The Geese Are Killing the Coyotes
Is Canada Goose’s production process ethical?
–By Julia Szydlowski
Versace. Gucci. Burberry. Michael Kors. Stella McCartney. Jimmy Choo.
All luxury fashion brands. All fur-free. No more lamb-lined slides, fur shawls, and foxtail keychains.
While fur was once synonymous with luxury and premium prices, consumers are now voicing their concerns over how ethical the collection and production of fur is. According to Mintel, a market research agency, just under 40% of Americans will stop buying a product if they don’t believe it is ethical.
Quick to recognize the declining sales trends aligned with destructive fur practices, designers are listening. The recent transition by major fashion houses marks their commitment to animal welfare and rights.
What is going down between Canada Goose and PETA?
With so many fashion houses making the shift to faux fur, those that continue to use real fur are under fire, especially from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). From flour-bombing Kim Kardashian on the red carpet to tossing a dead raccoon on the plate of Vogue editor Anna Wintour, PETA is not particularly quiet or polite about their thoughts on fur usage and wearers. Their goal “is to reduce the sum total of animal suffering and counteract furriers’ efforts to portray fur as “upscale,” “chic,” or status symbol.”
The outerwear brand Canada Goose is the most recent brand under attack by the nonprofit organization for the use of authentic fur. After an investigation revealed their inhumane fur practices, they launched multiple billboards near Canada Goose stores in the United States and Canada. Featuring the infamous fur trimmed, goose filled coat wearer holding “the rest” of the coat: a tailless coyote and bloody geese, these advertisements are now displayed on the busiest streets in Chicago and New York City.
They use this horrific imagery to urge citizens to boycott the brand and real fur. On March 2nd, PETA supporters even took their protest outside of the current CEO’s house. These actions are not going unnoticed by the public as over 350,000 people sent the company messages through the rights organization’s’ action alert.
As PETA continues to raise a storm against them in 2019, Canada Goose’s only statement comes from a public release shared on Facebook in 2016. Three years ago, they stood by their use of real fur by saying it was the brand’s and customer’s “personal choice.” Contrary to PETA’s documented cruelty of Canada Goose’s fur collection processes, the brand states that “they only use “purchase fur from certified trappers, and the trapping of fur-bearing animals is strictly regulated by the state, provincial, and territorial wildlife departments.”
In not directly addressing the photos and videos from PETA’s investigation, is Canada Goose neglecting their corporate responsibility? They are allowing the ethical responsibilities on the certified traders that they purchase from and the corporate responsibility on government that regulates these them. The brand is even conveying that the ethical choices should be put on the customer as it is their “choice” to purchase their products.
Allison, a manager at the recently fur-free Michael Kors store in Ann Arbor, states that “brands often use fancy words to get you to ignore what is actually happening behind the scenes.” That is exactly what we are here to understand, what is fur farming exactly and how is Canada Goose utilizing these practices to make their expensive parkas.
The History of Fur Trapping
While we may now think of fur as a symbol of social status or fashion, it was originally used as a form of currency and trade.
In the mid-1500s to early 1600s, Native Americans traded furs for tools and weapons with European explorers and early American settlers to establish friendly relations. As the demand for fur increasingly grew, especially beaver fur for felt hats, traders established trading posts and routes along the St. Lawrence River. By 1670, firms such as the Hudson’s Bay Company got sole trading rights to certain regions for fur trading.
By the 1800s, deforestation for the growing population made trapping animals scarce. Over-trapping was starting to saturate the United States and Canadian markets. By the 1870s, the demand was declining and most fur-trading activity had ended.
So how does Canada Goose “ethically” trap their fur?
Today, fur farming comprises about 85% of the fur trade while fur from the wild accounts for the rest. Long gone are the days traveling along the river to the nearest trading post to sell your fur. Now, the fur farms use strict diet and breeding plans to produce “desirable mutations” for high-quality furs. Fur farms commonly breed fox and mink. North American fur farms account for 52% of the latter sold around the world.
These primarily family-owned businesses follow the International Fur Trade Federations (IFTF) strict codes of practice. However, animal advocacy organizations like PETA and Born Free USA allege that these animals are killed by electrocution, gasses, cervical fractures, and poison injections. These claims have not been backed up by evidentiary support on these farms yet. However, it is important to note that a few of these techniques are legally approved as humane euthanasia by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).
The other 15% of the fur trade is trapping animals in the wild. Canada Goose specifically mentions certified trappers for their coyotes in their statement towards PETA’s attacks. According to the IFTF, the majority of wild fur is obtained from wildlife management. This includes overpopulation maintenance to promote healthy, balanced ecosystems.
According to the National Trappers Organization, there are more wild furbearers in the United States then there was 100 years ago. Each of the furbearers is licensed by the state after coursework and a fee. While it is not an extensive process, many fail to become trappers because of the commitment. Others who succeed often have years of experience in the rules and regulations.
While these practices may have some benefits, animal welfare organizations say that trapping has many harmful effects on wildlife. PETA’s investigative photo essay appears to support their claims about the coyote trapping processes used by Canada Goose. The animal is caught in a foot trap, left for days to face starvation, skinned, and its carcass left behind.
