Los Angeles Considers a Fur Ban

[minkme]

Berkeley, West Hollywood and San Francisco has banned the sale of furs. Unfortunately the fur industry remained silent during this meeting to discuss the ban.

 

In San Francisco, you can not even order furs shipped to your home!

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fur-ban-20180731-story.html

 

Los Angeles considers a ban on selling fur

 

By Emily Alpert Reyes

 

Aug 01, 2018 | 7:50 PM

  

 

Los Angeles considers a ban on selling fur

 

Los Angeles could become the biggest city in the United States to ban businesses from selling fur, under a plan being vetted at City Hall.

 

At a meeting Wednesday, animal welfare activists argued that the fur trade was brutal, inhumane and unnecessary.

 

“The bottom line is that humans do not need to wear the fur of another animal. Not in Los Angeles, not in any other city.… To continue to allow the sale of fur is to condone violence,” said Brian Ruppenkamp, a member of Los Angeles Animal Save.

 

Under the proposal from Councilmen Bob Blumenfield and Paul Koretz, Los Angeles would prohibit businesses from selling fur products, including clothing, hats, handbags or key chains trimmed with real fur, unless they were selling used goods. Manufacturing fur products would also be forbidden.

 

More than a dozen people showed up Wednesday to urge the city to move forward with the ban, saying that L.A. needed to take a stand against cruelty. At one point, Marc Ching of the group Animal Hope in Legislation played a brief video, which he said showed a live fox at a fur farm in China screaming in pain as its fur was being pulled off.

 

“This is an industry that’s based on the abuse and suffering of animals for very trivial ends,” said Veronica Rafkind, who handles public policy for the group.

 

Koretz, who was the sole councilman at the committee meeting, asked city staffers to come back with more information before the panel votes in a few weeks. If a law is ultimately passed, Los Angeles would be following West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco, which have imposed similar rules.

 

No one from fur companies spoke at the meeting. In the past, representatives of the fur industry have sharply disputed claims about animal mistreatment made by activists, saying that the industry is highly regulated and that some gruesome footage has been staged.

 

When West Hollywood began implementing its ban on selling fur apparel, some shops lamented the decision. One sued the city, arguing that West Hollywood had overstepped its authority.

 

West Hollywood eventually carved out an exception for fur products made from animals taken under a state trapping license, saying it made the ordinance easier to defend in court. Even before that happened, the West Hollywood ban was seen as largely symbolic because shoppers could easily head to neighboring Los Angeles or Beverly Hills for fur.

 

So far, the city has issued three warnings under the ordinance, along with one citation that was ultimately dismissed, according to West Hollywood city spokesman Joshua Schare.

 

“What has the ban in West Hollywood really achieved? Nothing,” said Keith Kaplan, spokesman for the Fur Information Council of America, a trade group that represents fur manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers. “If they can’t find it in West Hollywood, they go right outside West Hollywood to buy it.”

 

Kaplan argued that such bans hurt long-standing businesses, unfairly single out one industry and ignore the preferences of consumers. If Los Angeles passes its own ban, his group will probably take legal action, Kaplan said.

 

In L.A.’s Fashion District, a rainbow of fur boas, headbands, handbags, stoles and vests were arrayed Wednesday under the bright lights of one small shop. Yellow tags advertised $295 handbags, vests selling for $495 and $595, and a mink coat going for $2,495. Shop owner Paul Naim said it would be unfair to stop consumers from buying his products.

 

“First it’s what you wear, then it’s what you can eat,” Naim said. “It’s not what democracy is supposed to be.”

 

The exact details of the proposed ban in Los Angeles are still to be determined. At Wednesday’s meeting, Koretz asked staffers to report back on several issues, including whether to include the exemption for trapped animals that West Hollywood had adopted, and whether a ban would trigger legal issues surrounding the fur hats that Hasidic Jewish men often wear.

 

Koretz also relayed several questions that he said had been posed by another council member, including what economic effects or job losses might result from banning fur sales. That didn’t worry him personally, Koretz told the crowd.

 

“Animal cruelty is animal cruelty, and if we lose a few jobs, that’s life,” he said to applause.

 

Banning fur would be the latest step that L.A. leaders have taken in the name of protecting animals.

 

Four years ago, the City Council passed a law banning trainers from using bullhooks on circus elephants. Before that, lawmakers prohibited pet shops from selling commercially-bred dogs, cats and rabbits, arguing that they should offer only rescued pets for adoption.

[furlover02]

Next they will tell you what you can eat,then how you are to run your life. You will have to do what they say. I thought America was the land of the free not what some Politician or activists wants. Yes I am against cruelty to animals. All cruelty is done in China as mentioned in every article against fur trade.

