What do you think about the Ban on the Sale of Furs in Los Angeles?

[Husky51]

I think that this is a ridiculous city-wide law.  The City Council has passed a law against the manufacture  or sale of furs within the city limits of Los Angeles.  Why don't they just ban all animal products as well.  This is more of the garbage (IMO) from the animal rights people.  I am not a religious, but even the Bible says that animals were put on this Earth for the use of us humans...  I have never read where there was a distinction about whether it was for their meat, skins or fur...

 

What do you think?

Edited September 18, 2018 by Husky51
spelling errors

[Laryal]

Hello ok that is ridiculous really just like you said.In the Bible it does say God took  animals an killed them to cloth Adam an Eve so yea this world is getting crazier an crazier.They should ban meat an fish then as well sorry but i had to laugh.XD

[Alrexwolf]

There is a huge difference between the types of fur that would have been around in biblical times and the fur factories we have now. Whether or not anything in the bible exists at all, the only furs they would have had available to them were pelts of wild animals or domestic livestock.

 

There is a huge difference between hunting / legally trapping a wild animal that had every chance in the world to avoid you / live a natural life beforehand than animals that are sometimes skinned alive who never feel grass or see life outside of a cage.

 

Some of these coats/pelts/other products that are sold actually contain mixed furs - dogs, sometimes, and other domestic animals are mixed in. 

 

The bible also says that mixed fabrics are unholy - yet fur coats are sewn with cotton string and often time have other fabrics such as velvet on the inside.

 

We have synthetic fibers that do even better than fur in most cases as far as waterproofing / heat retention goes. Unlike meat, which there is no synthetic version of, it is not necessary to cause suffering to animals to have warm clothes. 

 

I'm not an ~animal rights activist~. I've butchered and eaten my own home raised animals; I've hunted. I firmly believe that everything in has a balance, and that eating meat doesn't have to be a cruel endeavor. However, I am a huge believer in animal welfare. Suffering is never justified. Fur is unnecessary and cruel, vs. meat which we have no substitute for and many people (and other domestic animals!) it is a necessary dietary staple. No one needs fur. Period.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Alrexwolf

[Natayah]

I 100% agree with the above. The fur industry is a horrible group. I am all about personal choice and marketplace of ideas. That said, I want to believe this society is a bit more evolved that we have options. So there was "faux fur " That was so amazing it was just like fur.... that's because when the scientists ran it thru a mass spectrometer it WAS REAL FUR. pretty sure I have that scientists machine correct. 

 

I mean, I wouldn't want to torture other humans. Are you aware the reasons we stopped funding the ape sign language was because a large part was they were teaching it to others. If a primate species had A LANGUAGE to communicate with us what that would have done.

 

And I'm cool with Jesus when you understand allegory and translations and religious history. So people can also quote Bible. We are the stewards of this Earth. I believe in balance too. Totally ok with eating animals.  Would like it to be more humane cuz we can. Starving countries, freezing weather, you do what you gotta do. 

 

You can't worry about civility until your basic needs are met. Unfortunately in those cases we may not like it, but might makes right and if you can't defend it then you don't keep it.

 

So what is right and wrong? Ethics usually go out the window without basic needs. Food, clothing, water, shelter, protection and hopefully a pack of people for better chances. Once we have evolved past that, If a person is ok torturing animals, they are ok torturing people. That's how they start, the profiles are very clear. You willing to torture an animal you are willing to do worse. And I have no problem with taking psychos and pre serial killers out of population. There are slaughtering houses that have ways to make it not as bad. And then there are still the employees who enjoy their work too much. 

I've probably said more than I should on that topic, but there is pragmatic ethics, and that isn't always horrible. I like better ethics too, however,  I also understand people are going to be people and you cannot stop what more eons have programmed into life behavior all the time. So I believe in realism. BTW I also support big game hunting. The animal is about to die soon. This is a much more humane death. Big game hunters pay a lot of money for those limited slots and this helps to fund these nature preserves or ethnic natural lands. Hunters don't torture animals. It harms the meat and the kill and trophy. Others will shun them, kick them out and fine and prosecute or other things. Not all animal killing is bad. Dying in the state of nature without assist really sucks. Nature is just as harsh sometimes as bad humans. Animals do sometimes torture their kills, they just may not know. But we do. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard, even with basic needs as much as possible. Beyond that you're a bully, a jerk, or worse.

