There has been some discussion lately about sources for brush-quality badger hair. I am not satisfied with my own research, so I thought I would share what I think I have learned with the B&B membership, in hope of learning more. I am neither a lawyer nor a biologist, and I am sure I don't have the full picture. In short, I welcome your comments, discussion, and denunciations.
First a word about badger species. Until fairly recently Meles meles was old world badger (Europe and Asia, but not North America) and that was that. In Europe, Meles meles was regarded as endangered and placed under protection by various laws and compacts, including the Berne Convention in 1999 and a UK act of 1992 (www.badger.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/284_S4.pdf). Specifically in the UK, the Badger Trust says that it is illegal to possess or trade any part of a European badger, unless it can be shown that the animal was not killed illegally. The burden of proof is on the possessor.
That makes for an interesting loophole in these laws. In France, apparently, there are still some circumstances in which it is legal to trap and kill M. meles badgers. So it sounds like the same brush might be legal to sell in France, but the legal burden would be too onerous in the UK. I haven't been able to find out much about this area of the law: perhaps some of our members from the EU could speak up?
Moving along to 2006, DNA analysis by Domingo-Roura et. al. established that shaving brushes made by various European companies were in fact made from the hair of the protected species M. meles. I gather that this made business conditions very uncomfortable for non-French brush makers.
But in 2002 a gent named Abramov had written a paper asserting that Meles meles should be seen as three distinct species. Abramov described M. meles in Europe, M. leucurus in Asia, and M. anakuma in Japan. Now, forget that I mentioned M. anakuma - it's only found in Japan, and there are probably less than 2000 left, so I don't think we should shave with their hair (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/136242/0). But note that this new species M. leucurus (Asian Badger) would not be protected by the Berne Convention. The UK law either covers UK badgers only, or M. meles only - I am not sure which, or if anyone has tested the idea.
I suppose that sometime between 2002 and now, the UK brushmakers realized that they were free to source Chinese knots. In that vein, here is an interesting web page: http://free.globalimporter.net/freedetail/10/1603 - try the Google cache if you can't load it directly. The title translation is from google.
For those who don't know his name, Mr Sabini is associated with Rooney brushes. I read this as an attempt to find more of the Rooney "finest" hair.
Interestingly, China does not yet acknowledge the change in species designations advocated by Abramov (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/136385/0). China regards M. leucurus as occuring only in Tibet, where it is listen as endangered, while the badgers in the rest of China are designated as M. meles and listed only as mildly threatened.
So that's the situation as I understand it. For the past decade non-French companies haven't been able to sell European badger even if they wanted too, unless they can prove that the source of hair is legal. Meanwhile Plisson has enjoyed a seeming monopoly over whatever controlled quantity of M. meles they can trap under French law. This also raises the question of Vie-Long's legal position, if they really do buy knots from Plisson. At the same time, the population of M. meles has been bouncing back due to hunting and trapping restrictions, as well as lower prevelance of rabies.
With all this in mind, I think that the time has come for European nations to relax the protection of badgers and allow some culling. According to http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/29673/0 "The species is abundant throughout its range. In central Europe the population is increasing due to the reduction of rabies.... In the United Kingdom (1980s-1990s) there was a 77% increase in the total population size."
Outside the EU, http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/29673/0 goes on to say: "Badgers are heavily hunted in Finland, the annual harvest has increased in recent years, being about 10,000 badgers now (Kauhala in litt. 2006). The hunting season in Finland is the whole year, with the exception of females with young being protected in May, June, and July (Kauhala in litt. 2006)." and "The species is common in European Russia. 30,000 individuals were recorded in Russia in 1990 (Abramov pers. comm.)." To me, these countries sound like business opportunities for an ambitious brush-maker.
In closing, I will repeat that I am neither a lawyer nor a biologist. So I am certain that this description is spotty and contains inaccuracies. I welcome your comments, clarifications, and denunciations.
First a word about badger species. Until fairly recently Meles meles was old world badger (Europe and Asia, but not North America) and that was that. In Europe, Meles meles was regarded as endangered and placed under protection by various laws and compacts, including the Berne Convention in 1999 and a UK act of 1992 (www.badger.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/284_S4.pdf). Specifically in the UK, the Badger Trust says that it is illegal to possess or trade any part of a European badger, unless it can be shown that the animal was not killed illegally. The burden of proof is on the possessor.
That makes for an interesting loophole in these laws. In France, apparently, there are still some circumstances in which it is legal to trap and kill M. meles badgers. So it sounds like the same brush might be legal to sell in France, but the legal burden would be too onerous in the UK. I haven't been able to find out much about this area of the law: perhaps some of our members from the EU could speak up?
Moving along to 2006, DNA analysis by Domingo-Roura et. al. established that shaving brushes made by various European companies were in fact made from the hair of the protected species M. meles. I gather that this made business conditions very uncomfortable for non-French brush makers.
But in 2002 a gent named Abramov had written a paper asserting that Meles meles should be seen as three distinct species. Abramov described M. meles in Europe, M. leucurus in Asia, and M. anakuma in Japan. Now, forget that I mentioned M. anakuma - it's only found in Japan, and there are probably less than 2000 left, so I don't think we should shave with their hair (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/136242/0). But note that this new species M. leucurus (Asian Badger) would not be protected by the Berne Convention. The UK law either covers UK badgers only, or M. meles only - I am not sure which, or if anyone has tested the idea.
I suppose that sometime between 2002 and now, the UK brushmakers realized that they were free to source Chinese knots. In that vein, here is an interesting web page: http://free.globalimporter.net/freedetail/10/1603 - try the Google cache if you can't load it directly. The title translation is from google.
For those who don't know his name, Mr Sabini is associated with Rooney brushes. I read this as an attempt to find more of the Rooney "finest" hair.
Interestingly, China does not yet acknowledge the change in species designations advocated by Abramov (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/136385/0). China regards M. leucurus as occuring only in Tibet, where it is listen as endangered, while the badgers in the rest of China are designated as M. meles and listed only as mildly threatened.
So that's the situation as I understand it. For the past decade non-French companies haven't been able to sell European badger even if they wanted too, unless they can prove that the source of hair is legal. Meanwhile Plisson has enjoyed a seeming monopoly over whatever controlled quantity of M. meles they can trap under French law. This also raises the question of Vie-Long's legal position, if they really do buy knots from Plisson. At the same time, the population of M. meles has been bouncing back due to hunting and trapping restrictions, as well as lower prevelance of rabies.
With all this in mind, I think that the time has come for European nations to relax the protection of badgers and allow some culling. According to http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/29673/0 "The species is abundant throughout its range. In central Europe the population is increasing due to the reduction of rabies.... In the United Kingdom (1980s-1990s) there was a 77% increase in the total population size."
Outside the EU, http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/29673/0 goes on to say: "Badgers are heavily hunted in Finland, the annual harvest has increased in recent years, being about 10,000 badgers now (Kauhala in litt. 2006). The hunting season in Finland is the whole year, with the exception of females with young being protected in May, June, and July (Kauhala in litt. 2006)." and "The species is common in European Russia. 30,000 individuals were recorded in Russia in 1990 (Abramov pers. comm.)." To me, these countries sound like business opportunities for an ambitious brush-maker.
In closing, I will repeat that I am neither a lawyer nor a biologist. So I am certain that this description is spotty and contains inaccuracies. I welcome your comments, clarifications, and denunciations.