[Panther10]

Exactly. Could you imagine a bunch of super rich 2nd and 3rd generation business tycoons and wealthy heiresses in a class action lawsuit against PETA? That would be a bigger trial than "The People vs Larry Flint" by a factor of a billion. I would bet you anything that the person who started this ban went on their own half cocked and under the unfortunate conviction of believing that they're invincible. As soon as Peta hears about any impending court summons you can bet that they are not only going to drop the lawsuit, but publicly shame the lone idiot who started this nonsense. Because at the end of the day, PETA is still a business. And there is no way on this planet that they will ever intentionally start a fight they know they can't win. They care more about their company and their image too much to go after a few thousand very rich people who choose to weir fur in Downtown Los Angeles, Orange County, Burbank and Marin County. Not to mention all of the people on median incomes who try to imitate all of these wealthy heiresses and buy furs for themselves.

 

Not to mention this isn't the 80's and the 90's anymore. These days there are things like social media, (which has a huge impact on the fur trade because thats where brand influencer's and influencee's work their magic.) We also have 24 hour news coverage and reality tv on about 160 different networks (which has a lot more outreach than someone complaining about kim kardashian wearing a fur in a gossip column of some third rate magazine like Daily Mail) and let's not forget, the majority of people who wear furs these days are millennials and generation X'ers. There aren't that many baby boomers left. It is us that is the generation that drives the economy and has the disposable incomes. And we typically buy furs (just like everything else) because are a generation that likes our shiny objects. It doesn't matter if you collect action figures, cars or furs, we buy what we like to buy and we are willing to spend lots of money on it to get those things we want. Peta is an anachronism in 2018 and that is simply because they don't have the outreach they used to. These days they are like any other terrorist organization: They put their stamp of approval on actions they like, and they flee from causes they either don't believe in or think is untenable.

[Ravens8]

I wish you were right Panther, but the facts and figures are nor bearing out your scenario.

 

Peta. and the various Animals rights bodies are committed to getting the sale of fur banned, leading to the death of the fur industry. They have huge financial resources available to them and are very experienced in using the law and the media, and bending the minds of ordinary people in order to move things their way.

 

They are gradually but inexorably succeeding in their goals.

In the US, San Francisco, West Hollywood and Berkeley have banned the sale of fur with varying degrees of success. Fur farming has been banned or is being phased out in many European countries including Germany, Austria, Croatia, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, and Norway. Others, like Switzerland, have passed such strict welfare regulations that fur farming had been effectively eliminated without an outright ban. Who would have ever thought that fur farming would be banned in Norway?

 

Israel is very close to be the first country to ban fur in total. The Uk's Labour party has pledged to ban the sale of all fur nationwide should it get elected to power, and MP's are putting pressure on the current conservative party to start a motion for a ban following a parliamentary debate a couple of months ago where the majority of mp's thought fur sales should be banned in the UK, even though the current government said it wont happen.

 

Throughout the world, but especially in the US and Europe, most people who have never owned a fur, or are ever likely to buy one, have been brainwashed by a relentless stream of misinformation from the animal rights organisations. The majority of such people believe now that fur farms involve cruelty and violence towards animals and are hell holes of animal suffering. Many still believe that animals are skinned alive for their fur, and that fur is a luxury worn by the arrogant super rich as a fashion statement. (This latter point is a major reason why "a bunch of super rich 2nd and 3rd generation business tycoons and wealthy heiresses in a class action lawsuit against PETA" would probably lose their case. There is a swelling high tide of emotion against the super rich using their money to get their own way that is beginning to sweep the West., and politicians and judges are giving away to this tide.)

 

The opinions of these people matter, the opinion of the masses, even if the opinions are based on fake information hold great power, because it is they, the majority, that influence politicians in their drive to please the masses in order to protect their own jobs. Politicians all over the West and even in Russia now also believe the propaganda put out by the Animal rights. Why should they not? we are all constantly bombarded with this anti fur rhetoric, right across the media.

 

In this respect the fur industry is hopelessly failing to reach the hearts and minds of these people. People are so infused with the animal suffering issue around fur, that they simply see anything put out by the fur industry as self protectionist and therefore irrelevant.

 

People no longer question things. Politicians hear of everyone shouting out "ban fur" because they don't hear anything from the pro-fur people.

 

Anti fur people have an agenda - "ban fur because we want to see an end to animal suffering" This is a sentiment that most people feel. So by default, even if they love fur, their opinions "APPEAR" to be on the side of animal rights rather than the fur trade.

 

The only agenda the fur trade has is to keep their industry alive, increase sales, and protect the millions of people who work in the fur trade. This is hardly an issue that interests most people.