[Tetelestai]

It's insane, just heard about it from this post. I'm all for eating meat and the use of fur as long as all parts of the animal are used. If animals are just being hunted for their fur, then that is wrong to me.

[hazeh]

I'm not sure why this would be considered a bad thing, unless you personally support fur farming and all the awful animal cruelty that takes place because of those. I highly doubt there are a lot of people living in Los Angeles hunting through the streets to use animals "as intended by God" rather than popping into a store to purchase a fur-farmed mink or fox coat, neither of which are necessities to live nor mentioned in the Bible. So, that entire point seems entirely irrelevant. 

[Fuzzbucket]

I'm OK with the killing of animals as long as all the animal is used - or at the VERY least it is for food. Like the Blackfoot Indians used to:

 

Quote

These specialized "buffalo runners" were young men trained in animal behavior to guide the buffalo into the drive lanes. Then, at full gallop, the buffalo would fall from the weight of the herd pressing behind them, breaking their legs and rendering them immobile. The cliff itself is about 300 metres (1000 feet) long, and at its highest point drops 10 metres into the valley below. The site was in use at least 6,000 years ago, and the bone deposits are 12 metres (39 feet) deep. After falling off the cliff, the injured buffalo were finished off by other Blackfoot warriors at the cliff base armed with spears and clubs. The carcasses were then processed at a nearby camp. The camp at the foot of the cliffs provided the people with everything they needed to process a buffalo carcass, including fresh water. The buffalo carcass was used for a variety of purposes, from tools made from the bone, to the hide used to make dwellings and clothing. The importance of the site goes beyond just providing food and supplies. After a successful hunt, the wealth of food allowed the people to enjoy leisure time and pursue artistic and spiritual interests. This increased the cultural complexity of the society.

 

But killing them and wasting all the rest of the carcass, just for personal decoration, is not OK - just as testing cosmetics on animals is not OK (but animal testing for drugs I reluctantly accept - even though its value is questionable.) Fake fur looks just as good and as a side benefit doesn't get moth or other parasites living in it and eating holes in the fabric.

 

I'm with Los Angeles.

[Ruby Eyes]

"the Bible says"

 

It's a book consisting of texts written by humans, assembled by humans. I'd suspect some bias there with regards to animal rights vs human rights.

I'm an omnivore, but either way, killing animals for clothing is not necessary anymore nowadays.

 

I don't think this law is ridiculous. Sometimes, someone needs to force people to look up and see how the world around them has developed since medieval or even stone age times.

[RWyvern]

Not entertaining the religious argument in here, as I’m a steadfast atheist and I have limited knowledge on the matter.

 

I dislike the commercial fur industry (especially in regions where it’s poorly regulated), but does this ban mean not even professionally, legally and arguably ethically (depending on your personal beliefs) obtained furs can be sold? Game hunting in L.A. is, as far as I can tell, small but there. Selling properly tanned furs/mounted skins can be a nice source of income. I know people here in Aus who base their whole lifestyle around it. So I guess that’s no longer an option for hunters in L.A.? Are even private sales completely illegal? Maybe it’s not that huge of a deal if it can be circumvented with interstate travel? What about the reselling of items that have long been owned? Do they get covered by a grandfather clause?

 

It does seem to me to be a bizarre ban with the little information I can find. Personally I’d be pissed if a ban for even game furs arose in Australia or other places where hunting is a legit serious lifestyle.

[Nagapie]

I completely agree with the above posts which condemn fur farming as a cruel and unnecessary practice. I hope the rest of the world will come to follow LA's example one day.

 

I also wanted to add, seeing as it downright disgusts me to see people justify animal cruelty with "bible says this" or "bible says that":

The bible is a book of fiction written by humans that is thousands of years old and the things said in there should not be used as a basis for judging whether something is right or wrong, especially in this day and age. Question things and think for yourself instead of always leaning on the supposed truths of some dusty old tome. Just yeah, anything containing "according to the bible" is not a valid argument to me ever in any way, shape or form.

 

Edit: Well, I got beaten to it by Ruby Eyes.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Nagapie

[Alrexwolf]

I just wanted to pop in and say I agree with the notion that fairly hunted/trapped, humanely dispatched hides are a totally different thing than farmed fur.

