FAQs

On March 24th, 1975, the beaver became an official emblem of Canada, due in large part to the role that beaver pelts played in the development of the Hudson’s Bay Company as far back as the 1600’s. What the history books often fail to mention (and the part of the history lesson the fur industry would have us forget) is that prior to the trade in beaver pelts, there were approximately 6 million beavers. By the late-19th century, trapping had resulted in the beaver being close to extinction (with some 200,000 pelts exported each year). Was it the trappers who stepped in and demanded conservation? According to the Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada):

“After the turn of this century, the trade in beaver declined, partly with the decline of the beaver hat as fashionable headwear, and partly because the beavers themselves were becoming scarce all over North America. Many large regions were completely without beaver during most of the first half of this century. The beaver conservation movement began in the late 1930s with the writings and lectures of Grey Owl. A native of England who posed as a Métis, Grey Owl created passionate stories of the plight of the Canadian forests and wildlife, and particularly the beaver. Governments responded by closing the trapping seasons on beaver for many years.”

Despite claims about a long history of stewardship, the North American Sea Mink, which used to live in the coastal waters of Newfoundland, was completely eradicated by the fur trade, and is now extinct. While the industry may claim to have learned their lesson, the Newfoundland Marten is now considered a ‘Threatened’ Species, with approximately 300 members remaining (one of the primary causes being trapping). Other species who have been historically targeted by trappers are now threatened or endangered. Some of these include the Sea Otter (Threatened), the Swift Fox (Threatened) and the infamous Eastern Wolverine.

In 1995, the European Union passed a progressive ban on the use of leg-hold traps in all its member countries, as well as a ban on fur from any country still using leg-hold traps. In response, Canada threatened the EU with economic punishments under GATT and the WTO. Sadly, the EU conceded and exempted Canada from their ban when Canada, the USA and Russia instead proposed “The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards” (AIHTS). This agreement was based on the commitment to develop and use only “humane” traps, and with the understanding that the agreement would lead to the eventual banning of the leg-hold trap. What it did instead was put an official ‘humane’ seal of approval on business-as-usual and provided the fur industry with a sound bite about their commitment to ‘humaneness’ while changing very little about the actual practices. This exercise in deception exists entirely because the majority of the Canadian and international public are not comfortable with, or supportive of, the trapping of animals.

The standards apply to 12 animals routinely killed for fur (beaver, muskrat, otter, weasel, marten, fisher, raccoon, badger, coyote, wolf, lynx and bobcat). Noticeably missing from the agreement are minks, foxes, and wolverines. Although the steel jaw leg-hold trap is no longer permitted, superficially altered versions of the trap remain the standard. This is contrary to the entire purpose of the agreement, which was to ban the leg-hold trap entirely. As it stands, the same traps that have been used for 40 years are still allowed, including snares, which are considered extremely inhumane even by moderate groups like the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.

For more information about the AIHTS, click here.

Traps are indiscriminate, which means that any person or animal (including pets and endangered species) can and do get caught in traps. The reported numbers are consistently disturbing. For example, the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that ‘non-target animals’ (or ‘trash’ animals as they are referred to by industry) account for up to 67% of total catch. Some estimate that for every ‘target’ animal, up to 10 ‘trash’ animals are killed. These trash animals routinely include our dogs and cats, as well as deer, birds and endangered species.There is almost no incentive for trappers to report non-target catches, especially if they are endangered animals (which could result in penalization), and there is virtually no way to enforce the laws that make it illegal to catch endangered species. And because traps literally don’t have the capacity to discriminate, there is no way to prevent non-target catches. For an incomplete list of non-target animals who have been caught in traps (including companion animals), click here. For more information about non-target animals, please click here.

Wally Jakubas, a mammal scientist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife was conducting a study of snared coyotes when he noticed an alarming trend. After checking 94 snared coyotes, he noticed a large proportion of carcasses with fractured limbs, broken teeth, bullet holes, and grotesquely swollen heads (called ‘jellyheads’ by trappers).

