Life

Young Fur

Fall fashion redraws the battleground.

By Silvia Moreno-Garcia, 6 Jul 2005, TheTyee.ca

Young Fur

Five bronzed young women wear raccoon, chinchilla, fox and mink as hats, wraps and even flip-flops over designer clothes by Diane von Furstenberg, John Galliano and Vera Wang. They're models for the feature in June's Vogue magazine, shot by Steven Meisel. "Try fur and heavy knits over long skirts," the editorial suggests. "In nomads' land, fur hats are both a luxury and a necessity."

It's proof that fur can't be called a passing trend - in "nomad's land" or here.

A few years ago, fur was unthinkable for both designers and ordinary folk. Now, it appeals to the hearts and wallets of young people who sport fur on everything from hats to jackets, to t-shirts. It's been in style for a few seasons now, and fashions this fall will see even more of it.

Hip grannies?

The fur industry is feeling optimistic these days. Retail sales are up for the sixth consecutive year, hitting $11.7 billion worldwide according to the International Fur Trade Federation.

Grannies aren't driving this trend. In fact, the average fur buyer is 35 years old, and getting even younger, according to the Fur Information Council of America. (Only four years ago in 2001, the average fur buyer was 46). In Canada specifically, the top fur-buying province is Quebec and there, the age group most interested in buying fur is 18- to 34-year-olds, both men and women.

For some young people, fur's back because it's long been considered taboo. And for others, it's because fur's been re-positioned as casual, sporty, and luxurious, making it essential wear for mainstream, celebrity-idolizing youth.

Sports fur

"What we are seeing now is that there are fur styles that have nothing to do with the old idea of fur. Now fur is sheared, it's embroidered, and it's dyed. So it's attracted a new generation," explains Teresa Eloy, for the Fur Council of Canada.

The Canadian council has launched Fur Works Canada, which combines 12 design companies under one fashion director, all in an effort to create youthful fur clothing. There, they take youth styles like "active sports wear, or ski wear, and adapt them to fur," says Eloy.

Other designers have added fur because young people are asking for it. "Fashion is a cycle. Younger people are more interested in fur," he says. "Visible luxury is in, and some people think fur is luxury, so it's part of the trend. People also wear more jewelry for example," explains Zuki, a Montreal designer who says currently a larger segment of his clientele is made up of young customers, even teenagers.

'Real Animal'

Not surprisingly, anti-fur groups aren't in favour of the trend. "What we are seeing is fur being pushed in the form of trim, bright colours, sheared down. Frequently, it doesn't even look like fur. The fur industry is trying almost deliberately to censor itself from that look that it's coming from a real animal," says Liza Franzetta of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

PETA and many other pro-animal groups thought fur-wearing was down for good. According to Statistics Canada, fur production and sales peaked in the early 1980s, reaching almost 5.5 million wild and farmed pelts per year and dropped dramatically in the 1990s to 1.8 million wild and farmed pelts per year. According to furriers, fur plummeted due to US economic recession, fashion trends that embraced an unsophisticated look, and anti-fur activism.

But in 2003, Canadian fur sales climbed back to 2.3 million wild and farmed pelts, its growth fueled by ranch-raised pelts.

Cheap luxury

Part of the appeal, is the new low cost. Rabbit fur is a cheap, low quality fur that lasts only a couple of years, according to George Clement from The BC-based Fur-Bearer Defenders.

"It's something poorer people can afford now that they haven't been able to in the past," he says. "I think we're going through a little fur era but I don't expect it to last long."

These cheap-fur-wearing people are the key part of the trend. Some of them are part of a phenomenon called "gold collar" youth. "Gold collar" workers aged 18 to 25 make up about 40 per cent of the 1.5 million young working class people in Canada. In the US, 61 per cent of its 17 million working class youth are "gold collar."

These gold collar workers live above their means, explains Ian Pierpoint, who conducted the study for Synovate Research. Although they may hold "blue-collar" jobs, they spend their money on luxury items.

These young people are driven by their love of celebrities and their desire to emulate them. They crave status symbols and define themselves through brands. They are the young people that could easily become fur buyers. "Stick a Prada label on it and they'll probably purchase it," he says.

