Canadian Furriers Take Up Lobbying

Canada’s fur industry--the target of an aggressive worldwide animal-welfare campaign--is trying to boost its sagging profits by fighting it out publicly with the anti-fur lobby.

The industry wants to beat its critics at their own game by appealing to current environmental concerns and portraying trapping as a “green” business that uses renewable resources and abides by the principle of sustainable development.

“We have taken major preventive, preemptive steps to make sure our consumers feel good about their product and can wear it with pride,” said Del Haylock, executive vice president of the Canadian Fur Council.

As part of its campaign, the industry has teamed up with native Canadians, who make up about half of Canada’s 100,000 trappers.

“Trapping is central to the culture and economy and survival of nations of (indigenous) people who are among the most advanced conservationists in the world,” said David Montour, secretary-treasurer of the native group Indigenous Survival International.

The pro-fur campaigners say their public relations drive is working. According to figures from the Fur Council, the number of fur garments exported from Canada, the world’s third-largest wild fur producer behind the Soviet Union and the United States, rose by 8% last year.

But anti-fur activists are skeptical about that statistic, contending that it includes items such as fur-trimmed jackets that never were counted as fur garments before.

A spokesman for the World Society for the Protection of Animals said another council figure, showing that the total value of Canadian fur exports fell by about 25% last year from $152 million ($182 million Canadian) in 1988, is a more accurate measure of the situation.

The society’s Michael O’Sullivan said the animal-welfare movement clearly has made inroads in changing world attitudes about fur.

He pointed out that just last month, Harrods, the upscale London retailer, said it would close its fur department because sales had been hurt by growing public opposition to the killing of animals for skins. Also in February, Fur Vault Inc. of New York sold its retail division to South Korea’s Jindo Corp. after profits sagged.

The Canadian industry, however, refuses to concede defeat.

Haylock, of the Fur Council, says that declining profits are caused mainly by a global slump in fur prices brought on by an oversupply of commercially raised European mink. He believes the Canadian fur industry will turn around once the Europeans cut back on mink production.

Indigenous Survival can also claim one recent victory in the war of words over fur. Concerned about a planned European Community ban on fur imports from countries using the leg-hold trap, it recently conducted an informational tour for several members of the European Parliament.

“We met with all currents of opinion--trappers, animal groups,” said Mary Banotti, a member of the European Parliament’s committee on the environment, public health and consumer affairs. “I just came back feeling that the issue was a lot broader than we had looked at before.

“There was a huge political risk for us to go, but we didn’t regret it at all,” said Banotti, whose visit included a day trip to a trap line in the north. “It was 40 degrees below zero (Fahrenheit). We were graphically exposed to the difficulty for many of the people.”

Banotti said she and others would probably try to stop a move to have the fur import ban take effect in 1991 instead of the current target date of 1996.

“We are still maintaining our position that the leghold trap must be phased out, but we do not believe it can be brought about before two or three years,” Banotti said. “We want to take the time it requires to do this without damaging the traditional life and economies of the indigenous people.”