When the snare doesn’t close sufficiently, it constricts the jugular vein on the outside of the neck, thereby preventing blood from  returning to the heart. Meanwhile, the carotid artery keeps pumping blood into the brain, eventually rupturing its vascular system. In a memo to his supervisor, Jakubas wrote:

“I think it is also safe to say that [this] is an unpleasant death. Anyone who has had a migraine knows what it feels like to have swollen blood vessels in the head. To have blood vessels burst because of pressure must be excruciating.”

Almost one third of the animals Jakubas examined were ‘jellyheads’. Almost another third had been clubbed or shot, indicating that snares do not kill quickly (as the industry claims they do). For more information about the cruel truth behind fur trim, please click here.

There are 3 main traps used to kill furbearing animals in Canada. They are:

The leghold (a restraining trap): Used on foxes, coyotes, raccoons, and countless ‘non-target’ animals who are ‘accidentally’ caught. These traps are placed where animals will be passing through, and catch the animal by the limb (ensuring the pelt remains unspoiled). Once trapped, the animal has a painful and panic-filled wait until they are ‘dispatched’ (bludgeoned, choked or stomped to death) by the trapper.

The body grip (Conibear) trap (a killing trap): Used to catch beavers and muskrats (underwater) as well as martens, fishers, raccoons, and other animals killed for fur. Routinely described by the industry as an instant-kill trap, but according to the CFHS, “animals are often severely injured and suffer for many hours or days before being found by trappers”. The trap consists of two rectangular frames with a trigger, that when activated, slams shuts on the body. This is meant to happen when animals walk or swim through it, though in many cases “[b]ecause the size of an animal or the way it enters the trap cannot be controlled, non-target animals, which are either too large or too small, often get caught in these traps” and all too often, critically injure the animal without killing him or her, resulting in an agonizing prolonged death. Even when a target animal is caught, the Conibear is problematic as “the metal frames often don’t hit vital spots or have enough force to kill, and end up crushing bones, blood vessels and nerves, leaving the animal to suffer a prolonged death”.

The leg-hold trap is the most widely used, and is still legal in Canada, despite being banned in 80 countries (including the EU), as well as Florida, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Arizona. The American Veterinary Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association, the National Animal Control Association, the Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club all oppose the leg-hold trap. While leg-hold traps with ‘teeth’ have been banned, all leg-hold traps (including the remaining models) have the same intention: to prevent the escape of an animal who is fighting for his or her life. Many animals die trying to free themselves, as well as from dehydration, blood loss and hypothermia. Many animals become so desperate, they resort to chewing or twisting off their own limbs to escape. For more information about trapping in Canada, please click here.

In Canada, regulations for trap checking vary depending on whether or not the trap is a ‘restraining trap’ or a ‘killing trap’ (more info on that can be found here). Generally speaking, trap checking times range from once every 24 hours to once every 14 days. As if this isn’t haunting enough, these regulations are largely unenforceable, which means untold amounts of animal suffering goes undocumented and uninvestigated. Many animals die trying to free themselves, as well as from dehydration, blood loss and hypothermia. Many animals become so desperate, they resort to chewing or twisting off their own limbs to escape. When the trapper finally returns, to avoid damaging the pelt, the animal is bludgeoned (often with a shovel or pipe), choked, or stomped to death.

Trapping does not control the spread of disease, it actually stimulates it. Thinning animal populations in the fall and winter forces animals to travel further to find mates. Thus carriers of disease cover a greater tract of land. Additionally, animals in the latter stages of a fatal disease will likely not be attracted to the lures that a trapper uses, therefore the chances of catching a healthy animal are actually much higher.

Population control is another myth. Trapping causes an immediate decline in the number of animals and therefore less competition for food and habitat for surviving animals. Fertility rates tend to increase, as do litter sizes. A Texas study from 1972, shows that in areas with no trapping, the average number of coyote pups was 4.3 per litter, but in counties with trapping the average was 6.9 per litter*.

*Knowlton, F.F.  1972.  Preliminary interpretations of coyote population mechanics with some management implications. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:369-382.

