NAFA got into trouble financing fur farmers. This was meant to stimulate more ranch fur production, and it did. If auctions would just let a fur farmer handle his own finances then ranch fur production would probably not increase so much as to blow the market up (and apart). This would limit the amount of ranch fur produced and hopefully smooth out the rapid increases in number of pelts produced, also allowing the more fiscally responsible to prosper and survive. This may be wishful thinking, but if all auctions left in the business adopted this model the fur "business/hobby" may not have to go through such drastic swings in over-production and consequent disastrous drops in pelt prices. Maybe stop giving advances on wild fur as well and get out of the business of being bankers altogether.

Exactly ! It is counterintuitive for an auction house to finance fur farmers.

As Wy.wolfer points out it increases production but generally depresses prices. The auction takes the same % of a lower gross. Eventually it hurts everyone

Trappers can control one thing. Supply. Stop flooding the market.

Marten prices are just a reflection of ranch mink prices. If you can buy a Black Glamma for $30, you are not going to buy a marten for $100.

But we are told we NEED ranchers! Trappers alone can't possibly meet the needs of the fur industry, remember?

Well I think the truth is that the auction houses need the ranchers just to provide volume. But obviously that sword cuts two ways.

If you look at the early history of the fur trade,the HBC always bankrolled their producers(indians) in advance in the old days with goods,and all kinds of supplies.
This generally guaranteed the indians would bring their fur to the HBC,so guaranteed the supply of fur to the forts on the Bay.
When the Canadians from Montreal started making inroads into the HBC territory,they did so by offering more(and different) goods for trade to supply the indians.
Before long it was found that the more goods supplied for a given amount of made martens or made beaver did not result in an increase in the fur supply,but actually the opposite.
The more value that the fur had,the less would be brought in by the indians for the same amount of trade goods.
Not sure how the american fur companys operated 200 years later,I think they just hired trappers to work.Some of these mountain trappers likely did some small scale trading with indians.

Looks like Nafa tried the same buisness model as the old HBC with ranchers.

Same as the welfare system. The more that is 'given' the less that is produced

Thats one way to look at it I guess, but I believe the indians at that time only wanted what they actually needed and could transport easily-there was no concept of hoarding stuff to get rich in that society.They were practical people out of necessity.
If they could get what they needed for less,then that was all they needed to produce.Same as back then,the european mindset today still has a hard time to fathom the concept.

Ironically the beaver pelt most desired were the old worn out bed robes mainly because the long hair guard hairs were worn off. Who needed a robe to cover you in summer except for black fly protection. why do you think they increased the length of the black powder guns.....so it took more hides in trade......and what was the first thing cut down.
Ever see a 5 foot French man try to load a 6 foot long flint lock......and ram the rod down.

You did provide an answer and I don’t feel like that is a viable option. Not withFHA involved, as long as they are into Ranch fur. I Don’t see the trapper and wild fur needing a PR campaign Near as much as I see our wild fur DESPERATELY needing real market. And the number 1 thing effecting that market is Ranch fur.

Amen to that statement!!

Just trying to get an intelligent discussion going. Identifying the scope of the problem is just the first step. Identifying Solutions to some of these problems gets more complex.

Putting more money in the pockets of the people that are doing all the work and assuming all the risk. Ultimately, that’s the goal. 25% of our pelt $ go to auction house commissions!! That’s ridiculous! Hi-way robbery! I can’t think of any other business with a similar structure that charges anywhere close to these types of commission’s! For the service they provide ( bringing our product to a fur farmers market that they support) 5% sounds more like it.

I view wild fur as a niche market(s) at this point. A brand that needs to be re-Invented to fit modern day business, built and owned by wild fur producers 100%. To start, I see direct source sales as being the only viable option. (Sales directly to the end user Or possibly silent bidsa). It needs to be a lean operation to start, putting most of the money back in the trappers pockets while prices are low. And if prices rise, possibly a progressive structure where at certain/pre specified average price points on individual species of pelt, an increase in the % of $ withheld to pay for operational priorities, such as PR, marketing, advertising, etc... not investing any ANYTHING other than wild fur, and it’s future development.

These are just ideas for discussion, some things to think about.

How would something like this get off the ground one may ask?? I am not sure? I have some ideas. It’s difficult when there are two different Countries involved. (US & Canada). The most cost effective And efficient way would be to have an already established international business (preferably the fur business, ie...FHA) listen to us as producers of wild fur and adapt their business model incrementally over time to fit our needs. Other ideas get more complex, potential costly and would involve a team of persons/business pro’s to get things off the ground.

I am of the position that For FHA to be a true partner to the trapper they claim to be, they need to get out of ranch fur completely. They need to change the way they do businesses. They need to re-invent themselves Until then I will boycott them. I invite you all to do the same.

The facts are, trappers have 4 options.
Option 1: The trapper keeps the pelts, makes things, gifts them, hangs them on the wall, etc.

Option 2: Said trapper sells to a buyer at an agreed upon price, cashes his check, and goes home.

Option 3: Trapper sends fur to international auction house, gives up any control what-so-ever, as to financial return, and is charged 11%, for the transaction to occur.

Option 4: Trapper becomes harvester, manufacturer, marketer/salesperson, and all else that goes with that, including financing for shipping, tanning, etc.

Pick your poison.
I trap for fun.

I get it. Believe me, I get it. I get it better than most

At this point, I trap for fun too. Most all of us do. I will continue to trap for fun as long as I can. That being said, I have never been one to accept the facts for what they are, especially when I see an alternative. If you choose to lay down and accept the facts as they are, that’s up to you. I don’t plan too. I realize I am probably wasting my breath here with most trappers. Most are content with the status quo; but at the end of the day, it’s my breath. I will use it as I wish.

We the trappers know fur is renewable and sustainable with modern laws and quotas. The public does not all they hear is the anti crap, and lies. For what it is worth NAFA did a big part in promoting fur and fighting the antis. I know to many trappers that are not members of a state or national organization and would not contribute money or the time to write a letter to the editor of the newspaper or representative. Im afraid it will soon be gone the NTA can not carry the ball against the anti trapping folks. I see it in magazines on the news billboards and on tv anit campaigns. We complain on this site but the money is not there and to few In my thinking willing to commit.

A hobby trapper is the same as a mink rancher who produces at a loss. Sorry!

I'll take option # 4. The only option, most years.