I sometimes wonder why I spend so much time shining the spotlight on comically irrational decisions, such as the one taken in 1996 by the Government of the Netherlands. They unilaterally agreed to restrict the importation of wild fur into their country. This decision was made in spite of a move by the European Union Commission to suspend the implementation of Regulation 3254/91, affecting wild fur exports to Europe.

Not only did this decision constitute a total disregard for the European Union Regulations and Statutes but it also represented an apparent mental aberration.

It was previously noted that the Netherlands, in its mind an environmentally enlightened country, is exterminating 400,000 muskrats a year at a cost of some US$20 to 30 million. To eradicate this species - included in the import ban - Netherlands authorities use leg-hold traps, drowning traps and poisonous baits. Seven suffering days are sometimes needed for these animals to die. Although a fur-bearing animal, they are discarded as waste.

Unfortunately, these are the voices of reason that now dominate the world of environmental politics. Is it better to exterminate wild nuisance animals in a manner that is far from humane and dumping them like industrial waste, or to control the population of the same wild species by the economically and ecologically beneficial activities of fur trappers? The Netherlands decision is a blatant waste of natural resources and denies others the right to sustainably use and economically benefit from such a product.

What kind of credit can we assign such a decision by the Netherlands? In its attempt to teach other countries how to conserve nature, the Netherlands succumbs to manipulation by extreme NGOs. This nation's position denies that fur trappers and furriers understand mankind's relationship with nature and that their activities can sustainably contribute to an economy. Simply put, the Government of the Netherlands has no clue.

It has often been repeated that anything that happens to one component of Nature affects Nature everywhere. Management of furbearing animals does not escape this reality. Especially when it comes to human stupidity and ignorance.

Fur vs. Synthetics

Our attitudes towards animals are often ambivalent and contradictory. We may be against wearing fur, but not leather shoes. We may be against vivisection, but freely use animal-based cosmetics and prescription drugs developed through experimentation on animals. The conflict between animal protectionists and furriers is no different. On one side, you have those claiming to be animal defenders and on the other, animal users. This, however, should not lead to a philosophical dead-end, especially when the animals are not endangered and are well managed. Some animals are used only for milk, wool or meat while others become pets or are used for scientific purposes in laboratories. There are many ongoing debates over man's relationship with animals, but they are children of a common parent. Although some attempt to launch each little debate into its own lofty philosophical orbit, the issue is really quite simple: either to use animals or not; and if used, how. Attempting to build this issue into any more than this merely creates confusion and provides better fund-raising opportunities for NGOs who have an impressive capacity to create infinite variations on a theme, all while merrily tripping over logic.

A good example of this is synthetic fur. It has been demonstrated that real fur garments are much less polluting to manufacture than synthetic "faux" furs made with some of the most toxic chemicals known to man. This fact, though, escapes the logic of an industrial nation that incinerates, grinds, chops or buries 400,000 fur-bearing animals while clothing itself in garments sewn from petrochemical-based fabrics. Using the Darwin theory, evolution has some strange surprises for those who prescribe to such enlightened thinking.