On March 24th, 1975, the beaver became an official emblem of Canada, due in large part to the role that beaver pelts played in the development of the Hudson’s Bay Company as far back as the 1600’s. What the history books often fail to mention (and the part of the history lesson the fur industry would have us forget) is that prior to the trade in beaver pelts, there were approximately 6 million beavers. By the late-19th century, trapping had resulted in the beaver being close to extinction (with some 200,000 pelts exported each year). Was it the trappers who stepped in and demanded conservation? According to the Canadian Wildlife Service (Environment Canada):

“After the turn of this century, the trade in beaver declined, partly with the decline of the beaver hat as fashionable headwear, and partly because the beavers themselves were becoming scarce all over North America. Many large regions were completely without beaver during most of the first half of this century. The beaver conservation movement began in the late 1930s with the writings and lectures of Grey Owl. A native of England who posed as a Métis, Grey Owl created passionate stories of the plight of the Canadian forests and wildlife, and particularly the beaver. Governments responded by closing the trapping seasons on beaver for many years.”

Despite claims about a long history of stewardship, the North American Sea Mink, which used to live in the coastal waters of Newfoundland, was completely eradicated by the fur trade, and is now extinct. While the industry may claim to have learned their lesson, the Newfoundland Marten is now considered a ‘Threatened’ Species, with approximately 300 members remaining (one of the primary causes being trapping). Other species who have been historically targeted by trappers are now threatened or endangered. Some of these include the Sea Otter (Threatened), the Swift Fox (Threatened) and the infamous Eastern Wolverine.

There are several critical dimensions that must be considered when discussing the impact trapping has on the environment. To begin, traps are not selective, which means endangered species can and do get caught in traps. The American Veterinary Medical Association reports that ‘non-target animals’ (or ‘trash’ animals as they are referred to by industry) account for up to 67% of total catch. In January 2011, a Manitoba trapper found a dead, full grown male cougar in his trap (which was meant for coyotes). The cougar is listed as a protected species, so under the law the trapper had to report it to Manitoba Conservation. The cougar was only the fourth found in the province since 1973. There are also serious environmental concerns with the legal trapping of at-risk species and the overall inability to enforce the laws that do exist.

The majority of trapping in Canada occurs on registered traplines (on federally owned land) with some as big as 500 square miles. In order for trappers to travel to, and patrol their traplines in the woods, as well as to transport dead animals and trapping equipment, automobiles and/or snowmobiles are routinely used. In fact, many traplines actually run along makeshift roads so that trappers can drive along from trap to trap. While the industry likes to hark back to the history of trapping, modern trapping relies heavily on fossil fuels. For more information on the environmental issues with trapping, please click here.

80% of the animals killed for fur in Canada come from fur farms (Statistics Canada, 2010). Like other forms of factory farming, it is a highly environmentally destructive process. A 2011 report on mink farming, found that farmed fur outscores other textiles (by anywhere from 2-28 times) for land use and climate change. The report also found that farmed fur requires up to 20 times more GHGs than other textiles. In addition to being an irresponsible use of resources, the report found that farmed fur outscores other textiles (by anywhere from 2-28 times) for ozone layer depletion, soil and water pollution, and toxic emissions. For each kilogram of factory farmed mink fur, 110 kilograms of carbon dioxide is produced. That is enough to drive a car from Toronto to Nashville. For more information on fur farms and the environment, please click here.

All furs are tanned. It is the only way to avoid fur biodegrading. It is such an intense process that according to Judith Eger (senior curator of mammals in the department of natural history of the Royal Ontario Museum), due to the “harsh tanning, dying and shearing processes”, it is almost impossible to determine the species that the fur is from, as “once the fur has been treated genetic sequences are virtually destroyed”. A more in-depth discussion on DNA destruction and impacts on species identification can be found here. More information on the risks associated with chemicals used in fur processing can be found here. For more on the ‘Green Trap’ used by the industry, please click here.

