come to feel and recognize that fur is a right of passage if you want to be a luxury brand."

It's true that an inordinate number of designers from the industry's youngest, hippest ranks used fur this season — including Brian Reyes, Alexander Wang, Derek Lam, Thakoon and Proenza Schouler.

Reyes, a former protégé to Oscar de la Renta, said he added fur to his line because he "wanted to add layers to the collection," adding that he had no ethical or political reasons not to do so. "I'm open to using any sort of material," he noted. "I love luxury. I wear leather. If I were a vegan, maybe it would be different."

And after a recession-fueled slowdown, top-tier retailers are asking for fur again. Susan Sokol, president of high-fashion, fur-heavy brand J. Mendel, said, "We sell to the best stores in the world, and I can tell you, every single store is interested in fur."

Donna Pappas, owner of Los Angeles-based Somper Furs, a fur retailer and manufacturer that has made pieces for local designers including Monique Lhuillier and Kevan Hall, among others, said she's "coming off of one of the best seasons I've ever had."

Why then, just as anti-fur activism is beginning to gain ground as a mass-friendly movement, are we seeing so much fur in fashion?

Fur is "a clear statement of luxury on the runway," said Claire Hamilton, an analyst for WGSN, a London-based trend forecasting company, which provides trend analyses for the fashion and style industries. "With fast fashion always at the heels of the designer market, brands are more conscious about offering clearly elevated luxury product that is not easy, or cheap, to replicate."

Pappas credits her store's recent robust sales — she says they are up 47% for the winter 2009-10 season, compared with the 2008-09 season — to L.A.'s fashion-forward set. She said the store has been selling more fashion-based pieces — coats with unusual trims, colors and combinations of fur — than ever before.

And there's been a shift in who's doing the buying. "Traditionally, 20 years ago, furs were purchased by men for women," Pappas said. "Now 90% are bought by women."

Colleen Sherin, fashion director for Saks Fifth Avenue — which operates fur salons all over the U.S. — said she believes fur is making a comeback, in part, because "fur is being treated in more innovative ways. We're seeing lighter-weight furs, furs that are being mixed. There's more innovation happening in the market."

Those innovations have made fur cheaper than it's ever been, Pappas said. Furriers can now "knit" fur (using yarn made from animal hair) and use other cost-effective treatments to lower costs. And price also boils down to style; the dream of having a full-length sable or mink coat has given way to shorter, sportier looks. "Fur now comes in so many colors," Pappas noted. "Now you can have a pink knitted fox coat — that didn't exist before."

Trends aside, Kaplan said the uptick in fur prominence could also be attributed to the "widespread" adoption of the fur trade-created Origin Assured initiative — which "gives assurance that the fur in a garment or fur product that bears an OA mark originates from a country where national or local regulations or standards governing fur production are in force."

Anti-fur activists insist that the regulations are a smokescreen for time-honored animal cruelty wrapped in a more consumer-friendly package. But those in the fur trade contend that it's an important step in holding fur manufacturers ethically accountable for their product —and thereby putting fretful consumer minds at ease.

"I think young designers [became aware of] OA, and they had always wanted to use fur, and now they were sure they could work with the product," Kaplan said.

Young designers are also aggressively courted by the fur industry — and have been for years. Companies such as Toronto's North American Fur Auctions and Denmark's Saga Furs, a marketing firm that represents 3,000 Scandinavian fur breeders, regularly treat young, buzz-y designers to free product samples and sponsor "designer junkets" in far-flung locales such as Copenhagen, where they are flown for free.

The fur designers and customers may be changing, but retailers say there was never a time when the category was in danger of becoming extinct.

Fur sales at Saks Fifth Avenue "are always pretty consistent," said Sherin, who added that New York, Beverly Hills, Chicago, San Francisco and Bal Harbour, Fla., rank as the department store's most lucrative fur markets.

Pappas, who's been in the fur business for more than 30 years in L.A., said in the last year or so, "the customer has been a much younger age than [she] was traditionally. But the customer is always there — the only thing that changes is who she is."

Haredi lobby pressures gov't into scrapping animal fur ban

3/19/2010 4:01:13 PM

by Cnaan Liphshiz, Haaretz.com

The Knesset this week moved to scrap a bill that would ban fur, amid pressure from leading Canadian furriers who lobbied here with local ultra-Orthodox leaders against the precedent-setting legislation, Haaretz has learned.

The leader of Israel's anti-fur lobby, an immigrant from France, reacted by saying that by scrapping the bill - which would have made Israel the first nation to outlaw the fur industry - Jerusalem "missed a chance" to win liberal minds in the West. Lobby members have vowed to launch a campaign to revitalize the legislation.

The decision to shelve the proposed legislation came at the end of a discussion by the coalition's coordinating body, presided over by MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi). He said he "personally supports" the bill, but cannot promote it because of opposition by MK Menachem Eliezer Moses (United Torah Judaism), a coalition member.
Advertisement

"I have no interest in offending the Haredi public," Orlev said.

The bill sought to ban trading, producing and processing fur in Israel except for religious purposes - a stipulation designed to accommodate the needs of the Haredi community, some of whom traditionally wear sable on their hats.

Moses opposed the bill despite the exception, explaining it could affect kosher slaughter abroad. Shas also opposed it.

"I'm pleased to see that common sense has prevailed," Alan Herscovici, executive vice president of the Fur Council of Canada, told Anglo File after his whirlwind visit to Israel last week, in which he lobbied against the bill.

"This ban would have very little impact on Israel's own economy," the Canadian trade union leader said, "but would have had grave ramifications elsewhere."

The scrapped bill already passed its first of three readings in the Knesset prior to Herscovici's visit, triggering no vocal opposition from ultra-Orthodox Knesset members.

Herscovici, who is Jewish, said he came to Israel with another colleague from Canada because he was concerned the Knesset "might find the bill to be an easy cookie," adding: "It might be easy to pass laws when the people you're hurting live far away and don't vote in your country."

Canada's Ministry of International Trade last month sent its Israeli counterpart a letter warning against the fur bill and expressing concern that it might prejudice Canadian fur trade interests or World Trade Organization obligations. It also stressed Canada and Israel's long-standing relations and shared democratic values and commitment to free trade.

According to the International Anti-Fur Coalition - an umbrella organization of groups in 60 countries - Israel has a tiny $500,000 share in the world's $16 billion annual fur industry.

The figures for Israel include synthetic fur. Canada - where Jews made up nearly half of those involved in the fur trade in the 1930s - is one of the leading countries in the field, with annual sales of roughly $500 million.

The Israeli fur bill, Herscovici said, was being promoted here by non-Israeli pressure groups "because it's easier to push through here" by people who "are hoping to throw it back to other countries as a precedent."

But Israel "should be the last to proceed with this kind of legislation," Herscovici said, because Israel "is being demonized and delegitimized in the West in the same way that the fur industry is being demonized - and often by the same people and circles."

The founder of the International Anti-Fur Coalition, Jane Halevy, who immigrated to Israel from France 19 years ago, says the International Fur Trade Federation concedes that people who support banning may be more politically critical of Israel than people who support the fur trade or are indifferent to it.