The National Trappers Association rebuttal to “Trapping Information,” published by the Humane Society of the United States, also rebuttals PETA’s depictions of the process as misinformed.
There are a few different traps that fur gatherers may use during the trapping process. There is one called the “killing device” that causes instant death to the animal. While not the most ethical sounding, the Trappers Association is confident that these traps rarely cause just injuries or suffering. The second trap, featured in PETA’s attack on Canada Goose, is a live-capture restraining device used to release or harvest the animals. Often called footholds, these are the safest by design, often featuring rubber. They are often used by conservationists to reintroduce species like red and gray wolves into a new environment with minimal damage.
These animals are also not left for many days to face starvation or thirst and die as a result of the elements. The DNR regulations state that trappers have to check their traps every calendar day. The fundamental economics also denote this idea as an animal in one trap is hindering them from capturing other animals and making their profits.
In the end, responsible trappers know to use as much of the animal as possible. The Trapper’s Education Manual approved by Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources says remaining parts must be taken to a plant, made into fertilizer, or buried three feet deep to avoid any infections being spread to other species.
In addition to these rules above, there is also harvest season length, bag limits, permissible sizes and types of traps. The trappers also have to look at population growth characteristics, population densities and reproductive capabilities of the coyotes. There are many ethical ways to trap these animals according to the National Trappers Association, the International Fur Trade Federation, and the DNR. The only things that often sound gruesome are what the American Veterinarians Association, American Human Society, see as humane processes used to kill animals in shelters and those that become our food.
There is no way to ensure that these trappers are being ethical all of the time. And, our definition of humane seems to change on a case to case basis depending on how bad we want the product. There will always be some unethical practices that slip through the cracks such as modified traps to prevent escape or illegal killing practices. Especially with the demand for Canada Goose coats and their fur trims pushing the price to $170 per pelt, up 40% from 4 years ago. Consumers can only trust what they hear from these organizations, there is seemingly no way to ensure ethical sourcing. However, pushing for transparency from the company can help consumers make informed decisions about where their fur, and other materials, are coming from.
Why does it matter to us, in Ann Arbor?
I ran a survey and follow-up interviews with twelve students at the University of Michigan. They ranged from a variety of different majors and backgrounds and varied in their ownership of Canada Goose products, some had none at all. However, all of them had noted that Canada Goose parks were becoming increasingly prevalent in the Ann Arbor area. Many of these students have noted the rise in the brand that they did not see before in their own hometowns around the country.
These fur-lined parkas quickly became the status symbol of those who were able to afford it and those who cannot. However, they also became very practical as the temperatures dipped below negative 20 degrees. The tundra-tested jackets were getting put to the real test as Midwest temperatures rivaled those in Antarctica and often succeeded in keeping the wearers warm during the unusually cold January. When asked about the practicality of the jackets many of the respondents agreed that Canada Goose coats do live up to temperamental Michigan weather but they are not worth their exorbitant price.
From these interviews and the survey, these students primarily base their choices on price and practicality. Nothing out of the ordinary for your average college student. However, being of a certain age range to be titled millennials, they should also want to promote socially responsible brands such as those that use faux fur. Yet, many of these students do not even consider ethics when purchasing products. Marta, a senior in Computer Science, tends to only look at the ethical practices when purchasing makeup or other cosmetics, not clothing.
They noticed the authentic fur and down on the jacket, just never decided to look at how it was collected. Only one respondent said that they knew previously about fur trapping practices, having seen a PETA article. The rest of the respondents did not currently know how the fur made it onto the collars of their coats.
These processes that consumers try to detach themselves from when purchasing animal byproducts, may actually be closer than we think. Michigan is one of the states where it is legal to trap animals. These practices may be happening right in our own backyards. So why aren’t we paying attention? Why are we not looking up these production practices and seeing the actuality of fur trapping, even fur farming?
Maybe it just hurts too much to actually know.
Will Canada Goose ever fly fur-free? Will we?
“I don’t know”, said Allison, “ It is quite possible only if they get enough pressure.” But as for the near future, unfortunately for PETA, it looks pretty dim. However, the price of fur has already skyrocketed with the growing demand, so it may get too expensive for their bottom line in the near future.
If other companies like Everlane and Patagonia are successful in sourcing transparency, Canada Goose could do the same. It is not too much to expect from a company. Since Canada Goose is not outwardly sharing the fur collection process from forest to coat, we can assume that something might not be humane.
If it were revealed to be their licensed trappers using unethical trapping methods, the company would let the responsibility fall on the hunters. Yet, that should not be expected. The corporate responsibility should fall on everyone in the process, especially Canada Goose who is ordering the fur.
In sharing these responsibilities, we have to recognize that a large responsibility falls in us, the consumer. We are the demand that companies work to supply. We are above Canada Goose in this process, they are ordering those furs because we continue to buy them. We may feel completely removed from the trapping process but we should be thoughtful of our choices and their consequences. If PETA says to watch their videos, we should. We need to recognize that there is a toll for every animal product that we purchase.
There will always be the other side of the argument, that the animals are being killed anyway, maybe for overpopulation or the food industry. But it is an animal’s life that is being taken, and that should be worth our consideration. We cannot let fur become a trend once again.