While the fur industry loves to claim that fur is ‘natural’, a quick overview of fur processing lays that theory to rest. After an animal is killed, their skin is peeled off to create a ‘pelt’, which is the animal’s skin with the hair still attached. Because fur would naturally biodegrade, each pelt must be “dressed” (industry slang for tanned), which stabilizes the collagen or protein fibers in skins, thereby “inhibiting putrefaction”. This process relies heavily on toxic chemicals, many of which “are listed as carcinogens and are otherwise toxic to humans”. For a more detailed look at fur processing, please click here.

Many of the commonly used terms employed by the fur industry are neither well defined nor regulated under the law. Canada’s Competition Act does not specifically restrict the use of terms like “eco” or “environmentally friendly”. It isn’t very different abroad, as the term “green” is considered “too vague to be meaningful” by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the International Standards Organization (ISO). Therefore, the industry’s use of this term does not “prove” anything. The Fur Council also claims that fur is biodegradable (despite also arguing that fur can be a family heirloom) but this too is an unregulated term in Canada.

Fur processing is far from natural, and many of the chemicals used to process fur are damaging to both humans and the environment. Fur farms (where most fur in Canada comes from), like all factory farming, take huge tolls on the environment, as does trapping. For an overview of this ‘Green Trap’, please click here.

The fur industry (and companies like Canada Goose) brag that they don’t use endangered species in their products, when in actuality, it would be against the law for them to do so. But they fail to mention that traps are indiscriminate, which means that any person or animal (including pets and endangered species) can and do get caught in traps. The reported numbers are consistently disturbing. For example, the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that ‘non-target animals’ (or ‘trash’ animals as they are referred to by industry) account for up to 67% of total catch. Some estimate that for every ‘target’ animal, up to 10 ‘trash’ animals are killed. These trash animals routinely include our dogs and cats, as well as endangered species. Here are two recent, reported incidents of endangered/at-risk species being caught:

• In March 2012, in Constance Lake, Ontario, Larry Gillis and grandson Jeff Gillis caught an Endangered Eastern Wolverine (while targeting lynx). Gillis claims he didn’t realize wolverines were an endangered species until a marine biologist in Hearst had the Ministry of Natural Resources confiscated the body. “They said I couldn’t sell it or possess it.” Gillis said. (Wawatay News)

• In January 2011, a Manitoba trapper found a dead, full grown male cougar in his trap (which was meant for coyotes). The cougar is listed as a protected species, so under the law the trapper had to report it to Manitoba Conservation. The cougar was the fourth found in the province since 1973. (CBC News Story)

It is important to note that there is almost no incentive for trappers to report non-target catches, especially if they are endangered animals (which could result in penalization) and there is virtually no way to enforce the laws that make it illegal to catch endangered species. Nor is there any way to prevent it, as traps literally don’t have the capacity to discriminate. So while Canada Goose, and the industry at large can’t ‘use’ endangered species, undoubtedly their use of fur results in the death of endangered species. For more information about non-target animals, please click here.

While the government, to date, has not supported a ban on dog and cat fur, Libby Davies (Member of Parliament, NDP, Vancouver-East), has introduced Bill C-296. If passed, this bill would ban the import and sale of dog and cat fur. It would also make the labelling of fur products mandatory. Click here to download the petition and organize a petition team in your community! (Note: Unlike online petitions, our petition has been pre-screened by the Government’s Procedural Clerk and Clerk of Petitions. Completed petitions are being accepted and presented in the House of Commons).

The Fur Council of Canada continues to deny the existence of dog and cat fur in Canada, despite the fact that their poster child Canada Gooserecently found dog and cat fur in imitation coats all across the country.

Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Canadians would undoubtedly be opposed to dog and cat fur (let alone being tricked into buying it), and that the United States, the European Union, Australia and Switzerland have banned it, the government has continually demonstrated no intention of prohibiting these imports. In fact, the government has used one form of animal cruelty to defend another, as Canada’s Former Trade Minister, David Emerson has said that his “priorities include ensuring foreign market access for Canadian exports …Adopting an import ban on dog and cat fur such as you suggest could undermine Canada’s case against implementation of import bans imposed on Canadian seal products”. While Canadians no doubt would argue that any action to help end animal suffering is worth while, the government apparently does not agree.