However, she adds that this instance presents Israel with a rare opportunity to make headway with exactly those circles by leading the way in banning fur.

Herscovici - whose father chaired both the Fur Council of Canada and the country's United Jewish Appeal - said Israeli support for banning fur would end up hurting many Jews in Canada and elsewhere. "It'd make it harder to oppose attempts to ban kosher slaughter in the West," he said.

Over the past few weeks Halevy has used her contacts with European celebrities and politicians who congratulated the Knesset for considering the bill and urged the parliament to continue the process.

Moses, of United Torah Judaism, says he met with Herscovici several times on the latter's visit to Israel. He says that he has become convinced that the same organizations fighting fur are also fighting kosher slaughter, believed by some to be inhumane.

Moreover, he says he is concerned that "Israel is being used as the stage for an international struggle." His research into the issue, he says, shows that 70 percent of fur consumption in Israel is for the Haredi community. "It therefore makes no sense to make an exception to a rule," he said.

Designers embrace fur despite animal rights concerns

3/19/2010 3:48:14 PM

Two Canadian designers kick off Fashion Week with fur collection
by Bebra Black, The Star

Despite the recession and the animal rights movement, fur is once more returning to the fashion runways of both Europe and North America. In New York recently almost two-thirds of the fashion designers at Fashion Week showed work using fur, according to the New York Times. It was widely popular in Europe.

An Izzy Camilleri and Adrian Mainella design for the upcoming show.

And with Toronto’s LG Fashion Week for Fall/Winter 2010 on the horizon fur will also be front and centre – with the gala fashion show on March 28 the debut of a fur collection of coats, clothing and accessories.

The collection is the brain child of Izzy Camilleri, a Canadian designer known for the red fox coat she designed for Meryl Streep’s character in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’, and Adrian Mainella, a fashion journalist and image consultant.

The two began work on the collection two years ago and weren’t able to foresee the popularity of fur. It was just a belief they both shared that fur was a wonderful material to work with. Now they’re delighted Mainella says “to see the world and the fashion world embracing fur.” The resurgence for this fall and winter makes the design team look prescient.

The 46 piece collection features a variety of work, including everything from simple pieces such as a fur vest, stoles, fur leggings, hats and very opulent pieces including coats.

Many of the pieces serve double duty, Mainella said. For example, fur stoles turn into purses and fur capelets turn into skirts. “Women want value,” he said. “They want to know they can take one piece and wear it two or three different ways. They want longevity in their wardrobe.”

Mainella believes the fashion industry has once more embraced fur because it has a low carbon footprint compared to some synthetic textiles. “People keep it for a lifetime typically,” he said. “A synthetic coat gets donated or thrown away.” The average Canadian, he said, will have between 35 and 50 winter coats made from synthetic materials and not biodegradable.

The pair both shared a genuine love for fur, Mainella explained. They came together with the idea of trying to use fur to make innovative and modern pieces. “Women today don’t look at fur the same way as their mothers or grandmothers did,” he said.

Working with the North American Fur Association the pair have learned how to use fur pelts, bringing them together with wools and other fabrics to make them “less outerwear” and more garment, Mainella said.

Fur is so Canadian, Mainella said. “It is clear to me one product Canada owns in terms of luxury is fur.” Indeed, the fur industry has a long history in North America dating back to Jacques Cartier who was met in 1534 by First Nation chiefs wearing robes hand sewn from beaver and bear pelts, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia.

Canada was known internationally as the producer of the world’s finest furs, the encyclopedia says. The fur industry here remained strong until the 1990s when decreased demand for furs because of the animal rights movement led to sharp declines in prices.

According to the animal rights group PETA’s website “there is nothing ‘natural’ about clothing made from animals’ skin or fur.” PETA suggests that the production of wool, fur and leather causes “the suffering and deaths of millions of animals each year.” And it also contributes, the organization says to global warming, land devastation, pollution and water contamination.

Not so, said Mainella who explains he has a strong connection to the fur industry. He knows trappers and has family in Northern Ontario and Quebec. His own father made his living as a grocer and meat cutter. “I’m concerned with people’s vocations especially in today’s economy and instability in jobs. We have a nation built on fur.

“I certainly respect people’s positions. I’m not here to suggest lovers of animals don’t have a right to voice their concerns and protests. That’s the great thing about our country we’re allowed to speak our mind. And I’m trying to do the same.

“But people’s attitudes towards fur are changing. Fur is green. When people realize that it takes 200 gallons of fresh water to make one pair of jeans and what we’re doing to our environment because of fast fashion and how resources are used and how the clothes are discarded and pollute the environment. People say wait a minute.”

Mainella said he and Camilleri had no idea that their new fur collection would be coming out as other designers were also embracing the material. “We feel a bit blessed that the timing happened like this.

“I want the clothes to speak for themselves. I want to appeal to people who appreciate fur. And I hope people will make their own decision.”

“We don’t use farm furs. We try to allow the fur to be the design element in each creation because it’s so beautiful and unique. We’ve tried to create lightness and wearability for fur.”

Newly Certified Restraining Traps Will Help Manage Urban Racoons

3/17/2010 10:28:10 AM

by the Fur Institute of Canada -

The Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) is pleased to report that two new restraining traps for capturing raccoon have been certified for use in Canada – the Duffer and the Lil’ Grizz Get’rz. These devices are referred to as foot encapsulating traps, as they do not leave the toes exposed to potential injuries.

Conventional jaw-type leg-hold restraining traps for the capture of raccoon have been illegal in all Canadian jurisdictions habituated by this species since 1993. “However,” stated FIC Executive Director Rob Cahill, “with increased development in rural areas, the legal use of traditional quick-killing traps has sometimes resulted in the accidental capture of off-leash dogs. The more recently developed encapsulating traps are specifically designed to avoid these accidental captures and to provide a dog-safe means to capture raccoons in populated urban and suburban settings, as well as to ensure good welfare to the raccoons.”

As Canada’s official trap testing agency, the FIC recently undertook a testing project with funding from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and in-kind field support from the Quebec Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, to determine if these traps meet the requirements of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS).

Following evaluation of the testing results by scientists at the Alberta Research Council, the two models were found to meet the raccoon restraining trap requirements of the AIHTS and have now been certified for use in Canada. Cahill said that “based on these results, regulation changes are underway in several Canadian jurisdictions to permit the use of these unique traps”.

Cahill said that, “this is a good example of reviewing trapping policy based on changes in society and trap development technologies.” Other similar traps will likely be tested in the future.

For more information, contact

Robert B. Cahill, Executive Director, Fur Institute of Canada

The other red meat

3/12/2010 4:30:48 PM

by Chris Selley - The National Post

It takes a lot to get me to cheer for a Canadian politician. Even on the rare occasions one of them says or does something I like, it’s a fair bet he’s saying or doing it for the wrong reasons, or that he doesn’t really believe what he’s saying or doing.

