Source: https://www.animallaw.info/article/detailed-discussion-fur-animals-and-fur-production
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:55:07+00:00

Document:
This discussion focuses on fur production from both farmed and wild sources. It details US laws that impact fur, both federal and state, including a discussion on state trapping laws. Laws from countries that are major producers of fur products are analyzed as well as those countries that have imposed bans on fur farming or trapping methods.
North America also plays a significant role in the fur market. Fur farms in North America were the first to breed black mink, which is the most popular mink pelt. In 2009, black mink pelts accounted for 52% of all pelts produced in the United States. [ 18 ] Fur Commission USA, which is an association representing 400 mink farmers in the U.S., reports that in the U.S., most fur farms are “family businesses, often operated by two or three generations of the same family.” [ 19 ] In 2010, the Commission reported having farmer members in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. [ 20 ] The U.S. also hosts mink, fox, chinchilla, rabbit, bobcat, lynx, and finn raccoon farming.
1. Check the base of the fur for skin or fabric. Push apart the fur and look at the material at the base of the hairs. If the base material is not visible or unclear, and you own the garment, break the stitching and look at the non-hair side of the fur base, being sure to peel away all the layers of the lining.
ANIMAL FUR: The surest sign of animal fur is leather/skin (usually white or tan, but possibly the color of the fur if it has been dyed).
FAKE FUR: The surest sign of fake fur is seeing the threadwork backing from which the “hairs” emerge.
2. Check the tips of the hairs for tapering. Both animal fur and fake fur come in many different colors and lengths. However, if animal fur has not been sheared or cut to a uniform length or had the guard hairs plucked out, you may be able to examine the tips of the longest hairs and see that they taper into a fine point—like a cat’s whisker or sewing needle. Good lighting and a magnifying glass are helpful, as is holding the hairs up against a white surface.
ANIMAL FUR: Animal hairs—especially the thicker guard hairs . . .—can often be seen tapering to a point. NOTE: This test can give a false negative for animal fur if the hairs have been sheared or plucked.
FAKE FUR: [There is a] straight across cut [in] fake fur “hair.” NOTE: Tapering has not been seen on any fake fur samples to date, but such a process may exist, or come into existence.
There is very little federal law regarding treatment of fur animals. While U.S. Congress has created the Animal Welfare Act to ensure humane treatment of animals, it specifically exempts “animals . . . used or intended for use as food or fiber.” [ 52 ] Similarly, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act , which requires livestock to be slaughtered humanely to prevent “needless suffering,” does not extend protection to fur animals. [ 53 ] An examination of all the federal laws that reach fur animals is instructive.
The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378 , prohibits wildlife trade in animals that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold. However, this law cannot always prevent poaching because “state laws vary widely. If a poacher kills a bear in a state that prohibits trade in bear parts, the poacher can avoid prosecution by transporting the body to a state that does permit it. Although such transporting is illegal, a prosecutor must prove that the bear was illegally killed in a state that prohibits commerce in bear parts, which can be very difficult to do.” [ 55 ] The Lacey Act only applies to wild fur and not to fur obtained from fur farms.
The Fur Seal Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1151-1187 , makes it illegal to take North Pacific fur seals anywhere in the U.S., and mandates the Secretary of Commerce to regulate the fur seal breeding colonies on the Pribilof Islands, (part of Alaska), to ensure that activities on the Islands do not deter the conservation of the North Pacific fur seals. However, Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos who live on the North Pacific coast are allowed to take fur skins if they are taken for subsistence. Additionally, the Secretary of Commerce is allowed to take North Pacific fur seals or parts of these seals if deemed for education, science, or for an exhibition. The Fur Seal Act only applies to wild fur and not to fur obtained from fur farms.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act, (“MMPA”) 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 - 1421h , was created to protect marine mammals that are in danger of extinction or depletion because of human activities; the Act applies to mammals that primarily live in the water and to all parts of the mammal, including its fur. The MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals, except in the case of permits issued by the Secretary of Interior for “scientific research, public display, photography for educational or commercial purposes, or enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or stock or for importation of polar bear parts (other than internal organs) taken in sports hunts in Canada,” [ 58 ] as well as for commercial fishing operations (when marine mammals are taken incidentally). The Secretary can also waive the requirements of the law for specific circumstances. The MMPA only applies to wild fur, and not to fur obtained from fur farms.