Libby Davies (Member of Parliament, NDP, Vancouver-East), has introduced Bill C-296. If passed, this bill would ban the import and sale of dog and cat fur. It would also make the labelling of fur products mandatory. Click here to download the petition (Note: Unlike online petitions, our petition has been pre-screened by the Government’s Procedural Clerk and Clerk of Petitions. Completed petitions are being accepted and presented in the House of Commons).

Labeling laws in Canada mean that manufacturers and retailers don’t necessarily have to identify a product as containing dog or cat fur. Under the law, only certain products must be permanently labeled, and even then, they can say ‘fur fibre’ instead of specifying the animal. According to the Canadian Competition Bureau, boots, shoes, slippers, handbags, toys, ornaments and pet accessories may use real fur (dog, cat, mink, etc.) but in Canada it is not necessary to label it.

And for garments that do legally require a label, due to the widespread disapproval and disgust over the use of dog and cat fur, the Asian fur industry routinely mislabels the fur intentionally. Producers of fur in China have revealed on a number of occasions that they will sew any label onto products if it makes them more easily sellable. Dog fur is routinely sold as “Asian wolf” while cat fur is often sold as “rabbit” or “mink”.

Yes. It is completely legal to import and sell dog and cat fur in Canada. Despite the fact that the United States, the European Union, Australia and Switzerland have banned the practice, dog and cat fur is all over Canada. Each year, approximately 2 million dogs and cats are killed in Asia (predominantly in China). These dogs and cats are strays, and sometimes companion animals stolen from homes.

Dogs and cats are killed in horrifying ways. Cats are routinely killed by strangulation, often while in shared cages with other cats. Dogs are hung by the neck or paws and slashed across the groin, bleeding to death. The video Silent Scream shares footage of this (warning: graphic content). For more information, please click here.

Companies like Canada Goose love to evoke iconic imagery of research scientists hiking along the unforgiving Arctic tundra. The rhetoric gets quite sensational, claiming that when a “life is on the line” their coats are the optimal choice. Their jackets are designed for places “where skin around the face can freeze in an instant”. So if Canada Goose makes coats for the “coldest places on earth”, why are they all over Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and every other city in Canada? And moreover, why has it been described as “the uniform of the inner city aged 16-to-24 year olds” by Randy Harris, president of market research firm Trendex North America?

The truth is that around $50 million of their annual sales are what CEO Dani Reiss calls “fashion-driven”. They are a fashion trend and warmth is merely a selling feature. Reiss even admits that the badge on the arm of a Canada Goose jacket makes “people feel like they belong to a club”. For more info on the ‘Necessity vs. Trendy’ trap, please click here.

The Fur Council of Canada continues to deny the existence of dog and cat fur in Canada, despite the fact that their poster child Canada Gooserecently found dog and cat fur in imitation coats all across the country.

In 1995, the European Union passed a progressive ban on the use of leg-hold traps in all its member countries, as well as a ban on fur from any country still using leg-hold traps. In response, Canada threatened the EU with economic punishments under GATT and the WTO. Sadly, the EU conceded and exempted Canada from their ban when Canada, the USA and Russia instead proposed “The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards” (AIHTS). This agreement was based on the commitment to develop and use only “humane” traps, and with the understanding that the agreement would lead to the eventual banning of the leg-hold trap. What it did instead was put an official ‘humane’ seal of approval on business-as-usual and provided the fur industry with a sound bite about their commitment to ‘humaneness’ while changing very little about the actual practices. This exercise in deception exists entirely because the majority of the Canadian and international public are not comfortable with, or supportive of, the trapping of animals.