But I have to say, Don Martin’s report in Thursday’s Post from the House of Commons dining room, where he shared some seal-based hors d’oeuvres with assorted Canadian politicians and bigwigs — who subsequently tucked into bacon-wrapped seal steak — gave me a warm, wonderful feeling. It was the same thing I felt when Michaëlle Jean sliced off a bit of that seal’s heart in Rankin Inlet and enthusiastically devoured it — an act deemed “too bizarre to acknowledge” by a scandalized European Union spokesman. Call it schadenfreude-by-proxy. I just picture some impeccably haberdashed anti-sealing sophisticate in his seat at the European Parliament gasping, blanching, unsuccessfully fighting off a dry heave. And then I can’t help it. A big, goofy smile unconsciously crosses my face. Take that, you sanctimonious, veal-eating fraud.

“The Canadian government has done little to add any nuance to the discussion [about sealing],” a Guardian columnist observed this week. Ottawa’s behaviour on the matter seems to him “unnecessarily boorish.” Surely, he opined, there is room for compromise.

Normally, I’d agree. In a sense, Canada is being quite churlish on the sealing issue — certainly by our standards — and churlishness doesn’t make good diplomacy. But in another sense, all we’re doing is eating some damn seal meat. I ate chicken wings last night, and there wasn’t a word from Brussels. I just ate part of a pig for lunch, and I’ve yet to receive a single complaint. I have even been known to consume foie gras — the outrageously delicious engorged liver of a force-fed goose, which is quite popular in certain corners of the EU — with no threat of sanction.

It’s true that chickens and pigs aren’t killed for their fur; that’s a separate argument. But I have to wonder how much mutually beneficial compromise there can be with people who honestly believe that the lives of beautiful animals who die in BBC documentaries are worth more than the lives of ugly animals who die in anonymous slaughterhouses … unless they’re killed by indigenous peoples, of course, in which case, for some reason, there’s no problem. How do you compromise with a viewpoint that doesn’t make any sense to begin with?

There’s a very common argument that it’s not worth it — that the seal hunt is only a modest economic enterprise, and the costs of defending it, both in dollars and international goodwill, outweigh the benefits. Well, two things about that. One: You’ve heard of Norway, right? It’s clean, green, fantastically prosperous and unfailingly peaceful. You can hardly move for all the social justice. Everyone loves Norway. And yet it kills seals — a tiny fraction of Canada’s cull, but then again, maybe it would kill more if it weren’t the biggest market for Canadian seal products. Why should Canada dejectedly accept pariah status while Norway dances a merry jig atop the ladder of nations?

Two: In case you haven’t noticed, for better or worse, the Canadian economy is not particularly Earth-friendly. It rips trees out of the ground and turns them into paper in big, stinky mills; it bores giant holes, extracts various substances from them and smelts them into usable forms, thereby creating all manner of toxic emissions and effluents; it strips away giant layers of Albertan terra firma to get at the most carbon-intensive usable oil on the planet, killing scores of helpless ducks and horribly blighting the landscape. There are far more reasonable objections to be made to them than there are to the seal hunt. Do we really want to throw in the towel on a completely defensible practice because it’s too hard?

In fact, not to diminish its importance to the hunters, but the seal hunt’s minimal economic impact makes this a perfect chance to puff out our chests: Nope, sorry, Canada will not abandon a humane, properly managed pursuit just because a bunch of rank hypocrites across the ocean say we should. If the hunt dies an organic death — if prices fall below viability, or ice floes become scarcer and scarcer, or the anti-fur movement wins the day — then I won’t shed a tear for it. But until then, let’s keep standing up for ourselves.

The Epitome of Haute Couture

3/19/2010 4:27:27 PM

by Clive Turner

Twenty years ago, fur-wearers in Oxford Street had paint thrown at them in the street as public awareness about the trade prompted widespread protests. Anna Wintour was attacked with a dead raccoon in Manhattan, and David Bailey and assorted supermodels lent their support to various campaigns with anti-fur slogans. Back then it seemed unthinkable that fur would ever come back into fashion. Yet today, that is precisely what has happened.

Anti-fur campaigners will beg to differ, arguing that it is another lie spun to further the industry’s cause. Anita Singh of Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) insisted that: "More and more designers and celebrities are acknowledging the fact that it is cruel to wear fur and that fashion should be fun, not grisly”. She goes on to say that the stigma attached to wearing fur and widespread awareness about the trade means that most people are ashamed to be associated with it.

But newly released global sales figures show that fashion-savvy consumers invested a massive US$13.49 billion in fur for their wardrobes in 2006. This latest data, covering retail sales of full fur garments, trim and accessories for the 2005/06 season, shows a 5.6% increase on the previous year’s results.

Many well known designers and stores are reintroducing fur to their collections. Harrods is selling fur again, along with high-street shop Joseph, and a host of famous designers.

It doesn’t end there. In recent times, a number of celebrities have been spotted draped in fur.

Elizabeth Jagger was photographed in a jacket with fox fur detail, Madonna wore a £35K coat made from chinchilla skin, Sophie Dahl wore a mink coat with fox fur collar, Naomi Campbell flaunted a fur-trimmed parka on the catwalk, and actress Melanie Griffith was snapped in a jacket trimmed with fox and rabbit fur.

Hollywood actress Sharon Stone has also been seen in fur, and Graham Norton, speaking from the front row of a Julien Macdonald show, was overheard accusing fur campaigners of being dull. "Why don't they just lighten up and find a new topic to bore us about?" he was heard to complain.

Even media darling of the moment Kate Moss joined other pro-fur celebrities wearing a fox fur coat. Referring to Moss, a spokeswoman for the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) said, "Kate Moss is the tip of the iceberg. Madonna wears fur, J Lo wears fur, Puff Daddy and Lil' Kim wear fur. So do the Sex and the City girls. These are style icons for a new generation."

Renewed interest in the catwalk aside, the fur industry isn’t just about fashion. It’s about the planet and people’s livelihood. Wearing fur is a centuries old tradition passed down from generation to generation, from fur farmers and trappers to furriers, and via the pages of books and magazines.

As international economy issues escalate and the earth’s weather pattern spirals into uncertainty, the public are buying more clothes and fashion accessories than ever before. An increased demand for fashion leads to more textile plants, clothing factories and electric to power them. This in turn leads to further pollution of our environment.

In our search for natural alternatives to non-biodegradable materials, fur is an obvious solution that many people refuse to even consider. But nobody disputes the fact that decreasing the need to manufacture man made materials is a step in the right direction for the future wellbeing of our planet. Using fur allows us to do this. Despite what many people are led to believe, trappers and sealers are not as ignorant to environmental issues as anti-fur campaigners like to make out. They are as keenly aware of global changes as the next person. Most are active environmentalists who can see the bigger picture.

