Recently advertisements for the "Fur is Green" campaign have been spotted on a Vancouver skytrain just in time for the Olympics.

Please visit www.furisgreen.com. There you will find statements like:

Fur is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource.

"Without human intervention, wildlife can be subjected to wildly swinging “boom and bust” cycles of overpopulation followed by disease and starvation"
''If we don't use part of what nature produces, we will use petroleum-based synthetics or other materials that may damage the environment''

http://www.crueltyisnotgreen.com/

Green Washing: Fur and So-Called Ecological Claims |Print|

The latest gimmick of the marketers of fur and fur-trimmed products, is claiming their products of cruelty to be "green", "ecological", or "environmental". Let's examine these claims a little more closely.

Unregulated Claims

Many of these terms are not well-defined or regulated.

Industry Canada has confirmed that Canada's Competition Act does not specifically restrict the use of terms such as "Eco" or "Environmentally Friendly". (August 13, 2007)

Wikipedia Encyclopedia's description of the term "Environmentally Friendly" states: "Due to the fact that there is no existing international standard for this term, the International Standards Organization [ISO] deemed it too vague to be meaningful."

A recent study of environmental claims involving more than 1,000 products, released by an Ottawa environmental marketing firm TerraChoice, found virtually all of them were either false or misleading. "The magician draws attention to his left hand so you don't see what his right hand is doing." 1 Scot Case, with TerraChoice, states that the biggest sin was the hidden tradeoff - products that promote a single issue, such as recycled content. "That's important, but there are a wide variety of additional environmental considerations: Was there any pollution during the manufacturing phase? What are the aspects of the product that aren't made of recycled content - are they also environmentally friendly?" 2

Marketers of fur products have always compared the biodegradation of fur to only fake fur. It is important to realize that the alternative to fur is any and every fabric and textile there is. Fur is no better than the many fabrics out there that also decompose easily. The term, "biodegradable", remains unregulated in Canada.3 It may be surprising to note that certain types of plastic bags are also being marketed as biodegradable. According to Don Jardine, Director of Pollution Prevention with PEI’s Department of Environment, "Companies are using their own standards. It may say biodegrade, even if it takes 15 years." 4 It is also interesting to note that marketers of fur products contradict themselves claiming that fur biodegrades and lasts for generations. How long, exactly, does it take for the chemically soaked and treated fur coats to break down in the landfill - Generations?

The general perception of the term, "recyclable", is to be usable again in the original form or with minimal alteration. Virtually all textile products can be remodelled, passed on to younger brothers and sisters, or donated to charities and thus are "recyclable" or "reusable". It is meaningless to claim that fur is recyclable or reusable because virtually all fabrics are. How is fur any more recyclable than any other fabric?

Buzz words, such as "organic" or "natural" have also been misleadingly used by the fur trade. To describe a product as "organic" or "natural" is to imply that the production of such product involves neither artificial chemical treatment nor disruption to our eco-system. The washing, drying, tanning, dyeing, and trimming of fur require extensive chemical treatment. The trapping and removing of millions of wildlife from our environment is disruptive to our eco-system. And there is certainly nothing natural or green about cruelly ripping the skins off the animals' backs.
Killing Dictated by Fashion Trends is Damaging to the Eco-System

Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines an "eco-system" quite appropriately as: "The interconnectedness of organisms with each other and their environment". Further, it wisely points out that "living creatures are a key component of any eco-system".

The fur trade traps a million of Canada's wildlife every year5 from our eco-system for needless fur products, dictated by ever changing design trends. These animals are not chosen because they are "surplus", weak, or diseased. They are killed because they happen to be the 10 or 12 species that have nice, thick fur out of an estimated 140,000 species of animals in Canada.6

It is becoming widely understood just how vital a role fur-bearing and other animals can play in our eco-system, and how we cannot reasonably expect to be able to continue to deliberately interfere with the intricacies of their population dynamics in such significant ways as commercial fur trapping, without expecting far-reaching and potentially serious consequences.