'Morally acceptable fur'

And fur is now "ok." A Gallup poll conducted in the United States last year indicated 62 per cent of people aged 18 to 29 think buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur is morally acceptable. Overall, 63 per cent of all age groups found nothing wrong with fur.

That's one of the reasons Canada sold 90 percent of its fur to the US last year. But lucrative new markets like China, Japan and Russia are tantalizing prospects, according to Eloy. New buying power in these countries is making them top fur consumers and in the case of China, top fur producers.

China has stepped up its fur industry, producing five million mink skins in 2004, second only behind world leader Denmark with 12.6 million mink skins.

This all spells trouble to animal activists who say Chinese fur farmers keep their animals in appalling conditions, even skinning them alive. The China Fur Commission and the China Leather Industry Association have denied the accusations.

"We're seeing things like animals having the skin peeled off their body while they're still struggling, still fully conscious. And this is the inexpensive fur that is being sold as fur trim on jackets at major retailers, not just fur boutiques," insists PETA's Franzetta.

Gendered beasts

Words like these drive fur marketing into full swing, as they struggle to rebrand fur for the next generation. As part of their efforts, the marketers downplay the animal rights angle, and target men and women separately for maximum impact.

According to the Fur Council of Canada, in 2003 seven per cent of Canadian men owned fur, up from five per cent in 1999. Montreal is the city with the highest percentage of men who own fur coats and nearly 13.3 per cent of Canadian French speaking men wear fur. With the enduring metrosexual trend that emphasizes a sophisticated personal appearance, the Fur Council thinks there's room for them to grow.

They'll have to target these men in specific ways. Eloy says Canadian men prefer more subdued, classic styles while US costumers purchase large, long-haired coats inspired by rapper wear.

'Dying breed'?

Pro-fur groups insist that they industry is doing exceedingly well and speak of a fur renaissance. While Canada and the US have significantly reduced the number of wild pelts produced each year, farmed furs continue to do well.

And although sales will probably never reach their golden numbers of the 40s or 80s, Canadian furriers see a bright future. Eloy says that rising mink prices worldwide will mean more wild fur sales, a reason why the Fur Council of Canada will actively promote wild furs this year. Not surprising considering the rise in value of wild pelts like that of the seal.

In turn, anti-fur organizations proclaim that furriers are a dying breed. They still have high-profile celebrity spokespeople like Pamela Anderson, and scored several victories such as getting major retailers like Topshop and Forever 21 to stop selling fur items.

The truth is that for both fur foe and friends, the battleground is being quickly redrawn.

Silvia Moreno-Garcia's work has been published in The Christian Science Monitor, Terminal City and several Spanish language publications. She is based in Vancouver.  [Tyee]

17  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Te Aro Arahina

    6 years ago

    Comments on "Young Fur"

    Anti-fur reps are going to need a better celebrity than Pamela Anderson. That's the trouble with yoof-type spokespeople. They have best-by-dates after which all their lingering odours also cling to the causes they espouse.

  • lani

    6 years ago

    yuck yuck yuck and yuck

  • Yammer

    6 years ago

    Fur is gross, though I would like to support our proud Canadian industries.

  • TyeeModerator

    6 years ago

    This article is a bit too fluffy for me.

    Achoo.

  • relayer

    6 years ago

    There is NO acceptable reason to wear fur. The young thing in the picture may think she's attractive- she makes me sick.

  • Yammer

    6 years ago

    Nonsense. Warmth, flexibility in extreme temperatures, and cost-effectiveness are three acceptable reasons to use genuine wolf- or other fur-lined parkas when working or travelling in the north. (Or, I suppose, far south, if you are Antarctican.)

    To use it cosmetically is, of course, profligacy. But to utter a blanket prohibition is to invite ridicule, and so I have discharged this unwelcome duty.

  • Fii

    6 years ago

    "These young people are driven by their love of celebrities and their desire to emulate them. They crave status symbols and define themselves through brands". That is the saddest thing I have read in a loooong time.

    Skin them alive. Good riddance.