Trappers and sealers rightly point out that manmade materials contribute to warmer countries becoming deserts, a process that will eventually see exotic animals driven to extinction. Ultimately it will be impossible to sustain life in hot regions. In the long-term, trappers, furriers and others who promote fur, save animals by doing their bit to protect our environment for future generations

Living in a society that aspires to wealth and class, it is difficult to find a material that looks, feels or portrays high society as much as fur. Want to instantly stand out from the crowd? A fur coat can be adapted for any occasion, from an evening on the town to an afternoon stroll through the High Street. Dressed up or down, for warmth and glamour, it is the epitome of haute couture. Fur has the power to transform an average person into a vision of exotic glamour.

Shunning non-biodegradables for fur is a worthwhile contribution to the environment and our planet and all living things within it. Fur is not only a natural biodegradable material that lasts longer than any man made material, it is also extremely versatile. In recent years designers from Julien Macdonald to Markus Lupfer, Russell Sage and Tristan Webber have requested raw materials and technical expertise from Saga Furs of Scandinavia, a Danish coalition of Scandinavian mink and fox farmers who opened their research centre in 1998 with the aim of reintroducing fur to fashion.

Despite government commitment to phasing out fur farming, designers like Julien Macdonald, and others worldwide, remain open minded to the use of fur in fashion. To emphasise this fact, Frank Zilberkweit, a director of the British Fur Trade Association, said: “Everyone is using fur. Its popularity is not confined to London. Go to New York, Milan or Paris and you'll see top names using it. Around 400 designers worldwide used fur in their recent collections.”

Remember when fur was taboo? No, me neither.

Anti-sealing campaigns will not deter support for Canadian seal hunting, says stakeholder group

3/9/2010 12:40:26 PM

by the Fur Institute of Canada -

Ottawa, March 9th, 2010 – On the eve of the 2010 East Coast seal hunt, the Fur Institute of Canada today reiterated its support for sustainable seal hunting in Canada. The Institute, which represents seal hunters, aboriginals and marine mammal scientists through its Seals and Sealing Network, said it will continue to oppose efforts to ban the hunting of seals.

“Seal hunting in Canada continues to be environmentally sustainable and is conducted in accordance with best practices, so we see definite benefits in supporting it”, said Rob Cahill, Executive Director of the FIC.

According to the Seals and Sealing Network (SSN), campaigns to end the hunting of harp seals in Atlantic Canada rely on falsely painting the centuries-old activity. The continued use of white coat images is just one example of how campaigners unfairly play on people’s emotions, the Network says. In addition to developing best management practices, FIC is also committed to improving public understanding of the hunt and its importance to Canadian communities.

Quick Facts on Sealing in Canada

· The Northwest Atlantic Harp Seal population is abundant and well conserved, numbering 6.8 million – the highest level ever scientifically estimated. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) lists it as a species of “least concern”.

· Employed properly, the hunting methods of Canadian professional sealers are effective and in accordance with established practices of animal welfare, as recommended by the Independent Veterinarians’ Working Group (IVWG 2005).

· Between 2006-2008, sealing activity yielded $53 million (CAD) in direct “landed value” to sealers based in the provinces of Quebec (QC) and Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). The total value during this period to the economies of QC and NL in product production and trade was over $120 million.

· Seal hides, or “pelts” are handled locally in Canada, where they are tanned into high-quality materials.

· Seal meat and seal oil (rendered from fat), provide locally-sourced protein and a superior source Omega-3 essential fatty acid (EFA) source for human consumption.

· Research and initial trials suggest harp seal heart valves are far superior to those traditionally used in human heart valve replacement procedures.

For more information visit www.sealsandsealing.net

Canadian parliament serving seal meat at lunch in support of hunters

3/9/2010 2:46:23 PM

by Charmaine Noronha, for Huffington Post

TORONTO — The Canadian Parliament's restaurant will serve seal meat this week in support of hunters battling a European Union ban on seal products, a Liberal senator said Monday.

Celine Hervieux-Payette said Wednesday's seal meat lunch menu will allow politicians to demonstrate their backing for the annual hunt.

"All political parties will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community the solidarity of the Canadian Parliament behind those who earn a living from the seal hunt," she said in a statement.

The EU ban on seal imports was imposed last July on the grounds that Canada's annual hunt was inhumane.

The East Coast seal hunt, the largest in the world, kills an average of 275,000 harp seals during mid-November to mid-May. The seals are either shot or hit over the head with a spiked club called a hakapik.

Animal rights groups believe the hunt is cruel, poorly monitored and provides little economic benefit. Seal hunters and Canadian authorities say it is sustainable, humane and provides income for isolated communities.

The EU ban includes processed goods derived from seals, including their skins – which are used to make coats, bags and clothing – as well as meat, oil blubber, organs and seal oil, which is used in some omega-3 pills.

It exempts products derived from traditional hunts carried out by Inuit in Canada's Arctic, as well as those from Greenland, Alaska and Russia.

Canada has requested consultations with the EU at the World Trade Organization, which is the first step before launching an official trade challenge to salvage a Canadian industry valued at $10 million Canadian dollars ($9.7 million) in exports last year.

We Won’t Wear Fur, But We Will Wear Leather. Are We Hypocrites?

2/8/2010 2:26:34 PM

by Sara Ost - for Eco Salon

Confession: On a trip to Venice some years back, I literally slept naked in an ankle-length black mink coat a Republican friend had lent me for the week-long trip. Diddy hasn’t had it so good. Talk about texture porn.

There’s a reasonable explanation for how this happened. I accidentally nodded off in the thing the first night, as I am wont to do, and what can I say? I never slept so well, and decided to keep it up for the whole vacation. Why we don’t sleep naked in fur as a matter of nightly course is beyond me. Just try it sometime. No? Oh, well. One woman’s decadent is my yes, please.

Before you comment in horror, consider, my eco babes: why is the knee-jerk reaction to fur one of disgust, while the vast majority of us are rocking leather boots this winter?

Like most people, I can deftly rationalize just about anything if it fills an ego need. As a teen I read Diet for a New America, by John Robbins, and promptly gave up meat/began lecturing my parents daily. Only, I still wore leather all through high school and college, knowing full well that my Steve Maddens were not exactly “making use” of the byproducts of the meat industry, but rather fueling its factory-farming splendor.

Another confession: Possibly the most ironic point in the failure known as my vegetarian career was attending the Farm Sanctuary in Orland, Calif. in the early Noughties with my much more carnivorously pure friend, Dori, an actress who had the sense not to show up to the event in leather clogs. Unlike a certain green editor we won’t mention. Oops!

All this is to say, wearing fur may be more viscerally offensive, but I don’t think it’s any worse than strapping yourself into a leather belt. In fact, it’s possibly better. True, much of the fur industry raises animals in appalling conditions. But do CAFO cows have it any better? Not a chance. It’s completely reasonable to argue that the business of ethically raised animals turned out as fall’s new fur vest still has the moral high ground over a hue-du-jour downer beef belt bought on sale at Nordstrom Rack.

Going further, it’s nearly impossible to separate the issue of animal welfare from environmental principles. Even if you think, as I do, that it’s perfectly acceptable to raise animals for human use (if done in a way that is certifiably humane), there’s still the fact that animal products of any kind – from fur caps to leather bombers to tonight’s dinner – suck the earth’s resources harder than a Hoover.