Currently, there are three bills in Congress addressing the taking of polar bears from sports hunts in Canada. H.R. 1054, introduced by Representative Young from Alaska, would have the Secretary issue a permit allowing polar bear parts (besides internal organs) to be imported from Canadian sports hunts that occurred before the polar bear was determined to be “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. [ 59 ] The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, subcommittee hearings were held in 2009, and no further action was taken. Sen. 1395, introduced in 2009 by Senator Crapo from Idaho, contains very similar language. [ 60 ] It was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and no further action was taken. H.R. 1055, also introduced by Representative Young from Alaska, would allow polar bear parts to be imported from all Canadian sports hunts  (thus, it is broader than H.R. 1054). The bill was also referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife in 2009, and no further action was taken.
The Dog and Cat Fur Protection Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1308 , prohibits the import, export, and sale of dog and cat fur products in the U.S. The law requires that the Secretary of Treasury submit a report to Congress every year on the government’s enforcement efforts and its ability to do so. The report is to include any findings that a particular government has supported the dog or cat fur trade.
The Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1541 , works to develop conservation programs to protect endangered and threatened species, acknowledges the U.S.’ commitment to conserving, as much as practical, wildlife under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (“CITES”), and encourages states to create conservation programs (with federal financial assistance) that meet national and international conservation standards. A species is deemed “endangered” if it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” or “threatened” if it is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Fur-bearing animals on the list of endangered species include some types of bears, beavers, cheetahs, leopards, monkeys, rabbits, tigers, yaks, and zebras. Although the Endangered Species Act protects animals on its list, it allows people to own endangered species, and may even allow them to hunt those animals. [ 71 ] Thus, some species that are listed may in fact be hunted for their fur.
It is often times unclear under what classification of laws, fur animals belong. Trapping and hunting laws are generally under State Wildlife, Fish & Game, or Environmental Conservation Codes, labeling laws are under Trade Practice Codes and cat and dog fur laws are under anything from the Criminal Code to the Agriculture Code.
No states reported having comprehensive laws specific to the regulation of fur farms and no states monitor the care and treatment of animals housed and killed on fur farms. As a result, fur farms are virtually unregulated in every state where fur farming exists.
Although fur farming makes up 85% of the total fur production, there are very few on-point laws regulating it. While there are a plethora of laws regarding trapping licenses, and a few laws banning certain types of traps, states do not have laws regulating fur farms, outside of the need to obtain licenses and the definition of the fur animals. Additionally, only a handful of states have fur labeling laws and prohibit dog and cat fur trade, although there are federal on-point laws for each of these subjects.
Even though the majority of fur obtained worldwide is from fur farms, an illegal wildlife trade still flourishes. This trade, (including the illegal fur trade) is annually worth between $5-$20 billion, with the Congressional Research Service reporting that “‘the illegal wildlife trade is among the most lucrative illicit economies in the world behind illegal drugs and possibly human trafficking and arms trafficking.’” [ 118 ] Much of the illegal fur is obtained from endangered animals that are against the law to hunt.
At the 2010 CITES meeting, the U.S. proposed to change the polar bear’s listing status on the CITES appendices; this was defeated by the European Union’s (“EU”) opposition to such a change. [ 127 ] Such a ban would have moved the polar bear from inclusion on CITES’ Appendix II, where regulated international commercial trade is permitted, to inclusion on Appendix I as an “endangered species,” where no international commercial trade is allowed.
The U.S. also attempted to remove the bobcat from Appendix II, where its skins can only be exported if the exporting country determines that the export will not hurt the species’ chances of survival. However, this proposal was defeated.
Over 60 countries have banned the leg-hold trap. [ 132 ] The EU passed Regulation 3254/91, which prohibits leg-hold traps, as well as fur imports from other countries that were obtained from leg-hold traps or other traps that do not meet “international humane trapping standards.” [ 133 ] The EU reached and ratified an agreement regarding international humane trapping standards with Russia and Canada, and also reached a similar agreement with the U.S. The Commission also proposed a Directive in 2004 which would introduce humane trapping standards for specific species. The European Economic and Social Committee reviewed the proposed Directive, and found that the Agreement’s use of the word “humane” to define the type of trapping allowed, was “controversial, given that these standards are based on the acceptance of high level of suffering for the trapped animals,” and therefore recommended that the word “humane” be eliminated from the text, that the drowning trap should be prohibited and a “transparent system” of licensing trappers should be implemented, in order to ensure that appropriate welfare standards are upheld. [ 134 ] The proposed Directive has not yet been adopted.