  • lani

    6 years ago

    It's unfortunate that this was such a shallow article and didn't go into the many good and sane and thoughtful reasons why people are opposed to the fur industry, in particular, the fact that it is extremely cruel. People wearing fur should realize they are condoning cruelty.

  • skeptikool

    6 years ago

    The picture:

    The whole get-up looks like something grabbed from the "free" bin at the local thrift store.

    C'mon Tyee. Heard the news today? Where's the beef?

  • skeptikool

    6 years ago

    I withdraw this from previous post:

    "C'mon Tyee. Heard the news today? Where's the beef?"

    The rest stands.

  • ouhite

    6 years ago

    This article is a lot of trend watching, people watching and not a lot of critical thinking. to quote lani, "yuck".

  • dangrice.com

    6 years ago

    When I found out Denmark had twice as many minks as people, I jumped on stats Canada, and whoa, we have a lot of livestock. While we only produce about 2 million pelts a year, we have 17 million cows, 14 million pigs, 3 million sheep, and a whopping 600 million chickens here alone. (Which means we have about 4% of the 15 billion chickens in the world)

    I'm not a big fan of fur, but I do have a suide jacket, and I'm sure i've seen Pamela Anderson wearing leather..

  • ouhite

    6 years ago

    "we only produce about 2 million pelts a year, we have 17 million cows, 14 million pigs, 3 million sheep, and a whopping 600 million chickens here alone"...

    Fur and leather is different. People eat beef every day but they don't buy a leather jacket everyday. On the other hand, cows, chickens, pigs (and everything we kill to eat) does not have fur - they have leather.

    If I'm not mistaken, mostly fur-bearing animals exists in really cold places - where they did the fur - and where human inhabitants may eat them and actually have a purpose for wearing that fur (think igloo inhabiting hunters).

  • beyond dualism

    6 years ago

    this 'life' section is failing miserably, in my opinion.

    TYEE: get it together or i'll quit reading your 'paper' in general. these 'life' issues are fluff and, i feel, if you approve, you have low standards and i'm looking for more than that, quite frankly.

    bringing back fir??! yes, i agree that those who live closer to the earth and respect the animals that are killed for food, clothing, tools, etc. should be allowed to continue living the lifestyle they have been for many generations. they are not responsible for the mass killing of animals. they use only what they NEED.

    fir for fashion is ethically repugnant and completely irresponsible. and the tyee is avocating for this?? or are we supposed to believe that this crap should have a place on this site?

    yikes!

  • redhandjill

    6 years ago

    I grew up in rural Canada where a bad fur year meant that there was no food on the table and friends of mine did without because their trapper fathers couldn't sell their furs.

    I guess despite living in a city I still believe in a country mentality that animals are meant to serve man whether it's the leather we wear, fur, meat we eat, eggs, you name it.

  • allan

    6 years ago

    I guess my position would be if you eat the animal you ought to be able to wear its pelt.

    yes, it may make jittery urbanites queesy, but I would defend the right of Inuit and Aboriginals as well as others if their environment calls for it, to do both.

    Fur lined parkas are not a fashion statement in the far north. In a storm they keep the elements away from you face so that there can be visibility and an element of warmth around your face.

    Without it, you are toast if you are out on the land in a storm.

    However, when they come trotting along a fashion stage someone ought to toss fresh red blood all over the model and others involved to remind the audience that the show they are watching was accomplished through violence against a trapped animal.

    In short, if you don't need it, don't wear it.

    Now let's hope the next article has something we can call redeeming in it.

  • beyond dualism

    6 years ago

    one last simple comment:

    it's about magnitude. small rural communties using what they have available for survival or even for comfort, that's really okay. when something becomes fashionable and demand increases dramatically (mostly from urban centres where fashion must matter for some folks), mass production becomes the method and then, in the case of fur, many, many animals must be killed just to satisfy a whimsical demand. that's crap.

    now, who wants to argue that? and don't bother me with rants about 'choice'. we cannot make individual choices without first considering the effects our choices will have. sure, north american (or should i say canadian and american) society is egotistical and hasn't cared about much as a whole. that needs to change because it isn't sustainable at all.

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.