Ethically, the choices are either vegan products made from synthetic goods, or animal products produced in a way that is deemed to be humane. Environmentally, neither vegan nor animal products are ideal. Nothing is.

When we first started EcoSalon, I was contacted by a woman selling “vegan”, “eco” faux fur rugs. The vegan claim didn’t bother me, since it was true, but her eco claim got my attention – mainly because the rugs actually used “eco” in the brand name. I asked her what could possibly be eco about her petroleum-based rugs, and after a slightly heated exchange, she acknowledged she should probably change the name altogether.

Nothing annoys me more than a vegan…product trying to cop some green cred. Vegan is often touted as being eco-friendly, simply because it sounds more ethical and less energy-intensive than using animals, but sounding all nice ‘n stuff doesn’t make it so. A lot of vegan goods are little more than plastic. Marketing much?

I’d personally rather have recycled leather, which has had years to off-gas those nasty preservatives, sidling up to my skin than plastic, recycled or otherwise, which will never, ever biodegrade and is far more energy-intensive to recycle or reuse than an animal-based good.

I love to tell the fur in Venice story for the reaction it gets, but the bittersweet part of this is that no one ever says a thing about my closet full of giant leather handbags and gussy shoes. Fur is like veal, I guess. It’s off the list – if you’re a good person, you just don’t do it. But crusted fish filets and suede D’orsays are A-OK.

When vegetarianism first garnered Western mainstream notice in the 70s, meat-eaters loved to point out the hypocrisy of vegheads showing up to protests sporting leather loafers. And if we’re being honest, they had a point.

But if we’re still being honest, maybe fur isn’t necessarily so bad. (The fur industry would sure like us to believe so: check out Fur Is Green.)

Let’s be real. Should we only ever wear recycled, vegan products?

More questions:

Would you rather wear recycled or vintage – and therefore eco-friendly – vegan products, or recycled or vintage leather and fur?

How many times have you (privately or openly) judged a woman in fur, while ignoring the hordes of both leather and plastic boots, bags and belts parading past you daily? I know there have been times that I have.

And, do you wear leather but not fur?

Let me have it, ladies.

Fur Flies: Activists Hope To Spark Nutria Sales

2/2/2010 2:18:24 PM

by Sarah Mahoney - Media Post News

All eyes may be on New Orleans for football this week, but environmentalists and fur-lovers alike are taking a closer look at the nutria, the furry rodent devouring Louisiana's wetlands.

Righteous Fur, a New Orleans-based grassroots movement, is hoping that its marketing efforts can raise awareness of the problem, and sell a pro-fur message to eco-conscious consumers. Nutrias were introduced in Louisiana from Argentina back in the 1930s, to boost the local fur trade. But as fur lost popularity, trapping languished, and the whiskery little herbivores have taken over. Weighing about 12 pounds each, they have chomped their way through some 100,000 acres of coastal wetlands since the government began tracking the problem in 1998. And while trappers earn a $5 bounty for each nutria they destroy, the pelts are often discarded.

"To us, that's a terrible waste," Cree McCree, the New Orleans costumer and assemblage artist who spearheads Righteous Fur, tells Marketing Daily. "We'd like for people to see all the great ways they can use nutria pelts -- if we create a larger market, it will help save our wetlands."

McCree, aided by a grant from a federal wildlife agency, recently staged a fashion/film event called Nutria-Palooza, which sold out. And with local support building, her next step is trying to interest fur-friendly fashion designers in the lustrous pelts.

Her timing may be perfect, as American consumers warm up to fur: A Gallup poll last May found that 61% of Americans think it's fine to buy and wear fur, up from 54% the year before. And positioning fur as environmentally correct isn't novel -- the Fur Information Council of America, for example, uses "the natural, responsible choice" as its slogan. "Fur is renewable, sustainable, and biodegradable," Keith Kaplan, executive director of the Los Angeles-based trade group, tells Marketing Daily. "And we'll be able to be much bolder in those claims, once the Federal Trade Commission clarifies its new marketing and sustainability guidelines."

Still, fur is a hot-button issue, and political: Among Republicans, 73% are fur lovers, while the acceptance rate is just 53% among Democrats. And large anti-fur groups, such at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Friends of Animals, have vocal and influential members in the fashion community. Some are best known for their hardball tactics, including store demonstrations and singling out fond-of-fur celebs. Just last week, for example, Olympic hopeful Johnny Weir announced that he would remove real fox from his skating costume as a result of threats from animal-rights groups to disrupt his performance, replacing it with faux fur.

Sales Are Down 7%

The recession hasn't helped furriers, either: In 2009, the Fur Information Council says sales at traditional U.S. fur retailers, including storage and service, came in at about $1.26 billion, a 7% decline from a year ago -- similar to other luxury goods.

In addition to the inherently controversial nature of fur, name recognition also factors into the nutria's uphill battle. "People just don't come in asking for nutria," says Howard Bresnik, owner of the Chicago Fur Outlet, "the home of the furry godmother." Mink still rules, with about 75% of U.S. fur sales, Kaplan says, followed by fox and beaver.

Still, the nutria has major potential. "It's very warm, durable, and well-priced," he says. "It's a dense, luxurious fur, and often used in linings. It can be dyed and sheared, which are both popular in the industry now," he adds. "But a lot of designers aren't using it, just because it hasn't been promoted."

McCree hopes to change that, and plans to acquaint designers who work in fur -- a group that Kaplan says includes between 70% to 80% of all designers, despite the high visibility of PETA's "Rather go naked than wear fur" effort, which it launched back in 1991. "Fur is a branding tool," he says, and it's an instant way for a designer to present clothes as luxury items."

Conservationists, of course, are more concerned with the bayou than froufrou. "We are experiencing a high land-loss rate, with the wetlands disappearing out from under us," Michael Massimi, invasive species coordinator at Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program, tells Marketing Daily. "This is an incredibly important local issue, which is why we've given a grant to this group. We know there are people who will never wear fur," he says, "but there is another group who would, if they fully understand all the environmental implications."

The Universal Declaration of the Ethical Harvest of Seals

1/21/2010 11:34:03 AM

The Fur Council of Canada supports The Universal Declaration of the Ethical Harvest of Seals

www.sealsonline.org

OTTAWA, the 21st of January 2010 – “The Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals is gaining in popularity and I am enthusiastic that the Fur Council of Canada is supporting this declaration along with the Canadian fur industry”, said Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette.

The Fur Council of Canada is a national, non-profit federation representing people working in every sector of the Canadian fur trade. This includes fur producers, auction houses, processors, designers, craftspeople and retail furriers.

“The Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals which you have sponsored is therefore an extremely important initiative, and the Fur Council of Canada is pleased to support it” wrote Alan Herscovici, the Executive Vice-President, on behalf of the Board of Directors. “We look forward to working with you and your team to promote better public understanding and appreciation of this remarkable Canadian heritage industry”, he added.

