Return to Letter
______________________________________
IWMC.org
Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
1200 Vanier Parkway
Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0R2
The Honorable Arnold Wayne Easter, P.C.,
M.P.
Solicitor General of Canada
13th Floor, 340 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0P8
Florida, 28 September 2003
Mr. Commissioner:
Honorable Minister:
IWMC is an international organization of ten years' standing that exists to protect and promote the sustainable use of the world's wildlife resources. We believe that determining the proper balance between the needs of people and the world's terrestrial and aquatic resources best serves the interests of conservation. Because of this interest, we have closely followed the campaign of the "Fur-Bearer Defenders", a new recruit to the myriad ranks of "environmentalist" non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that aspire to dictate Canadian environmental policy by denying Canadian citizens the right to exploit the wildlife resources with which our country is so richly endowed.
I founded IWMC after serving for nine years as Secretary General of the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). During my tenure in that office, I witnessed at first hand the burgeoning power of these NGO's. Whether they profess themselves to be anti-whaling; anti-trapping or anti-logging, they all cooperate closely in a common two prong campaign to enrich themselves through public donations and to turn nature into a suburban theme park with humankind securely locked out behind perspex barriers.
It is clear that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has now become a primary target of this type of NGO campaign. Please allow me to assure you, from my years of experience, that RCMP is not the ultimate target of the "Fur-Bearer Defenders". Rather, RCMP simply constitutes the first tempting target that the NGO's will use to launch a campaign and raise public funding with a view to mounting an overall assault on the 50,000 Canadian trappers who today manage healthy furbearer populations. In short, RCMP owes it not just to itself but also to a large segment of hard working Canadians to make its case to the nation's public before this anti-fur campaign gets traction because, once it has been placed on the defensive, RCMP will find it increasingly difficult to catch up in the public debate.
I have lived outside Canada for 22 years but I have always maintained - and will maintain - my Canadian citizenship. I treasure our national heritage of utilizing our plentiful wildlife resources and, quite frankly, I am angered when I see those traditions besieged by extremists who, in reality, know little to nothing of nature and true conservation.
I recently published a book, "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources", which is already available in English and French. This book describes the modus operandi of the NGO's and exposes their common fund raising patterns. Excerpts from Chapter 14, most relevant to this issue, is sent herewith.
I shall be in Ottawa on October 10 and October 27. I will be happy to meet with you on either of these dates to discuss this matter further. IWMC will be more than happy to share with you its experiences from several different countries in dealing with this most sensitive issue, in the best interests of the Canadian people and our nation's wildlife.
Truly Yours,
Eugene Lapointe
IWMC President
Former Secretary General of CITES (1982-1990)
Copies to:
Fur Institute of Canada
Fisheries Council of Canada
Joint Secretariat
Inuvialuit Game Council
Inuit Tapirisat of Canada
Nunavut Tunngavik
Nunavut Commission
Canadian Sealers Association
Ontario Outdoor Writers Association
Trapping: A Control for Wild Furbearers
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.
______________________________________
Return to Letter