The standards apply to 12 animals routinely killed for fur (beaver, muskrat, otter, weasel, marten, fisher, raccoon, badger, coyote, wolf, lynx and bobcat). Noticeably missing from the agreement are minks, foxes, and wolverines. Although the steel jaw leg-hold trap is no longer permitted, superficially altered versions of the trap remain the standard. This is contrary to the entire purpose of the agreement, which was to ban the leg-hold trap entirely. As it stands, the same traps that have been used for 40 years are still allowed, including snares, which are considered extremely inhumane even by moderate groups like the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.

For more information about the AIHTS, click here.

The fur industry (and companies like Canada Goose) brag that they don’t use endangered species in their products, when in actuality, it would be against the law for them to do so. But they fail to mention that traps are indiscriminate, which means that any person or animal (including pets and endangered species) can and do get caught in traps. The reported numbers are consistently disturbing. For example, the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that ‘non-target animals’ (or ‘trash’ animals as they are referred to by industry) account for up to 67% of total catch. Some estimate that for every ‘target’ animal, up to 10 ‘trash’ animals are killed. These trash animals routinely include our dogs and cats, as well as endangered species. Here are two recent, reported incidents of endangered/at-risk species being caught:

• In March 2012, in Constance Lake, Ontario, Larry Gillis and grandson Jeff Gillis caught an Endangered Eastern Wolverine (while targeting lynx). Gillis claims he didn’t realize wolverines were an endangered species until a marine biologist in Hearst had the Ministry of Natural Resources confiscated the body. “They said I couldn’t sell it or possess it.” Gillis said. (Wawatay News)

• In January 2011, a Manitoba trapper found a dead, full grown male cougar in his trap (which was meant for coyotes). The cougar is listed as a protected species, so under the law the trapper had to report it to Manitoba Conservation. The cougar was the fourth found in the province since 1973. (CBC News Story)

It is important to note that there is almost no incentive for trappers to report non-target catches, especially if they are endangered animals (which could result in penalization) and there is virtually no way to enforce the laws that make it illegal to catch endangered species. Nor is there any way to prevent it, as traps literally don’t have the capacity to discriminate. So while Canada Goose, and the industry at large can’t ‘use’ endangered species, undoubtedly their use of fur results in the death of endangered species. For more information about non-target animals, please click here.

The Fur Council of Canada is simply the marketing body of the fur industry. They represent the interests of the fur industry, and they have no legal authority.

Additionally, Canada’s Competition Act does not restrict the use of terms such as ‘humane’, which means that the fur industry can, and does, capitalize off of the emotional weight people give to this term.

The fur industry implies that the fur trade is a critical component of the Canadian economy. The total ‘dollar value’ of trapped animals in 2009 was $14, 847, 952. The fur trade employs 0.2% of the population (70,000 ppl), and most of this employment is part-time, occasional or seasonal. 0.17% of the Canadian population (60,000 people) are actual trappers, and of the 1,122,306 employer businesses in Canada, 815 (0.07% of them) are said to be dependent on fur. The fur trade is responsible for approximately 0.01% of Canada’s GDP. To put this in perspective, the fur industry contributes less than half of what the ‘Rubber and plastic hose and belting manufacturing industry’ contributes to the GDP.

There is a single incident on record of a fatal attack by a coyote on a Canadian. In 2009, Taylor Mitchell was tragically killed while hiking in Cape Breton Highlands National Park, Nova Scotia. Ms. Mitchell’s mother actually issued a statement shortly after her daughter’s death, which stated:

“We take a calculated risk when spending time in nature’s fold – it’s the wildlife’s terrain…When the decision had been made to kill the pack of coyotes, I clearly heard Taylor’s voice say, ‘Please don’t, this is their space.’”

Chip Bird, the Cape Breton field superintendent for Parks Canada, has even said that over his 30-year career, he had never seen a serious attack until Ms. Mitchell’s attack. In the rest of the world, there has been a single fatal attack by a coyote on record. Although they are curious, coyotes are naturally very shy and will not normally approach or attack humans. Meanwhile, over 100,000 coyotes are killed each year in Canada. Their fur has been popularized by companies like Canada Goose, who have claimed that coyotes pose a threat to humans. This misinformation is purposely used to convince consumers that coyote fur is acceptable. For more information on human-coyote interactions, please click here.