When the wolves were being exterminated in Yellowstone Park in the United States in the early 20th century, for example, soaring elk population led to the decline of aspen, cottonwood and willow trees that turned out to be crucial components of natural habitats for birds, beavers, and other animals. Coyote populations also skyrocketed. The number of coyote prey such as deer and ground squirrels plummeted. This negatively impacted the mid-level predators like foxes, hawks, owls and pine martens. The downward spiral of the ecological balance within Yellowstone Park persisted until the successful re-introduction of Canadian grey wolves in 1995.7

Some of the fur promoting organizations try to portray trappers like they are "wildlife managers" who know exactly how to kill just the "right" animals in order to maintain an optimal eco-system for the area. This would be a miraculous task even for a well-trained biologist and naturalist let alone for a fur trapper. As hunter, John Harrigan, says it so well in his column for outdoorsmen, "Hunters and trappers have forgotten why wildlife management began in the first place. It began to control hunters and trappers. Hunters and trappers ‘solved' the problem because they WERE the problem. Limits were put on how many animals they could kill because otherwise they would have killed every living thing into extinction." 8

Traps Kill At-Risk Species

A) Traps are Indiscriminate

Former US State and fur trapper, Bill Randall's words convey well the irrefutable and chronic problem with the fur trade's steel traps when he says "regardless of trapper skills, any trap can and does catch all birds and beasts, wild and domestic." 9

Traps cannot distinguish endangered species from non-endangered ones. There is of course no sign for the endangered animals, like eagles or swift foxes, to warn them: "Endangered species do not step here." Make no mistake, species at risk do get caught in, and die from, indiscriminate traps.

Photo: FurBearerDefenders.comAs one recent example, the State of Maine, USA, in the settlement of a lawsuit, had to claim liability for the injuries and deaths of endangered Canadian lynx10, caused by their authorization of traps set for other animals. The U.S. District Judge, John Woodcock, commented on this, "if trappers are going out ... and they accidentally or inadvertently take lynx, then that is a violation of the Endangered Species Act" (Portland Press Herald, October 5, 2007).

B) Legal Trapping of At-Risk Species

While most animals that are legally trapped in Canada are not species at risk, the question arises when numbers are scarce for certain populations - How few animals should be left of a species before trapping and killing for profit is halted?

The wolverine, for example, is a species whose population levels are of great concern. In Canada, their eastern population is already officially listed as "endangered" and their western population is officially listed as a species of "Special Concern" due to their low numbers.11 (A species is listed as "Special Concern" when it "may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats" 12). Yet in British Columbia, wolverines are still trapped for their fur, legally, in Snare traps and Conibear traps.13

C) Enforcement Problems

Infractions of trapping laws, intentional or otherwise, are extremely difficult if not impossible to enforce at the best of times. And the number of enforcement officers assigned this responsibility, among many others, is becoming disturbingly inadequate.

In the province of British Columbia of Canada, for example, there are only 92 regional staff in the Conservation Officer Service to enforce the Wildlife Act.14 That averages about 1 Conservation Officer per 10,269 km2.15 As stated in a 2007 survey of environmental law enforcement and compliance in the province of British Columbia by West Coast Environmental Law, "The new policy on deregulation, together with lack of staffing capacity meant that enforcement actions plummeted [in 2007] by more than half."

Federally too, spending on wildlife protection and monitoring of ecosystems has been slashed because of budget problems at the federal environment ministry. This includes (but not limited to) 80% loss in budget for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network and a slash from $1.9 million to $0 for the National Wildlife Areas, a program that protects nationally significant habitats for wildlife and birds.16

D) Obeying Laws Is Not A Selling Feature

The Canadian fur trade claims in their promotional materials that no endangered species are used in their fur products, as if this was a commendable feature, which distinguishes fur from the other products on the market. Separate from the question of whether this claim is true, is the issue of relevance. Refraining from intentionally harming or killing endangered species is the LAW, and following the law is a bare minimum requirement of all industries. TerraChoice Environmental Marketing refers to this kind of statement of an obvious and basic legal requirement as a special selling feature, as the "Sin of Irrelevance", one of their six noted green-washing phenomena.17

The Absurdity of Calling Cruelty "Sustainable"

Some fur-bearing animals that are killed for fur, are from populations that are indeed not "at-risk" yet in the conventional sense. There are many beavers, for example, Canada's national emblem. Does that mean that killing about 200,000 of them year after year, with cruel methods, can be deemed "sustainable" and therefore "green"?

Can Canada, as a society, afford to "sustain" cruelty? Do we want to "sustain" the trapping and removing of a million of Canada's wildlife from our environment every year? The fur trade refers to our beautiful lynx or otters as if they are oil, or some kind of mineral, unable to feel pain. Fur is NOT a fabric. It is an unnecessary and cruel product. It is skin ripped off a once breathing, feeling animal.

