Greenland's status in the case is further complicated by virtue of its relation to Denmark, another EC member. In terms of actual industry impact coverage, Greenland would probably be most effected by the legislation. The ban on fur was followed up in 1984 by organizing a boycott of Canadian fish products in American and British markets. The result of the boycott was a collapse in the world market for seal skins. YES Native Americans argue that the ban impinges upon the traditional customs that have generally been in accordance with the needs of their surrounding environment, noting that Europeans practiced leg trap methods for thousands of years.
Arctic communities have for centuries relied on seals for food, fuel and clothing.
In fact, in many ways the life and economy of the Eskimos has been based on sustainable subsistence from the land and wildlife. Yet, as times change and the world becomes more interconnected even subsistence cultures cannot adequately survive. Still, with the public outrage from fur harvesting and the EC ban on fur imports, demand for seal fur has dropped dramatically, and thus, financially strapping the Arctic Communities. Yet, there is a recent attempt to increase the demand for fur products by showing pride in native cultures. It is exactly this situation that the Eskimo and Inuits are grappling with.