The Fur Council of Canada has recently launched a massive campaign to raise awareness about fur as a natural resource that is both recyclable and sustainable. (www.furisgreen.com)

“The support of the Fur Council of Canada to the principles outlined in the Universal Declaration is great news: this demonstrates that the Canadian industry like scientists and governments in our country deeply care about animal welfare along with that of human communities and ecosystems” concluded Senator Hervieux-Payette.

The Declaration has also received the support of the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Québec along with the international organization for animal conservation IWMC World Conservation Trust based in Switzerland.

Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette urges all governments and concerned organizations to promote and study the application of the Universal Declaration on the Ethical Harvest of Seals written by a panel of experts (www.sealsonline.org).

Environmental advocates promote nutria fur as a fashionable way to protect the wetlands

1/22/2010 4:35:16 PM

by Susan Langenhennig, The Times-Picayune

The long fur vest in Oscar de la Renta's fall/winter collection is the type of garment you'd see lounging in a chalet in St. Moritz, or on the streets of Paris heading to lunch at Taillevent. It exudes warmth and disposable income.Dyed dark black, the vest is one of 23 fur pieces in de la Renta's fall lineup and the only one made of nutria.The semi-aquatic critter at the crux of Louisiana's wetlands loss has a velvety under fur that long has been used to line jackets and trim cuffs, collars and coats.

Randomly spotted on runways these days, nutria might not carry the ultra upper-crust veneer of sable or mink, but it has always had fans. Bill Cunningham, the street fashion photographer for The New York Times, once was so captivated by one of the coats he failed to realize the woman wearing it was Greta Garbo.

"It's a beautiful fur, and right now most of it is going to waste," said Cree McCree, a New Orleans artist and costumer who is trying to generate more interest in using nutria in fashion as a way to help save the wetlands.

Since 2002, the state has paid hunters to reduce the number of the fast-breeding, marsh-destroying rodents. More than 300,000 animals are killed each year in the program, which pays hunters $5 per tail. Once captured and the tail removed, most of the pelts are destroyed.

McCree founded the Righteous Fur organization last year to shine a light on the fur trade's piece in the coastal puzzle. Inviting 15 local artists to experiment with two pelts each, McCree recently held a Righteous Fur show, featuring apparel, accessories and costumes. The show sold out, prompting plans for an encore here and in New York.

"I'm hoping this will go beyond a cool New Orleans event. I believe that some designers who have been reluctant to work with fur in the past might be interested in nutria when they understand the whole picture, that these animals are doing terrible damage to our coast," said McCree, who also makes jewelry from polished yellow nutria teeth. "I think we need to honor the animal by using the animal, not just killing it."

McCree's quixotic fur crusade faces several tangles, not the least of which is the decline in the luxury goods market and continued societal pressure against wearing fur.

Imported in the 1930s into Louisiana from Argentina, nutria initially were raised here on fur farms. Once the herbivores got into the wild, they found a hospitable habitat, burrowing into levees and into the banks of canals and bayous. Their voracious appetite for marsh grass is credited with damaging between 80,000 and 100,000 acres over a five-year period, according to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries' nutria.com Web site. Since the hunting incentive program has been in place, that number has dropped to about 23,000 acres.
For decades, European demand for the fur kept the population in check, but when the market declined in the late 1970s and '80s, so did the motivation to hunt nutria.

Only a handful of Louisiana companies still deal in fur. In a "good season," Tab Pitre of the Pitre Fur Co. of Galliano said he'll buy between 50,000 and 60,000 nutria from trappers. He then scrapes and dries the pelts and sells them to tanneries in China and, ironically, Argentina for about $4.50 each.

Back in the 1970s, "it was over 100,000 nutria in a season and the price went way up," he said. Dried pelts, at their peak, were fetching an average of $9 each, according to the Wildlife and Fisheries department.

But those days are gone. Pitre said. "We still have nutrias from last year we haven't sold."

The downturn isn't because of the fur's quality. "It's as supple as mink, if not more so," said Edmond Mouton, a state Wildlife and Fisheries biologist and program manager.
Nutria pelts naturally range in color from dark to tawny brown to a golden mahogany, but often are dyed by designers. The courser guard hairs usually are plucked or sheared, and garments are made with the plush under fur, Mouton said.

"It's a really rich texture that offers design flexibility," said Keith Kaplan, executive director of the Fur Information Council of America. Kaplan himself owns two nutria-lined jackets.

Though demand for fur of all types has been down for two years, recent indications are that the market is changing, he said. In 2006, fur sales topped $1.81 billion in the United States, then fell to $1.59 billion after the warm winter of 2007 and $1.36 billion with the economic crash of 2008.

"Anecdotally, 2009 reflected the economic downturn," Kaplan said, "but we did see an uptick in the fourth quarter because of the recent cold weather and the economy coming back."

Backing up that claim, a three-day fur auction held in Helsinki, Finland, just before Christmas saw brisk bidding, according to a Reuters news service story, with the mink, fox and other pelts selling out. The previous year, only 30 percent of the stock sold at the same auction.

But the economy is only one of the pressure points on the fur business. The industry faces continued criticism from animal-rights groups. Ashley Byrne, a senior campaigner with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, believes no fur is appropriate for wearing, not even nutria.

"Using any fur in fashion promotes an industry that is bloody and violent," she said.

Backstage at the Righteous Fur fashion show, held Jan. 8 at the Marigny Theatre and Allways Lounge, Christine Wright was conflicted. The New Orleans artist who sells her AvantGarbuse all of it," she said. "Would I eat a nutria stew? No. But would I work with nutria fur again? Sure. It's beautiful."

Why fur is fashionable again

1/22/2010 4:19:42 PM

Recent subzero temperatures have brought a flood of fur onto the streets. Are attitudes changing toward the trade?

by Justine Picardie, Telegraph.co.uk

As temperatures dropped last month and the snow kept falling, I started noticing fur coats in my neighbourhood, the politically correct north London suburb of Crouch End. This is a place with an independently owned organic shop that still flourishes next to Waitrose, where campaigners wave petitions for Greenpeace and against factory farming, and a large population of foxes are sufficiently confident of their welcome to saunter across my road in daylight.

The furs that have suddenly sprouted around here are not the kind that you would see in Mayfair or Knightsbridge – the smooth minks of a Russian oligarch’s wife or mistress, say – but vintage (in other words, decidedly second hand). I’ve spotted them on young mothers wearing Ugg boots, pushing buggies through the slushy streets, and on teenage girls in skinny jeans and red wellies; a constituency that up until this winter would have stuck to their usual uniform of Gap denim jackets or Uniqlo pea coats.

Clearly, it’s not just a localised trend, because you’ll observe a similar look elsewhere, while the street markets of Camden, Brick Lane and Portobello are doing a roaring trade in old furs for young women. This time last year, you’d barely have seen an animal pelt worn in public, unless it was by foreigners who think the British are sentimental.

Indeed, fur was one of the defining differences between London Fashion Week and Paris, New York and Milan: the British didn’t wear it, but everyone else from a cold climate did. Now, according to the British Fur Trade Association, “there has been a significant growth in fur sales” in the UK, which is part of a global increase (worldwide sales totalled $13 billion in 2008, an increase of nearly 60 per cent compared to the end of the 1990s).