CITES is an international agreement that works to create a sustainable wildlife trade. [ 148 ] There are currently 175 parties to the Convention, including China, India, the U.S., the Russian Federation, and Canada. [ 149 ] The EU is not a member, but has implemented the agreement’s provisions in its community law. [ 150 ] While CITES parties are legally bound to the Convention’s terms, each party must adopt domestic legislation in order to implement CITES in its particular country. CITES looks at the international trade of certain species and protects them in three different ways, depending under which Appendix a species falls. Appendix I contains species that are threatened with extinction. CITES permits trade of those species only in rare situations. Appendix II contains species that do not necessarily face extinction, but must have controlled trading circumstances in order to protect them. Appendix III contains species that are protected by at least one country that has asked CITES to help it control the trade of that species. Parties are able to submit proposals at regular Conference of the Parties meetings to try to amend either Appendix I or II. All import and export activity of any species falling within an Appendix must be subjected to the Convention’s licensing system; for example, a species under Appendix I will only be issued an import permit if it is not going to be used mainly for commercial purposes and if the import’s purpose will not hurt the species’ survival. The fur trade is directly affected by CITES because, depending on a species’ listing under Appendix I or II, it is either prohibited from commercial trade, or its trade is monitored.
The fur industry is predominantly supported by fur farming. It seems, due to the ease in regulating an animal’s reproduction and coat quality through farming that this method will continue to predominate over hunting. China’s increasing market share and its lack of regulatory oversight (resulting in alleged cruel slaughter methods and the use of dog and cat fur), have the potential to change the fur industry landscape. Some U.S. states have laws concerning the proper labeling of fur and the prohibition of dog and cat fur. The U.S. also has on-point federal laws for both issues, and the EU and Australia have similar laws regarding the sale of dog and cat fur. There are also international movements to protect endangered animals from the illegal fur trade. The U.S. supports such a movement through its role in CITES; however, its pending legislation at home regulating the taking of certain animals who are at least deemed “threatened,” (such as polar bears), seems largely dependent upon the political party in office. Additionally, sophisticated fur industry trade organizations have denounced unregulated and illegal fur trades. These associations, when faced with the possibility of losing market share to China, could put pressure on China to devise regulations (and to thus “level the playing field”).
At the same time, the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of regulations regarding the treatment of animals that are farmed or hunted for their fur. Many countries have strict rules regulating or banning fur farming. However, the fact that China is the major player in the industry, and also has an increasing demand for fur, begs the question of whether these attempts by other countries are futile, as the fur production is merely “outsourced” to Asia. While the U.S. used to be a big fur producer, this is no longer the case, thus its lack of regulations could soon become moot.
One country, Israel, has introduced a possible ban on the production and sale of fur within its national confines. If this becomes law, its potential to influence other countries – especially ones who have already banned certain fur products – is significant. At the same time, designers have renewed their use of fur on the runway, thus showing fur’s continuing prominence in fashion. In all, the future of the fur industry and its prominence in society is very uncertain. Whether China’s increasing production or laws calling for more regulation will win, remains to be seen.
 Russian Furs: History , Int ’ l Fur Auction, http://www.sojuzpushnina.ru/en/s/55/ (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Welcome to the FUR INDUSTRY Story , Quality Furs, http://www.qualityfurs.com/modules.php?name=Fur_History (last visited Sept. 5, 2010).
 The Fur Trade, Powell County Museum & Arts Found . , http://www.pcmaf.org/fur_trade.htm (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Russian Furs: History , supra note 1.
 Farmed Fur, Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed ’ n, http://www.iftf.com/#/farmed-fur/ (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Wild Fur, Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , http://www.iftf.com/#/wild-fur/ (last visited Sept. 5, 2010).
 Born Free USA, Consumers for a Fur Free Society , Beyond the Myths and Propaganda: Facing the Facts 4 http://www.bornfreeusa.org/downloads/pdf/What_Wrong_with_Fur.pdf [hereinafter Consumers for a Fur Free ].
 Fur , Encyclopedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/222466/fur?anchor=ref114465 (last visited Sept. 5, 2010).
 Fact Sheet, European Fur Breeders’ Assoc . , http://www.efba-eu.com/fact_sheet.html (last visited Sept. 5, 2010).
