The trappings of fashion

>&Comfort versus cruelty: the ethical relativist's guide to the fur trade

by PHILIP PREVILLE

Ideas, like clothing styles, go in and out of fashion. So it's no surprise to discover that they move in tandem. Political correctness, the euphemism for progressive ideals that have gone crusty, has been under assault for years. Beliefs such as affirmative action, environmentalism and human rights now take a back seat to globalization, trade and development.

Meanwhile, on Mayor Street, the epicentre of Montreal's furrier row, business is booming. Fur, once the most taboo fabric on earth, is back in style. From the pages of Vogue to the Style section of the Gazette, fashion pundits are applauding fur's return. Fur is more than just mink coats now: there's sheared furs, fur accessories, dyed fur, fur trim. High-profile designers like Jean-Paul Gauthier and Dolce&Gabbana are using fur regularly, treating it as a fabric like any other.

And the sales numbers speak volumes: since 1992, when the Canadian fur industry bottomed out with total exports worth $143 million, the fur business has bounced back, almost doubling its exports to $268 million in 1998.

But what ever happened to the cruelty? The suffering animals, the cruel and inhumane deaths, the evil trappers? Not to mention the pathetic fur buyers, sacrificing countless animal lives for nothing more than vanity?

"Things have changed a great deal in the last five years," says Executive Vice-President Alan Herscovici of the Fur Council of Canada, an umbrella organization for fur trappers, farmers, processors, designers, wholesalers and retailers. "The industry employs 80,000 trappers, mostly in the north and among aboriginal communities. It's important to those economies. And trappers use different methods now. The industry is much more humane."

Perhaps, but you'd have to be pretty naive to think the animals die happy or painless deaths. "The fur trade is built on blatant and extreme cruelty," says Melissa Spector of the Washington, D.C.-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "Anyone who wears a fur coat shows a blatant disregard for the feelings of other sentient beings."

Sound bites like these are, unfortunately, completely predictable. Seeking information on the fur trade is a bit like seeking information about abortion: there is no middle ground. Everyone's either for it or against it, and all that's available is extremely loaded information from people who want to convert you.

Are some furs more acceptable than others? Are some methods really less cruel? What's a progressively-minded fashion whore to do? Can you wear fur with a clean conscience?

Jaws of death

In terms of cruelty, the scourge of the fur industry has always been the steel-jawed leg-hold trap. Both sides agree on this, and only this. Among the problems: they cause extreme pain; they trap whatever steps into them (including dogs, cats, deer and other animals whose hides are worthless); animals will go so far as to gnaw their own limbs off in order to escape; predators may get to them before the trapper does, ruining the hide. According to PETA, the industry calls these "trash animals."

The industry, however, says such traps are no longer used for smaller animals, only for larger ones like coyotes, wild foxes and lynx. And, they insist, they will be completely shelved within the next five years. But those animals are out of fashion anyway: their long hair and heavy hides have left retailers unable to sell them.

As for smaller animals, the industry claims great strides in humane treatment. "Instant-kill" traps, often fashioned like large enclosed mousetraps with openings big enough only for the target animal, are now used for beavers, muskrats, martens, raccoons and others. Explains Herscovici: "For beavers, the traps are placed below water. For land animals like muskrats, they'll be placed above ground-level where dogs or cats can't get at them, and the openings will be covered with branches so birds can't get in. Muskrats are curious animals, and they'll root through to the trap."

There are numerous reasons for inventing these new killing contraptions. For one, Canada is a signatory to the International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards; the European Union will not import furs from animals that have been killed inhumanely, i.e. slowly. The instant-kill traps do the job quickly.

For another, the new traps reduce the number of trash animals. But it's impossible to know just how much progress has been made. PETA's Web site (www.furisdead.com) includes statistics on trash animals, but the numbers date from 1987. The industry, meanwhile, denies the problem exists. "There is no such thing as a trash animal," says Doug Pollock of the Ottawa-based Fur Institute of Canada.

In terms of fashion, muskrat is a low-budget option and you get what you pay for. A 40-inch coat will run you about $2,500 and (according to PETA) wipe 50 muskrats off the face of the earth. Plus, it's not as comfortable and won't last as long as other furs.

A beaver coat costs upwards of $5,000 and will last longer. But beavers are victims of a nasty trend in the industry: fur's primary fashion disadvantage has always been its weight--heavy and bulky compared to modern fabrics. For beavers in particular, this problem has led the industry to go after younger animals whose hides are thinner and more malleable. That means killing more beavers per coat.

Of mink and men

Mink, however, remains the fur industry's staple. None of the trapping problems apply to mink, since they are almost exclusively raised on farms. The minks are killed in their own gas chamber filled with carbon monoxide. The industry says the deaths are humane because the animals fall asleep quickly and expire soon thereafter; PETA claims the system often fails, and animals wake up while being skinned. The industry denies the charge, but admits that the carbon monoxide system is not used on farmed foxes and chinchillas because it's known to be ineffective on them; they receive anal electrocution treatment instead.

And despite being farmed, mink has its own trash-animal problem. One local retailer claims he, like others in the industry, sells mink coats made only from females--again because their pelts are smoother and lighter--at a price of up to $15,000. Which means the males serve little purpose.

In the end, the Fur Council's Herscovici believes the industry has beaten its critics. "The fact is, humans monitor and control wildlife populations all the time," he says. "Animals have to be trapped. We take humane treatment seriously. And trappers don't endanger species; habitat destruction endangers species. Talk to other groups like the World Wildlife Fund; they'll say they support wildlife management."

But as far as PETA's Spector is concerned, the industry's attempts to be more humane are pointless. "We are opposed to using animals as food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment," she says. "The fact is, you still have to kill animals and rip the skin off its back, and that's not justified."