Trapping does not control the spread of disease, it actually stimulates it. Thinning animal populations in the fall and winter forces animals to travel further to find mates. Thus carriers of disease cover a greater tract of land. Additionally, animals in the latter stages of a fatal disease will likely not be attracted to the lures that a trapper uses, therefore the chances of catching a healthy animal are actually much higher.

Population control is another myth. Trapping causes an immediate decline in the number of animals and therefore less competition for food and habitat for surviving animals. Fertility rates tend to increase, as do litter sizes. A Texas study from 1972, shows that in areas with no trapping, the average number of coyote pups was 4.3 per litter, but in counties with trapping the average was 6.9 per litter*.

*Knowlton, F.F.  1972.  Preliminary interpretations of coyote population mechanics with some management implications. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:369-382.

The industry (especially Canada Goose) claims to support indigenous populations by using fur, but in reality, less than 2% of Canada’s aboriginal population is involved in the fur trade. Aboriginal trappers, on average, earn less than $400 per year, and receive only 1% of the profits of the Canadian fur industry. Low pelt prices, fluctuating demand, and high expenses (e.g.: gasoline, trapline permits, etc.) mean that for many trappers, indigenous or not, trapping has now become a hobby or a seasonal supplementary income. It is not a livelihood. Paul Hollingsworth, founder of Native/Animal Brotherhood explains that the industry continues “to promote the myth that trapping is culturally and economically central to Canada’s Natives”. For more information on the ‘Indigenous Trap’ used by the fur trade, please click here.

Companies like Canada Goose love to evoke iconic imagery of research scientists hiking along the unforgiving Arctic tundra. The rhetoric gets quite sensational, claiming that when a “life is on the line” their coats are the optimal choice. Their jackets are designed for places “where skin around the face can freeze in an instant”. So if Canada Goose makes coats for the “coldest places on earth”, why are they all over Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and every other city in Canada? And moreover, why has it been described as “the uniform of the inner city aged 16-to-24 year olds” by Randy Harris, president of market research firm Trendex North America?

The truth is that around $50 million of their annual sales are what CEO Dani Reiss calls “fashion-driven”. They are a fashion trend and warmth is merely a selling feature. Reiss even admits that the badge on the arm of a Canada Goose jacket makes “people feel like they belong to a club”. For more info on the ‘Necessity vs. Trendy’ trap, please click here.

The industry has invested a lot of energy in pitching fur as a high-end, luxurious product, thereby justifying exorbitant retail prices to misinformed consumers. For example, Canada Goose jackets (which start at $650 CAD) use a strip of coyote fur along the hood of the jacket.

Based on data from Statistics Canada, the average pelt price for a coyote is about $28.34. Given that a single pelt can undoubtedly make a lot of hoods, it is difficult to conceive of how they arrive at $650. The same goes with Moose Knuckles ($750), Mackage ($600-800), Soia and Kyo ($475), Michael Kors ($400-700) and the other pushers of fur trim.

As an example, here are average pelt prices from North American Fur Auctions, the largest auction house in North America (recorded mid-2012): Weasel ($2.75), Skunk ($3.69), Raccoon ($3-19), Muskrat ($8-10), Beaver ($9-32), Mink ($21), Grey Fox ($26), Red Fox ($39), Badger ($41), Marten ($46-128), Otter ($70) and Lynx ($123).

Over 75 million animals are killed each year around the world for fur. Despite public perception, the majority of these animals are killed for fur trim (not full-length fur coats). Faced with steadily declining profits due to widespread public disapproval, the fur industry has not been able to economically ignore this refusal (with pelt production falling by 62% in by 1990 thanks to effective anti-fur campaign in the 70s and 80s). Their only real response was to rebrand, reinvent, and recreate the story of fur. They did so by flooding the market with cheap fur trim on jackets, hats, gloves and boots. Last year in Canada, more than 3.3 million animals were killed for their fur.