As you might expect, the British Fur Trade Association is also touting its wares as a “responsible choice”: “Real fur remains a supreme example of a fashion product that derives from a wholly natural, sustainable resource, is long-lasting but ultimately biodegradable. Many ‘fake’ furs are manufactured with non-renewable petroleum based products… Real fur is a durable material – quite the opposite of disposable fashion.”

The opponents of fur remain equally vocal. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is campaigning against Burberry for its use of fur, accusing the fashion house of being “synonymous with cruelty to animals”. And the naming and shaming of fur-wearing celebrities continues: PETA’s list of ‘‘worst-dressed celebrities’’ for 2009 has Madonna at the top, and also lambasts the Olsen twins (“Since fur adds 20 years and 20 pounds, maybe Mary-Kate and Ashley think their matronly wardrobe will deflect the gossip about bulimia”); Maggie Gyllenhaal (“Maggie has gone from being lost in her brother’s shadow to being lost inside some really ugly fur coats”); and Elizabeth Hurley (“instead of flaunting the remains of animals, this faded siren might focus on the remains of her career”).

Meanwhile, even though fur is creeping into the High Street (in rabbit-trimmings), as well as luxury fashion houses (including Marni, a label much-admired for its boho-chic credentials), there remains a wariness among magazine editors to be seen to support the fur trade.

Sam Baker, editor of Red magazine, says: “We don’t shoot fur on Red. As far as I’m concerned it’s cruel and completely unnecessary. I’m not a fan of vintage fur either – the animal still suffered. But also, I think the wearing of any fur at all, vintage or otherwise, anaesthetises the wearer. You’re only one gold card away from a new fur coat if you’ve bought an old one.”

Alexandra Shulman, the editor of Vogue, is less militant, but tends to avoid the use of fur in the magazine: “We have a no-fur policy, but the odd cuff and collar creep in. The last research I did a couple of years ago showed that people in this country are still broadly against the use of fur in fashion.”

Whatever one’s view on the rights and wrongs of wearing fur, there seems to have been an unspoken message in the last six or eight weeks that second-hand fur is becoming acceptable in cold weather. For this you can probably blame Kate Moss, who has been out and about in vintage fur, wearing it with the rock and roll insouciance for which she is famous. In doing so, she looks entirely different to a wealthy Milanese matron in a new mink; more like Venus in furs, quite possibly with very little on underneath.

At this point, I should make a confession, which is that at the end of November, with the prospect of a subzero sojourn in the Scottish Highlands, I went to my favourite second-hand shop and asked if they had a “warm coat”. The word fur did not cross my lips – I am of the generation that grew up mourning the baby seals clubbed to death in snowy wastes on the other side of the world. During my time working for Vogue, fur did not appear on the fashion pages.

Nevertheless, when the owner of the shop appeared with a furry coat, I did not say: “Is this fake?” I did note that it was modestly priced (less than Topshop), handmade of an indeterminate material, unlabelled, and at least 50 years old. Since then, I have worn it on a daily basis, and slept under it, as well, on the coldest nights when the temperature in Scotland dropped to minus 18.

I suppose I’ve taken the coward’s way out by not knowing its origin; nor do I want to run the gauntlet of animal rights activists, especially after discovering that a fashion editor friend of mine was targeted when she spoke out in favour of fur. “I got some very threatening letters,” she says, “including ones that said, ‘We know where you live, and where your children go to school.’”

Another friend in the fashion business wears her Italian grandmother’s old fur coat, but avoids confrontation on the subject, despite feeling irritated by the inconsistencies awash in her own industry. “I can’t understand people who’ll buy clothes from Topshop, which still hasn’t signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative, or eat supermarket battery chickens, and then give me a hard time for wearing fur.”

She’s right, of course, but when did fashion ever flourish under the aegis of logic or consistency? Come the spring, fake leopard-spot prints will be back…

Olympics 2010

1/11/2010 11:15:38 AM

Help Megan strike gold at Whistler!

Trapper's daughter is eloquent spokesperson for our fur trade...

Megan Imrie grew up in Falcon Lake, Manitoba, on the family horse ranch; she learned about nature from her father, an active member of the Manitoba Trappers Association.

Megan has now qualified as the youngest member of the Canadian women's Biathlon team (cross country skiing and target shooting) that will compete in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver / Whistler, in February.

The media have already picked up on Megan's trapping background and she has welcomed this opportunity to set the record straight. She has done an excellent job in explaining that the fur trade in Canada is a well regulated, environmentally responsible industry. Not least important, she is putting a very human face on the trade, to counter insulting caricatures projected by animal activists.

One of the first groups to support Megan's Olympic bid were the Manitoba trappers, many of whom donated furs at auction to help finance her training and travel to competitions.Now there's an easy way for everyone in the trade to help Megan strike gold!

Here's how you can support this talented young athlete who represents our trade so proudly:

Make your personal or corporate cheque to "Megan Imrie".
In the "reference" line, mark: "Go FUR Gold!" -- to identify your donation as part of the fur trade's support for Megan.
Send your cheque to the Fur Council of Canada (FCC) or to the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) -- we will forward all fur trade donations to Megan as a group.

Send your cheques for "Megan Imrie" ("Go FUR Gold") to:

Fur Institute of Canada
"Go FUR Gold" campaign for Megan Imrie
331 Cooper Street (Suite 701),
Ottawa, ON K2P 0G5

FUR COUNCIL OF CANADA
“Go FUR Gold" campaign for Megan Imrie
1435, Ste. Alexandre, Suite 1270
Montréal, QC H3A 2G4

A hairy situation: Should I choose fake fur over real fur?

1/12/2010 11:58:13 AM

A hairy situation
Should I choose fake fur over real fur?
by Nina Shen Rastogi for Slate on Msn.com

Now that fur is back in vogue, I've been thinking about splurging on a coat this winter. I'm not too keen on the idea of a real fur, but isn't fake fur essentially made out of oil? Is it any greener than real fur?

This is a tough one to tease out. For many people, of course, a garment made from animal pelts will always be an inappropriate use of natural resources—thus making fake fur the greener choice. But what if you're neutral on the animal-use issue and just want the product with a minimal impact on the planet? There's no easy answer, since so much of the data in circulation comes from groups with a vested interest in swaying you one way or the other.

Let's run down what we do know about the two options. The knock against fake fur is that nylon, acrylic, and polyester are made from nonrenewable petroleum. And it takes some energy to process that oil into synthetic fibers: According to design consultant Kate Fletcher's Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, producing one kilogram of polyester requires 109 megajoules of energy, with 46 megajoules going toward the raw materials and 63 megajoules used to turn those materials into a finished fiber. Nylon consumes 150 megajoules per kilogram; acrylic, 157. A handful of designers are now making faux furs out of cotton, which uses just 50 megajoules per kilogram. (Producing cotton can take a lot of water, though.) The other major downside with fakes is that synthetic fibers take a really, really long time to break down—anywhere from 500 to 1,000 years, if estimates for plastic-bag degradation are anything to go by.
Real fur would seem to address these concerns. It can be awkward to frame the issue in these terms, but animals happen to be renewable resources. (The vast majority of furs—85 percent—come from farmed animals.) And according to the Fur Council of Canada, despite the fact that pelts are treated to retard the degradation process, real fur will break down eventually. In theory, then, you could compost your fur coat when you were done with it. However, maintaining that coat in the meantime can require a significant amount of energy, since many furriers suggest storing your garment in a temperature-controlled vault during the summer.