 World Mink Production , Fur Comm ’ n USA, http://www.furcommission.com/farming/pelts.htm (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 U.S. Int ’ l Trade Comm ’ n, Industry & Trade Summary: Furskins 11 ( January 2004 ) , available at http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub3666.pdf .
 Fact Sheet, supra note 10 .
 World Mink Production , supra note 11 .
 Lauren Etter, Slowing Economy Pelts the Global Fur Business, The Wall Street Journal , Feb. 12, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB123439872449675207.html .
 Fur Farming in North America , Fur Commission USA, http://www.furcommission.com/farming/index.html#Anchor-Fur-Producing-49575 (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Who We Are , Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , http://www.iftf.com/#/who-we-are/ (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Welfare , Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , http://www.iftf.com/#/welfare/ (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Fur Is Dead , http://www.furisdead.com/ (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Consumers for a Fur Free Society , supra note 8, at 12.
 Wild Fur, supra note 7 .
 Fur , supra note 9.
 Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , Wild Fur Book 20 http://www.iftf.com/wildfurbook/ (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010) .
 Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , Socio-Economic Impact of International Fur Farming 1 ( 2006 ) , http://www.fur.ca/files/IFTF_Socio_Economic_Impact.pdf .
 Assoc . of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Fact Sheet: Furbearer Management 1, http://www.fishwildlife.org/pressroom/factsheets/_Furbearer_factsheet.pdf .
 Fur Trade Factsheets: Trapping and the Environment , Global Action Network, http://www.gan.ca/campaigns/fur+trade/factsheets/trapping+and+the+environment.en.html .
 Fur I s D ead, supra note 23 .
 Born Free USA, Trapping and Fur Trade: Cruel and Unnecessary , http://www.bornfreeusa.org/a10_trapping.php (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Inuit Sue to Overturn EU Seal Product Ban Law, EU Bus ., Jan. 14, 2010, http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/greenland-canada.29x .
 Condemnation of Namibia’s Commercial Seal Hunt as EU Prepares for Seal Ban , Int ’ l Fund for Animal Welfare, ( July 15, 2010 ) , http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_european_union/media_center/press_releases/7_15_2010_63188.php .
 Myths and Facts: The Truth about Canada’s Commercial Seal Hunt , Humane Soc ’ y Int ’ l, ( Feb. 25, 2006 ) , http://www.hsi.org/issues/protect_seals/research/seal_myths_and_facts.html .
 Fur Trade: Cat and Dog Fur , Global Action Network, http://www.gan.ca/campaigns/fur+trade/cat+and+dog+fur.en.html .
 History, World Soc ’ y for the Prot . of Animals, http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/13_history.cfm (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 History of Our Fur Campaign, Fur I s D ead, http://www.furisdead.com/history.asp (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 Eric Wilson, Fashion Feels Fur’s Warm Embrace , N.Y. Times, Mar. 10, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/fashion/11FUR.html?scp=1&sq=anti%20fur%20campaign&st=cse .
 Farmed Fur, supra note 5 .
 Consumers for a Fur Free Society , supra note 8, at 7.
 US Mink: State of the Industry – 2009 , Fur Comm ’ n USA , ( June 23, 2009 ) , http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999co.htm [hereinafter US Mink: State of the Industry – 2009 ].
 E tter, supra note 17.
 US Mink: State of the Industry – 2009 , supra note 43 .
 Press Release, Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , Global Fur Sales Remain Stable During 2008/2009 Recession (March 16, 2010), available at http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF11y.htm .
 USDA Foreign Agric. Serv. G AIN Report, People’s Republic of China, Fur Animals and Products 2 ( May 25, 2010) http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Fur%20Animals%20and%20Products_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_5-25-2010.pdf .
 Humane Soc’y of the U . S. , Field Guide to Telling Animal Fur from Fake Fur , http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/fur/field-guide-on-real-vs-fake-fur-final.pdf .
 Sue Reid, Should You Be Faking It? Are You Wearing Fake Fur and Feeling Just a Tiny Bit Smug? Daily Mail, Nov. 22, 2004, http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999bz.htm .
 Inside the Fur Industry: Factory Farms , PETA, http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=56 (last visited Sept. 5 , 2010).
 7 U.S.C. § 2132 (2002) .
 7 U.S.C. § 1901 (1958) .
 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371 - 3378 .