 

The fur industry and fur wearers in general appear to be just rolling over and accepting all this. They are complacent in the positive global fur sales figures and seem to think that everything is hunky-dory. It isn't.....fur sales will soon plummet in the West should countries start banning the import and sales of furs.

 

I've said this before, but no one can explain this. In the Uk there have been many government petitions from the animal rightists asking for the government to ban fur sales. These petitions have never had more than a few thousand signatures, most of them less than a hundred. And yet the next petition suddenly leaps to nearly half a million, making the politicians sit up and listen, and be forced to take action. How did this happen? it defies logic, it defies statistics, it defies reason. And yet it happened, and no one questions it.

 

The anti fur movement is more powerful than the fur industry believes, and is not adverse to using underhand tactics to achieve its ends. Unless the fur industry sits up and starts a REAL campaign to win back the hearts and minds of the population in general, not just the fur wearers, then the days of the fur industry are numbered.

[gai]

LA officially voted unanimously this week to ban the sale of furs. I'm very disappointed by this outcome. I assume there was little to no resistance from the fur industry and stores in LA.

[fursince63]

I find it repulsive that loud mouth radicals can force their agenda into unjust laws in a "free" country. Now if you don't agree or like something just ban it? Very Alarming.

[paul2809]

Honestly... it think it best for the furriers to move out of California...if their going to continue to sell and make furs of all types..

[Furever Heidi]

So you believe appeasing PETA is the way forward for the fur industry? Just how many states should furriers back out of before you all make a stand and say enough is enough? PETA is going to take your furs from you, when are you going to take them back, when there is only one state remaining?

 

But hey it's only California right, not my fight let someone else do it.

 

Idiots. You're all stood around like ostriches with your head stuck in the sand. Your numbers are up you just don't realise it yet, unless you start doing something about it now.

[fursince63]

So you believe appeasing PETA is the way forward for the fur industry? Just how many states should furriers back out of before you all make a stand and say enough is enough? PETA is going to take your furs from you, when are you going to take them back, when there is only one state remaining?

 

But hey it's only California right, not my fight let someone else do it.

 

Idiots. You're all stood around like ostriches with your head stuck in the sand. Your numbers are up you just don't realise it yet, unless you start doing something about it now.

 

Heidi, how rude.

BUT TRUE! I remember when PETA started, Many viewed them as a joke, Who is laughing now????

There is more at stake than just fur, our right to choose is being taken away one ban at a time. PETA is succeeding by calling it a "moral issue" as they draw resources away from legitimate environmental and social issues.

[ew19975]

So you believe appeasing PETA is the way forward for the fur industry? Just how many states should furriers back out of before you all make a stand and say enough is enough? PETA is going to take your furs from you, when are you going to take them back, when there is only one state remaining?

 

But hey it's only California right, not my fight let someone else do it.

 

Idiots. You're all stood around like ostriches with your head stuck in the sand. Your numbers are up you just don't realise it yet, unless you start doing something about it now.

 

Heidi, how rude.

 

Rude?... maybe so, but becoming true on many issues (not just furs).

 

California may be a very difficult fight (if not a lost cause...) if going to oppose this due to the nature of the voters there. The people of the state/county/city have to hold their elected officials at whichever level accountable for their actions should this pass as a government imposed ban.

 

If it become an item for a general vote it becomes the job of opponents to try to educate the voting public to vote no on banning things. Proponents, like PETA, will play to the emotions of the masses to get it passed, and try to deny any and all facts that are brought up to counter them.

 

For any issue, the stand must be made in the area that you reside and can affect. Living in the southeast, I can't really affect the goings on in California, but I can oppose them here as things come up.

[MrsMink]

There is no fighting pita To be honest fur is just wrong, it’s OK to eat an animal and wear it’s leather but fur is just disrupting the balance of nature. We have a harmonic relationship with the animal to allow us to eat it and wear it’s leather but we must not wear it’s fur because it is against the law of relationship harmonics.

[adusamsi]

There is no fighting pita To be honest fur is just wrong, it’s OK to eat an animal and wear it’s leather but fur is just disrupting the balance of nature. We have a harmonic relationship with the animal to allow us to eat it and wear it’s leather but we must not wear it’s fur because it is against the law of relationship harmonics.

 

Do you mind explaining your point without using pseudoscience? I mean absolutely no offense here but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not right now.

[Ravens8]

I second that adusamsi.

Mrs Mink, you need to explain your comment in much greater depth if it is to have any credence. Do you really not see the inconsistencies in your words?

 

How do you justify saying "Fur is just wrong"? Who is it that is drawing up these right and wrong boundaries and imposing them on the world.