Real fur also has impacts at the farm level. Like all animal production systems, mink, fox, and sable farms produce manure, which can cause water pollution if not managed correctly. Fur farms also have an additional waste stream to deal with: carcasses. (Composting seems to be environmentally preferable [PDF] to the other three options: burying in landfills, incinerating, and rendering into animal feed.) On the other hand, certain fur animals, like minks, will eat (and thus recycle) human food waste—like old cheese and expired eggs—as well as byproducts from meat or poultry processors.

Dressing and dyeing pelts requires the use of chemicals, but the Lantern can't yet reconcile claims from anti-fur activists that the process is "intensely polluting" and the industry's assertion that it's "relatively benign." For that matter, synthetic coats may also produce chemical waste, both in the manufacture and dyeing of the fibers.

The Lantern did come across one comparison of real and synthetic furs, which concludes that a coat made from a wild-caught animal requires 3.5 times more energy than a synthetic coat, while a farmed-fur coat requires 15 times more energy. These figures are often cited by anti-fur groups in their pamphlets and reports, and are usually attributed to a study from either the University of Michigan or the Scientific Research Laboratory at Ford Motor Company.

Whenever the Lantern comes across a mention of a study like this, her heart leaps—Someone has already crunched the numbers, she thinks. Looks like I can knock off early this week. However, the study in question should be taken with a grain of salt. First of all, the analysis is old—it was published in 1979. Plus, the report makes lots of assumptions without fully explaining how those figures were estimated. Those assumptions may be perfectly valid, but it's hard to know without more supporting information. And while the author does a good job tallying many of the hidden costs of real fur coats—like the gasoline used in checking traplines—he doesn't give a similarly full accounting for synthetic coats.

Finally, the report tends to be wrongly attributed: While the author is a graduate of the University of Michigan and was employed by Ford at the time, the analysis itself was commissioned by the Fund for Animals "to augment its arguments for abolishing the cruelties to animals resulting from the procurement of natural animal furs for human adornment." The fact that the figures come from an advocacy group doesn't necessarily make them suspect. But at the same time, it's a little shady to suggest that they come from a neutral or academic source.

So as much as the Lantern would like to, she can't wholeheartedly adopt the report's conclusions. Until someone does a fuller, more updated study—textile researchers looking for thesis topics, I'm looking at you—what's the fashion-conscious reader to do?

As with all inscrutable environmental conundrums, the Lantern recommends focusing on what you do know will make a difference. If you're going to buy a fur, go for something vintage, of the highest quality you can afford, and in a classic style. Cheap and trendy equals disposable—so whether you choose real or fake, think long and hard about whether you'll still be sporting that hairy, hot-pink jacket a few years from now. If not, put it back on the rack, because it won't ever be green.

***

For original article and to post a comment, click here.

The plight of the green fashionista

1/25/2010 12:14:38 PM

by Joanna Weiss, boston.com

IT BEGAN with the gift of a vintage rabbit fur coat. Not for me; for my friend. Really, my friend. Who was faced with a modern-day fashion dilemma. For most of her life, she had been opposed to fur on the grounds that it was cruel, unnecessary, gauche.

But this coat was so adorable . . . and so thin . . . and so warm. And it was vintage. Which means that, when you think about it, the rabbits were already gone.

And when you compared her fur to the alternatives - the fleece sweatshirts that don’t biodegrade, the “vegan leather’’ jackets made from PVC - the winner of the do-good outerwear derby wasn’t entirely clear.

As the Copenhagen climate talks draw to a close, it’s worth noting how much our culture has come to value the merits of green - both because people truly care about the Earth, and because caring about the Earth has grown so chic. But the actual rules of green living are surprisingly hard to navigate, not least of all when it comes to choosing clothes.

Do you want to save the animals or the planet at large? Do you focus on your outfit’s origins, or its afterlife? Do you submit to the harsh realities of the food chain? Or do you fret about the death of cows and bunnies while the planet weeps over your petroleum-based pleather?

The decline of the anti-fur stigma shows just how complex the rules have become. Jo Paoletti, an American studies professor at the University of Maryland, recalls that she once gave away a vintage fur cape because too many people glared at her at parties.

But over the last decade, many fashion houses have begun to embrace fur again. Onetime PETA models Naomi Campbell and Cindy Crawford have fronted ad campaigns for high-end furriers. Bravo’s Rachel Zoe wears luscious fur vests in public with no apparent guilt. And when my friend started asking around about her coat, she found a lot of people who weren’t appalled by rabbit pelts. Someone told her that Canadians wear fur because it’s warmer than any alternative. Someone else pointed out that people eat rabbit, so why not use all of the rabbit?

These days, the fur industry seems especially emboldened. The Fur Council of Canada has launched an ad campaign declaring that “Fur is Green’’ - in the sense that trappers kill animals who might have overpopulated forests, and that fur breaks down in landfills, unlike performance fleece. The council also takes pains to claim that trappers and farmers treat animals humanely, a byproduct of shame for which animal-rights activists deserve some credit.

But PETA has devolved into self-parody of late, chastising the president for swatting a fly, putting too many naked models in lettuce bikinis, acting overzealous with red paint. When a furrier from Brookline died last month, his obituary ran after his funeral service had taken place, presumably to stave off protesters who had vandalized his store. It’s easier to sympathize with his family than with any friend of the minks.

When it comes to fashion, it seems, everyone has to decide how and when to be cruel, where to stake her own spot on the fur-to-leather-to-meat-to-clean-air continuum. Paoletti points out that, however “natural’’ fur may be, the fur-production process still takes a big environmental toll. But then “greenwashing’’ is rampant in the fashion world today, she says: Fabric made from bamboo is marketed as earth-friendly, but it’s chemically identical to rayon, and manufactured in a way that’s decidedly bad for the planet.

Besides, Paoletti notes, you can make a bigger impact with your laundry habits than with any piece of clothing you buy - and you can also help the Earth by buying fewer clothes in general. In that context, vintage fur could either be the world’s biggest cop-out or a brilliant solution, a way to embrace recycling and luxury at once.

Paoletti isn’t passing judgment, though she wishes my friend could wear a button on her rabbit coat that says, “It’s vintage!’’ Style still has a lot to do with what other people think. But my friend figures that if anyone looks sideways at her coat, she’ll simply tell them it’s a fake.

(Video) The return of fur

3/22/2010 4:49:57 PM

by France24

Click here to watch the video.

In this "Culture" edition, Jessica Michault talks about the return of fur this winter.