 

Unfortunately, there is no way to make a distinction when a hide already exists. I hope that, in the future, private sales of pre-existing furs (old coats, etc, that are already in existence) and hunted furs can be allowed. Perhaps a company could be given a permit to taxidermy / preserve hides from hunters who prove they have proper permits to dispatch an animal.

 

For the immediate future though, such a broad ban is required to prevent an underground market from appearing of "hunted,"/"old," furs that are really from illegal secret farms. Perhaps when they root out any black markets that attempt to crop up, the law can slowly be eased, starting with the sale of old furs on the private market. The law has to be all inclusive and strong in the interrim though, or else people would find loopholes and workarounds and keep up the act of fur farming.

[Fuzzbucket]

Exactly. I happen to own a rather lovely carved ivory paper knife - it is almost 100 years old. I can never sell it - and I actually would like to sell it to someone who would value it more than I do - because ANY sale of ivory is becoming illegal in the UK, no mater how old. It means - for instance - that people with old pianos with ivory keys are screwed... selling ANYTHING with any ivory in it will be illegal, unless the pleas of the antique trade are heard. I am very annoyed - but I do get it.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Fuzzbucket

[The Dragoness]

2 hours ago, Ruby Eyes said:

"the Bible says"

 

It's a book consisting of texts written by humans, assembled by humans. I'd suspect some bias there with regards to animal rights vs human rights.

I'm an omnivore, but either way, killing animals for clothing is not necessary anymore nowadays.

 

I don't think this law is ridiculous. Sometimes, someone needs to force people to look up and see how the world around them has developed since medieval or even stone age times.

Agreed. The Bible is also thousands of years old and very outdated as result--do women have no rights as well? Because "the Bible says." 

 

I do eat meat, but I think it's inhumane to kill an animal just for the fur, which does happen. If the rest of the animal is used and not wasted, that's different. I think the law is fine. I mean, what's wrong with faux fur? I refuse to buy real fur myself because of the mass cruelty towards animals through "farming." Unless you regularly buy/sell real fur, does this law being in place really affect you? Maybe I'm just spewing "garbage," as you put it, like the rest of the people who care about animals...

Edited September 20, 2018 by The Dragoness

[Infinis]

It's a bit confusing to me that you go out of your way to note that you are not religious, but then immediately use blatantly religious justification. Whether that's in the Bible or not, things have changed significantly since the times when it was written and compiled, and we have different laws now. 

 

The idea that this is animal rights garbage is somewhat distressing to me, as a person who supports animal welfare and humane and ethical treatment. So I'd like to note, very firmly, that while there are indeed extremists among the myriad animal rights/welfare groups, it is not garbage to feel concern or compassion for creatures other than humans, nor is it garbage to argue for humane and ethical treatment for creatures other than humans. Just because I eat chickens on the regular doesn't mean I'm a jerk who thinks cruelty to them is in any way appropriate. Factory farming is ugly no matter what it is that's being farmed, and if someone is in a position in life where they can afford meat that isn't factory farmed, I encourage them to do so.

 

I think what gets me is that this ban takes effect in LA...LA is not exactly a cold clime, so unless you're interested in trophy collecting, what would you need fur for anyway? It's not like you're gonna get buried in six feet of snow in December, so obviously not for warmth. And as with many laws, it probably won't take effect immediately, so anyone seriously affected should have some time to move shop elsewhere.

 

Just because we can wear animals, doesn't mean we should or that we need to. 

[purpledragonclaw]

I'm religious, and I'm also a vegetarian. I think the new law in L.A. is great, I was happy when San Francisco adopted it and was hoping more cities would follow suit. To see L.A. come on board is huge, and I'm hopeful more cities do this.

 

While I know it is in the Bible that animals were put on this Earth for us to use, I believe we, as a species, have a certain amount of responsibility to these animals who share this planet with us. I believe we should treat these animals with the love and respect they deserve, as living, intelligent creatures. I don't think we do this when we factory farm them, kill them for no other reason than their fur, or for the silk they provide, among other reasons. Animals feel pain, we need to do our best to kill them humanely, and not waste their sacrifice by only using a portion of them and throwing away the rest. We have many alternatives now, both synthetic and natural, we can wear in the place of fur. 

[Stormfriend]

First off, I’d like to point out that the Book Of Genesis is an allegory and doesn’t have any more bearing on this decision than, say, Beowulf. Or Jonathan Livingston Seagull, for that matter. Which is to say, humans have always worn animal pelts.