 Jennifer O’brien & Randall Szabo, 2009 Legislative Review , 16 Animal L. 371, 376 (2010).
 16 U.S.C. §§ 115 1-1187 .
 16 U.S.C. §§ 136 1-1421h.
 16 U.S.C. § 1371(a)(1) (1994) .
 H.R. 1054, 111 th Cong. (2009).
 Sen. 1395, 111 th Cong. (2009); see also O’brien & Szabo, supra note 55, at 373.
 H.R. 1055, 111 th Cong. (2009).
 15 U.S.C.A. § 69 (2000) .
 155 Cong. Rec. E 1200 (daily ed. May 19, 2009) (statement of Rep. Moran).
 House Passes Truth In Fur Labeling Act , Humane Soc ’ y Legislative Fund, ( July 28, 2010 ) , http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2010/07/truth-in-fur-labeling-act-passes-house.html .
 Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010, H.R. 2480, 111 th Cong. (2010).
 O’brien & Szabo, supra note 55 , at 380.
 19 U.S.C. § 1308 (2000) .
 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 -1541 .
 16 U.S.C. § 1538(b)(1) (1988) ; Facts About Canned Hunts , Humane Soc ’ y of the U . S . , http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/stop_canned_hunts/facts_about_canned_hunts.html (last visited Sept. 6 , 2010).
 Fur Farming in North Americ a, supra note 18 .
 Wis. Stat. § 29.627 (2004) .
 Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.43101 (199 9 ) .
 Cal. Civ. Code § 996 (West 1941) .
 Idaho Code Ann. § 25-3001 (2006) .
 Idaho Code Ann. § 25-3005 ( 2010 ) .
 Minn. Stat. § 17.353 (1985) .
 Mont. Code Ann. §§ 87-4-1001 - 87-4-1002 .
 Born Free USA, Cruelty Uncaged: A Review of Fur Farming in North America, 17 (November 2009).
 Monica Engebretson & Gil Lamont, The Commercial Wildlife Trade: An American Disgrace , 39 Animal Issues 3 (Fall 2008), available at http://www.bornfreeusa.org/articles.php?p=1815&more=1 .
 CO CONST Art. 18, § 12b .
 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 23:4-22.1 (West 19 97 ).
 Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.194 (West 2003).
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 131, § 80A ( West 200 2 ) .
 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 17-301 (1998) .
 R.I. Gen. Laws § 20-16-8 (1981) .
 Md. Code Ann. Nat. Res. § 10-408.1 (West 1990).
 Cal. Fish & Game Code § 4004 ( West 1989) .
 N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-1101 ( McKinney 1991 ).
 Iowa Code § 481A.92 (1999) .
 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 23-2-303 (2009).
 Bartlett v. State of Florida , 929 So. 2d 1125, 1126 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) .
 Id . Section 828.12(2) holds accountable a person who intentionally commits an act that causes an animal to die a cruel death. Id .
 Ala. Code §13A-11-14 (2010) .
 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2910(C)(3) (2002) .
 Idaho Code Ann. § 25-3514 (2010).
 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-247( b) (2004).
 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09 (Vernon 2007) .
 N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 353-c (200 7 ) .
 Cal. Penal Code § 597u (West 2005) .
 11 Del.C. § 1325A (20 08 ) .
 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:14-1 (2009) .
 Wis. Stat. Ann. § 100.35 ( 1951 ) .
 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 94, § 277 A (1941) .
 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399- aaa (2007) .
 Justin Ho, Fur-Labeling Bill Passes Senate, to Governor , San Francisco Chronicle , Aug. 12, 2010, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/11/BAN31ESNNK.DTL .
 Ala. Code § 13A-11-241 (2000) .
 11 Del. Code Ann. § 1325A (2000) .
 N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-25.3 (1999) .
 N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 379 (2002) .
 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 210-3 (2001) .
 Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6589 ( 2008 ) .
 Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6570 (2008) .
 Fla. Stat. § 828.123 (2000) .
 Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 167.390 (1999) .
 Engebretson & Lamont, supra note 81.
 EIA & WSPI, Skinning the Cat: Crime and Politics of the Big Cat Skin Trade 2 ( 2006) http://www.eia-international.org/files/reports129-1.pdf .
 EIA & WSPI, Skinning the Cat: Crime and Politics of the Big Cat Skin Trade 15 ( 2006) http://www.eia-international.org/files/reports129-2.pdf [hereinafter EIA & WSPI Part II].