 

How does wearing fur disrupt the harmonic relationship? Please explain.

 

And then compare it to the "harmonic relationship" we have with nature through the clearing of millions of acres of land and forest for our roads, cities, towns, roads and agriculture.

 

Where is our harmonic relationship with nature when we think we can do better than nature by creating synthetic fibres for clothing, and artificial fertiliser and all the rest?

 

This is getting beyond a joke now, it is deadly serious. If peta cannot be fought, that we are all doomed, the whole animal kingdom. Synthetic fibres, as championed by peta are now found in every strata of the oceans from the Arctic to the Antarctic in every level of the food chain from micro organisms to the top predators.

[MrsMink]

I second that adusamsi.

Mrs Mink, you need to explain your comment in much greater depth if it is to have any credence. Do you really not see the inconsistencies in your words?

 

How do you justify saying "Fur is just wrong"? Who is it that is drawing up these right and wrong boundaries and imposing them on the world.

 

How does wearing fur disrupt the harmonic relationship? Please explain.

 

And then compare it to the "harmonic relationship" we have with nature through the clearing of millions of acres of land and forest for our roads, cities, towns, roads and agriculture.

 

Where is our harmonic relationship with nature when we think we can do better than nature by creating synthetic fibres for clothing, and artificial fertiliser and all the rest?

 

This is getting beyond a joke now, it is deadly serious. If peta cannot be fought, that we are all doomed, the whole animal kingdom. Synthetic fibres, as championed by peta are now found in every strata of the oceans from the Arctic to the Antarctic in every level of the food chain from micro organisms to the top predators.

 

I was being completely sarcastic but you would be shocked how 90% of people in my life who know about my love of fur are so against it but eat 10 times more meat than me and wear are synthetic fibers that destroy the planet.

 

Here is something interesting to tell those vegetarians and vegans about animal cruelty - vegetarians and vegans kill more animals than omnivores. Those vegetable fields spray pesticides herbicides which kill countless amounts of mice and birds bees bugs and other animals as well as the harvesters that run over and kill countless amounts of birds and mice snakes etc.

 

If you observe that after a vegetable harvest there are vultures that swarm those fields because of all the dead animals left behind. So in reality unless you value a living beings life more because it’s bigger in size you’re actually responsible for the death of more animals and bugs by being a vegetarian than by being a normal person. " title="Applause" />

[LeComte]

I was being completely sarcastic but you would be shocked how 90% of people in my life who know about my love of fur are so against it but eat 10 times more meat than me and wear are synthetic fibers that destroy the planet.

I got your sarcasm

 

I usually use the same arguments, as eating foods and wearing cloths are both human desires and both can be satisfied without animals - that's the vegan way of pain. But if you accept that humans are of another species than animals and consider our species as superior, you can easily accept wearing furs. In this aspect I consider myself a anthropocentrist (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism) or even speciecist (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism).

 

I once had a long peaceful discussion with a vegan friend about that issue, we ended up by accepting each other as speciecist and anti-speciecist - which was ok for us and a reason for another beer. One thing we agreed on was that you should minimize cruelty to animals. For me, that's a reason to move fur farming to where you can control it, eg. Europe. My vegan friend would maybe agree on that.

 

The sad thing is in public debate arguments don't count so much, especially when it comes to animals.

 

Here is something interesting to tell those vegetarians and vegans about animal cruelty - vegetarians and vegans kill more animals than omnivores. Those vegetable fields spray pesticides herbicides which kill countless amounts of mice and birds bees bugs and other animals as well as the harvesters that run over and kill countless amounts of birds and mice snakes etc.

 

If you observe that after a vegetable harvest there are vultures that swarm those fields because of all the dead animals left behind. So in reality unless you value a living beings life more because it’s bigger in size you’re actually responsible for the death of more animals and bugs by being a vegetarian than by being a normal person. " title="Applause" />

I'd kind of disagree here:

- animals take a lot of resources, especially food/plants, to grow. For these plants you also use pesticides and you harvest them.

- animal food is mostly corn and soy bean, both are grown in monocultures which are poor in species

- vegetables are often grown on much smaller fields with more biodiversity

- the last two bullets should actually lead to a bigger vegetarian death trail after the harvest (your point, which seems right considering the pure killing of animals)

In total I would guess that vegetable production is more biodivers than animal production and allows more secondary animals.

 

But I doubt you'll find anyone arguing against fur until that point. Usually your argument is just fine.

[gai]

It's sad that it had seemed like fur was making a comeback and resurgence this past decade, and that it would be acceptable to wear openly again. But now with more brands banning it and even cities and countries banning it, seems things are only getting worse