Second — Los Angeles isn’t 100% built up. There are some green corridors, mostly around the Hollywood Hills. There are deer and feral pigs living in those hills. And there are a number of hunters in the Los Angeles basin, who buy licenses, tags in the case of deer, and chase and kill those animals. In effect, hunters that buy a tag and kill a deer or pig, are buying that deer or pig’s skin. Are the police going to make them throw that skin away? What a waste of good leather.

Speaking of leather — what’s leather but fur with the hair taken off? Is the ban going to extend to leather, too? Wow. There goes the shoe industry, heavy metal music shops, furniture, cars, baseball gloves, taxidermists, saddles, purses…Go ahead! Walk up to those headbangers and demand they hand over their gauntlets and jackets and vests! I’ll just stand back here and watch…and snicker…

Maybe the Los Angeles City Council are thinking, “We’re pioneers! Next we’re going to ban fur (and maybe leather) in the whole state of California!” I’d love to see how that’s received in Tehama or Siskyou County.

Myself, I think wearing fur and leather is preferable to wearing nylon-based synthetics, given the plastics crisis currently swirling in the Pacific Ocean. I like to say, I’d rather wear their skin than their home. Faux fur, microfleece, polyester, those are all derived from petrochemicals and require factories to produce. Factories that displaced wildlife habitat and poison what isn’t displaced. You can tan fur and leather without use of toxic chemicals. Silk of course being better because the industry requires the planting of trees and there is no toxic fallout: what waste products are created go back into compost to fertilize the trees required.

My view of the whole thing: just like same sex marriage and abortion. If you don’t like it, fine, don’t do it. Don’t make it illegal for those who don’t believe the same.

[Fuzzbucket]

I kind of agree about leather - EXCEPT that there aren't farms for leather like the vile fur farms, and on the whole, I believe most leather comes from animals who were slaughtered for their meat. On the other hand, leather is a major landfill problem, as it takes thousands of years to degrade.
 

Quote

Real leather (not synthetically made) is made from animal skin, and more commonly cow hide, although goat, buffalo and exotic leathers such as snake and alligator are also available.

Cows leather is often described as a byproduct from the meat and dairy industries, making up just 5% of the value of the animal. Before technological advancements made raising mass livestock possible, early man would use the hides from animals they hunted for meat.

 

 

My SO is vegetarian and almost vegan but has to wear leather shoes as his feet go all horrible in synthetics. Most people I know who are in jobs where they are on their feet a lot say the same - especially nurses !

[Ruby Eyes]

4 hours ago, Stormfriend said:

Is the ban going to extend to leather, too?

No idea. The OP speaks only of fur. Mind you, all this discussion here has taken place without a single link to a reliable resource of information of any kind. Only Fuzz has been providing some quotes, but also without sources.

[JavaTigress]

4 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I kind of agree about leather - EXCEPT that there aren't farms for leather like the vile fur farms, and on the whole, I believe most leather comes from animals who were slaughtered for their meat. On the other hand, leather is a major landfill problem, as it takes thousands of years to degrade.
 

 

My SO is vegetarian and almost vegan but has to wear leather shoes as his feet go all horrible in synthetics. Most people I know who are in jobs where they are on their feet a lot say the same - especially nurses !

I am not sure about furs, but as far as leather goes, I have no issues with its use.

I always had the idea that , as @Fuzzbucket says, LEATHER primarily comes from cattle who were raised for meat anyway.

 

It seems to ME that it is better that, if a cow is going to become a steak either way, the hide is put to some use.

 

At said, if the leather itself is a landfill problem, It WOULD be good if we either had a better way of disposing of it .... or of reusing it.

 

Furs... furs, as I said, I am less sure of.

THAT said, it seems to ME that this law wouldn't stop someone who really WANTS a fur coat or such from going to another city to buy it.

 

THEREFOR in my view sort of a silly law in that it achieves NOTHING. the people that don't believe in wearing fur are already NOT going to be buying it, and this law ISN'T going to change the hearts and minds of the people who believe it is OK to use fur and leather. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by JavaTigress

[Starscream]

I am of two minds about fur products hear me out, there is some logic to my thoughts..

 

I am okay with antique and vintage furs being sold -  they've been around for a while.

I do not like that some animals are raised only for their fur - why is the meat not sold?

I am therefore largely in favour of a ban of all new fur being sold with some exceptions.