Since 1944, we have been working to abolish the commercial fur trade, ban the import and sale of domestic dog and cat fur in Canada, and create opportunities for peaceful co-existence with urban wildlife. Memberships and donations enable us to focus on working directly to end the fur trade: a goal that is completely achievable. This particular campaign would not be possible without the generous support of people just like you. Whether or not you can give monetarily, please consider becoming a volunteer. Don’t forget to stay in touch with us on Facebook and Twitter.

Fur-Bearers organizes the annual Living With Wildlife Conference, aimed at addressing human-wildlife conflicts using a non-lethal approach. We have also had several exciting successes preventing the trapping and killing of ‘nuisance’ wildlife. For example, after 25 years of trapping and killing beavers, the city of Cornwall,ON decided to embrace a non-lethal alternative. Fur-Bearers, along with U.S. based Beaver Solutions and local residents, worked together to install the devices. These flow devices manage water levels without harming the beavers. Additional exciting victories have occurred in Mission (BC), Napanee (ON), the Sunshine Coast (BC), Langley (BC) and Burnaby (BC). More info on issues with Municipal Beaver Trapping can be found here.

While the government, to date, has not supported a ban on dog and cat fur, Libby Davies (Member of Parliament, NDP, Vancouver-East), has introduced Bill C-296. If passed, this bill would ban the import and sale of dog and cat fur. It would also make the labelling of fur products mandatory. Click here to download the petition and organize a petition team in your community! (Note: Unlike online petitions, our petition has been pre-screened by the Government’s Procedural Clerk and Clerk of Petitions. Completed petitions are being accepted and presented in the House of Commons).

Fur-Bearers is happy to provide organizational support and resources to assist with municipal trapping bans. We have had some major successes, including the banning of traps in Surrey and Gibsons, BC.

Yes. If possible, don’t spend your money at stores selling fur. A refusal to financially support a company based on their decision to sell fur is more powerful than you may initially realize. Consumer pressure on retailers is an excellent tactic that a) discourages people from shopping there b) pressures the retailer to choose animal-free products and c) sends a message to other retailers who may have been considering carrying fur. Consider organizing your own local boycott of a store selling fur. Remember– the majority of Canadians don’t wear fur, so public opinion is already in your favour.

Our campaign has a variety of print materials available by request. They are excellent tools for education and can be handed directly to people, or left behind in offices, stores, schools, etc. We also encourage you to share our video Crying Shame and organize outreach events in your neighbourhoods. We are happy to provide resources for organizing demonstrations outside of stores that sell fur. We encourage you to attend one of our silent vigils or organize your own in your town! No crowd is too small. Any and all efforts to share the truth about fur are critical. Grassroots community organizing has led to some of the most exciting successes for animals in history!

Due to the lax labeling laws in Canada as well as intentional mislabeling, it is easy to accidentally support the fur industry. We recommend that people do not buy any fur-trimmed items, or anything made with fur, even if it appears to be fake. Be especially careful with boots, shoes, slippers, handbags, toys, ornaments and pet accessories which may legally be made with real fur without identifying it as such.

The Humane Society of the United States has compiled a list here. Fur Free Retailer is an amazing international effort to give consumers accurate information about which stores are fur-free. In terms of noteworthy companies that will keep your body andheart warm this winter, be sure to check out: Vaute Couture, Hoodlamb, and Alternative Outfitters which are entirely vegan. Companies like Columbia Sportswear, Patagonia, Urban Outfitters, Helly Hansen and H&M are fur-free and offer down-free options as well. You may be surprised how many of the big retailers make a point of not carrying fur in their stores.

If you’re considering opting for a fur-free coat, please consider making it down-free as well. Down is obtained in horribly cruel ways, and instead, we encourage people to look for PrimaLoft in puffy coats. It is a synthetic microfibre insulator that was originally developed for the US Army as a water resistant down alternative. Today, Primaloft is the premier supplier of insulation to the US Army, Marines and Special Forces. Here is a list of brands that use Primaloft.