The Pollution of Fur Production

There are many ecological problems and risks inherent in raising and killing animals on large scales for consumer purposes. For example, a recently released report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, warns that the worldwide livestock industry has become a significant contributor of land degradation as well as air and water pollution, and the largest sectoral source of animal wastes, antibiotics, hormones, chemicals from tanneries, and fertilizers and pesticides used for feed crops.18

Consider the chemicals and harsh treatment that must be necessary to turn an animal (fur) skin, unnaturally and cruelly peeled off the tissue of a live creature, into a consumer product to be worn against human skin and stored in our closets, without decaying and collecting bugs.

The Encyclopaedia of International Labour Organization states that the chemicals commonly used to process fur include acids, hydrogen peroxide, chromates, formaldehyde, bleaching agents, and various types of dyes. Many of these are potential skin irritants. Formaldehyde is classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and a probable human carcinogen by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Chromates, depending on the type of compounds, can cause breathing problems and other health issues.19

The Industrial Pollution Projection Systems, published by the World Bank (1995), ranks "Tanneries and Leather Finishing" third on the Linear Acute Human Toxic Intensity Index, after "Fertilizers & Pesticides" and "Industrial Chemicals Except Fertilizer".

The USA's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1991) fined six fur processing firms $2.2 million for the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens." Some fur "farmers" have actually been going out of business recently in the USA due to their inability to clean up the "nitrates, phosphates and other substances running off with rainwater or seeping into aquifers and polluting local water supplies." 20 The Fuhrmann Mink Farm in Wisconsin for example closed after testing of the well water near their fur operation revealed a high concentration of nitrates. The cost to clean it up, according to one source, would run well into 7 figures.

And the fur trade's own recent publications (2007) admitted that China, the largest manufacturer of fur products and textiles made with fur 21, was considering imposing an extremely punitive Value Added Tax on fur dressers and tanneries because they are considered "industries causing excessive pollution".22

Fur and Consumption of Natural Resources

The huge majority of trapping in Canada is done on registered traplines (on federally owned land). The traplines are measured in square miles, with some of the larger traplines up to 500 square miles in size. For trappers to travel to and patrol their traplines in the woods, as well as transport dead animals and steel trapping equipment, many use resource-guzzling automobiles or snowmobiles. Such vehicles consume a large amount of fossil fuel and discharge polluting exhausts into the atmosphere.

In addition to transport, the energy consumption of all levels of the fur production process also needs to be considered. The fur dressing process alone, as described by the United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO), involves sorting, soaking/washing, fleshing/turning, tanning, extraction/wringing, drying, kicking, cleaning, plucking/shearing/trimming, shaving/buffing, drying, and finishing.

And how many resources are needed to transport the feed and house almost 2 million caged fur-bearing animals23 that are kept captive and killed every year in Canada alone, just to supply the fur trade? One source indicates that it takes about 3 tonnes of feed to produce a single mink coat, and a tonne of feed (2,200 pounds!) to produce one fox fur coat.24

Consider the maintenance of fur coats. As the fur trade states, "Nothing shortens the lifespan of a fur like keeping it cooped up in the closet during hot summer months. Home storage, even using air conditioning or a cedar closet, will not protect your fur from drying out or from dust, dirt and insect damage. Fur vaults are specially designed environments, with carefully controlled temperature and humidity. When furs are not professionally stored, though the fur may appear undamaged, the natural oils in the leather may have dried out, prematurely aging your garment and leaving it more vulnerable to rips and tears." 25 Imagine the energy required to run "fur vaults" to properly store furs, and on top of that, the energy required to professionally dry clean them. "Green"?

Labelling Problems Mean Canadians Can't Even Identify Fur Products

How are Canadians supposed to be able to give proper consideration to the environmental impact of what they are buying when the product itself can't even be consistently identified? Unlike fabrics and textiles, the majority of fur-trim, real fur as well as fake fur, is not legally required to be labelled in Canada. Fur or fur trim used on pet accessories, boots, shoes, indoor slippers, handbags, toys, ornaments (decoration), and many other products, are exempt from any identifying label. Labels of clothes trimmed with fur can disclose the content of every other part of the clothing items, but misleadingly EXCLUDE the content of the fur or fur trim. Canada's lax and confusing fur labelling laws allow all kinds of fur trimmed products to be sold throughout Canada (in dollar stores, department stores, grocery stores, etc.) giving no indication to the consumer even whether the fur is real or fake, let alone which animal it is from, which country the animal was killed in, or which cruel methods were used.

Cruelty Can NOT Be Considered "Green"

Almost a million Canadian fur-bearing animals are being trapped across the country each year to provide fur for the fur trade5, despite the fact that all over the world, the cruelty of today's fur trapping methods are being recognized. The entire European Union Parliament was in fact so opposed to the cruelty of Canada's most widely used trap, the steel jawed Leg-Hold trap, that they banned these traps throughout all of their countries, and passed a ban to stop the import of most wild furs from all countries still using these traps.