 EIA & WSPI Part II , supra note 121, at 20 .
 Illegal Tiger Trade Must End , Humane Soc ’ y Int ’ l, http://www.hsus.org/hsi/wildlife/wildlife_trade/tiger_conservation/illegal_tiger_trade_11608.html .
 Platt, John, Minor Victories for Tigers, Elephants and Rhinos at CITES Meeting , Basic Science, ( Mar. 24, 2010 ) , http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=minor-victories-for-tigers-elephant-2010-03-24 .
 CITES Summary: Wildlife Win Some, Lose Some, http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/03/cites.html (Mar. 25, 2010, 4:27 EST).
 Council Directive 98/58/EC 1998 O.J. (L 221), art. 3.
 Council Directive 93/119/EC 1993 O.J. (L 340), Annex F, amended by Council Regulation (EC) 806/2003, 2003 O.J. (L 122).
 Fur Farming Legislation Around the World , Fur Free Alliance, http://www.infurmation.com/furfarmlegislation.php (last visited Sept. 6 , 2010).
 Israel Fur Trade Ban Wins Support , Humane Soc ’ y Int ’ l, ( July 19, 2010 ) , http://www.hsi.org/world/united_kingdom/news/news/2010/07/Israel_fur_ban_support_071910.html .
 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3254/91 of 4 November 1991, 1991 O.J. (L308).
 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (COM) No. 183/2004 of 16 December 2004, 2004 O.J. (C 157).
 Council Directive 89/370 , 198 9 O.J. (L 163 ) (EEC) .
 Fast Facts on Canada’s Commercial Seal Slaughter , Humane Soc ’ Int ’ l, ( Feb. 25, 2006 ) , http://www.hsi.org/issues/protect_seals/research/seal_hunt_facts.html .
 Canada, Norway Launch WTO Complaint Over EU Seal Ban, Int’l Centre for Trade and Sustainable Dev . , ( Nov.13, 2009 ) , http://ictsd.org/i/news/biores/59391/ .
 Council Regulation 1007/2009, 2009 O.J. (L286/36) (EC) ; see also James G. Neuger, Canada Seal Hunters Win Court-Ordered Reprieve From European Union Ban , Bloomberg , (Aug. 20, 2010), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-20/canadian-seal-hunters-win-court-ordered-reprieve-from-european-union-ban.html .
 Help Pass the Israeli Fur Ban , Born Free USA, ( Aug. 13, 2010 ) , http://bfusa.convio.net/site/MessageViewer?em_id=4901.0&dlv_id=8221 .
 Mackay, Mairi, Israel Debates Move to Ban Fur Trade, CNN, ( Mar. 17, 2010 ) , http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/17/israel.fur.ban/index.html .
 Council Regulation 1523/2007, 2007 O.J. (L343) 1.
 19 U.S.C.A. § 1308 (2000) .
 Dog and Cat Fur Trade , Humane Soc ’ y Int ’ l , http://www.hsi.org.au/?catID=160 (last visited Sept. 6 , 2010).
 Press Release, Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , The Fur Trade Does Not Oppose EU Ban on Cat and Dog Fur, (June 19, 2007), available at http://www.iftf.com/#/press-releases/18/ .
 Labeling , Int ’ l Fur Trade Fed . , http://www.iftf.com/#/labelling/ (last visited Sept. 6 , 2010).
 What is CITES? , Convention on Int ’ l Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/what.shtml (last visited Sept. 6, 2010).
 Member Countries, Convention on Int ’ l Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/index.shtml (last visited Sept. 6, 2010).
 The European Community and Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora , European Comm ’ n, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/home_en.htm (last visited Sept. 6, 2010).

References: § 1308
 § 2132
 § 1901
 § 1371
 § 69
 § 1308
 § 1538
 § 29
 § 324
 § 996
 § 25
 § 25
 § 17
 Art. 18
 § 12
 § 23
 § 77
 § 80
 § 17
 § 20
 § 10
 § 4004
 § 11
 § 481
 § 23
 v. 
 §13
 § 13
 § 25
 § 53
 § 42
 § 353
 § 597
 § 1325
 § 56
 § 100
 § 277
 § 399
 § 13
 § 1325
 § 4
 § 379
 § 210
 § 3
 § 3
 § 828
 § 167
 art. 3
 § 1308