Regrettably and shamefully, Canada led the charge to undermine this ban, and succeeded in doing so, despite the world's cruelty concerns. To do it, the Canadian fur trade played a lead role in developing international trap standards, misleading the Europeans into believing that our trapping methods would become humane under these standards. Instead, these standards are so scandalously low that the same cruel Leg-hold, Conibear, and Snare traps that have been used for decades, are still legally and commonly used throughout Canada.

The Green and Growing World Trend Is about Kindness to Our Environment and Wildlife, Not Cruelty.
People worldwide are becoming increasingly aware of the cruelty involved in fur. The number of animals trapped for their fur in Canada has already plummeted by 80%. Trappers everywhere are hanging up their traps.

"People have just gotten out of it," said Mr. Duncanson, a member of the Nova Scotia Trappers Association. "Even those who are still active are not going very far because the payback isn't worth it." (Chronicle-Herald, Jan. 9, 2001)

When interviewed by CBC Radio, 84-year-old one time Fur Auction Owner, Ted Pappas, admitted himself, "The fur business is dying. The old trappers are dead. The young generations are well educated. A lot of natives are professionals now. They are lawyers. They are doctors. They are in the computers... Are they going to ... trap a handful of fur that doesn't even pay the gas on your snowmobile? It's only logical. I wouldn't do it." (CBC Radio, Jan.10, 2005)

FUR is a product of unimaginable cruelty no matter how it is dyed, trimmed, branded, or marketed. There is absolutely nothing "fashionable" about the fear and horror in the eyes of an animal struggling in pain in a merciless trap. There is absolutely nothing "stylish" about a raccoon caught by the front foot in a steel trap that had somehow stripped off all of the skin up to his shoulder in the struggle to free himself. There is certainly nothing "green" or "ecological" about cruelty.

Together, we can teach our children and grandchildren to appreciate our natural world; to respect and protect our environment, INCLUDING our wildlife.

How to Help

1) Be critical of so called "green" claims. Don't buy them at face value. If a product is claimed to be relatively benign, relative to what? If a product is recyclable or organic, is it certified by any international or local authority? Are the claims substantiated by any independent research studies or inspection reports? Be aware that marketers can say anything if there is no specific law regarding the use of these buzz words.

2) Spread the Word: Involve your family and friends in discussion about these issues. Pass on the link to this website. Help Fur-Bearer Defenders publicize the animal's side of the story. Your donations toward our visibility projects and your help in distributing our brochures, etc., show the public the painful truths about fur.

3) AND - tell the government and the newspapers how you feel about advertisements using misleading terms. Together, we can stop needless suffering.

If you find any of the "green" or "eco-friendly" advertisements misleading, please file a complaint to the Competition Bureau.

Online complaint form: Click HERE
By email: compbureau@cb-bc.gc.ca

By phone: 1 800 348-5358 (8:30 AM-4:30PM on weekdays)

By fax: (819) 997-0324

By mail: Competition Burea
50 Victoria Street
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0C9

In addition, a complaint against deceptive or misleading advertisements can also be sent to Advertising Standards Canada (under clause 14 - unacceptable depictions and portrayals).

Online: Click HERE

By Fax: 416-961-7904

By mail: Advertising Standards Canada
175 Bloor Street East
South Tower, Suite 1801
Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES
CBC News, November 20, 2007
National Public Radio, December 7, 2007
Press Release, Standards Council of Canada, 2007
Press Release, Standards Council of Canada, 2007

Statistics Canada, 2006

Canadian Biodiversity Species
"Hunting Habits of Wolves Change Ecological Balance in Yellowstone", The New York Time, October 18, 2005
Union Leader, June 24, 2007
Environment Canada
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)
B.C. Wild Fur Harvest Summary Report, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch
Correspondence from B.C. Fish and Wildlife Branch, August 3, 2007
Statistics Canada
Canadian Broadcasting Corp, September 18, 2007
TerraChoice Environmental Marketing
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Health Canada
The Sandy Parker Reports, January 21, 2008
International Fur Trade Federation, February 2005
Sandy Parker Reports, August 2007 and Trapper & Predator Caller, December 2007
The Canadian Green Consumer Guide, 1991
Fur Council of Canada
Statistics Canada, 2006

Animal Issues, Animal Protection Institute, Winter 2007
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Last updated in March 2008