 

So when it comes to modern fur, that I may on occasion obtain, its usually rabbit. it has been part of winter hats, and winter boots, or even gloves. The other "fur" is sheepskin - again this is another animal regularly used as meat animal, and its a by-product.

 

So I am fine with banning fur of animals who are not regularly sold as meat. But cows, pigs, sheep, deer, rabbits and emu/ostrich should still be permitted. outside of rabbits, the rest is usually made into leather. Hopefully no one decides to ban leather.

 

I am not religious in the practical sense, but I do have empathy for creatures - but if we eat them, I don't see a problem with using every part of them as much as possible. I am thankful to the animals who died to let me live. I think of them as living on within me.

 

Also consider is anyone starts to scream all animal products should be banned. Insulin is a lifesaving product produced from the pancreas of beef or pork animals -  its purified.

 

Ultimately providing the animal is used as much as possible, I am okay with its products.

[Fuzzbucket]

3 hours ago, Ruby Eyes said:

No idea. The OP speaks only of fur. Mind you, all this discussion here has taken place without a single link to a reliable resource of information of any kind. Only Fuzz has been providing some quotes, but also without sources.

 

My quote came from a leather site - https://mahileather.com/blogs/news/where-does-leather-come-from

 

As to the ban: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/la-fur-ban-los-angeles-sale-san-francisco-california-a8544276.html

 

I would wish PETA wasn't prominently involved. There is a long thread here about how untrustworthy they are.

 

Oh - there are two !

 

This quote from Infinis is particularly...

 

 

1 hour ago, Starscream said:

I am of two minds about fur products hear me out, there is some logic to my thoughts..

 

I am okay with antique and vintage furs being sold -  they've been around for a while.

I do not like that some animals are raised only for their fur - why is the meat not sold?

 <snip>

 

I am not religious in the practical sense, but I do have empathy for creatures - but if we eat them, I don't see a problem with using every part of them as much as possible. I am thankful to the animals who died to let me live. I think of them as living on within me.

 

Also consider is anyone starts to scream all animal products should be banned. Insulin is a lifesaving product produced from the pancreas of beef or pork animals -  its purified.

 

Ultimately providing the animal is used as much as possible, I am okay with its products.

 

I agree. Though there is now artificial insulin.

 

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/insulin/human-insulin.html

Edited September 21, 2018 by Fuzzbucket

[Ruby Eyes]

So from that Independent page linked above:

 

Quote

Under the plan tentatively approved on Tuesday, a fur ban would go into effect in January and be phased in over two years, giving retailers until 2020 to sell off existing inventories. Used fur products would be exempt.

The council is considering an exemption for products used for religious purposes, such as fur hats worn by Orthodox Jews, as well as for items made from pelts legally taken under the authority of a California fur-trapping license.

 

I suspect that would cover the issues of selling already existing furs and products, as well as the hunting mentioned further above.

[Gluria]

I wouldn't care much about the use of fur from animals that are common in the wild or in captivity and are kiled quickly and painlessly, after living a happy life.

 

I am strongly in favour of banning all aspects of the fur industry that involve endangered species or animals living in small cages before being killed not quickly and painlessly.

 

As I know the former is very rarely the case, I say good job, LA.

[LadyLyzar]

I am never in favor of banning the sale of a product through legislation.  People can vote with their wallets.  If they choose not to wear fur, it will not sell and fur farms will go out of business.  However, banning the sale in one place means those who will wear fur will just buy it elsewhere.  It's "feel-good" legislation that really doesn't accomplish anything.

 

For awhile, I lived in a "dry" town - alcohol sales were banned by city ordinance, both in stores and restaurants.  However, people would just go to neighboring municipalities to buy it.  As a result, food-based establishments started losing money rapidly, and the city missed out on sales taxes for alcohol products.  The ban was repealed shortly before we moved.  For the record, I don't drink - but even I could see that the policy was shortsighted.

 

In Texas, I have little use for fur.  It's too hot to wear it for 99% of the year, and I wouldn't want to maintain a fur coat when a synthetic is easier to maintain for the short time it might be needed.  Growing up in Alaska, that was a different story.  My winter coats were lined with fur and I was happy to have them.  There was nothing warmer.  In addition, items that use dog fur are typically sourced from places where dogs are eaten.

Edited September 25, 2018 by LadyLyzar

[Fuzzbucket]

I can't agree with you there. Sadly people will buy stuff, no matter how awful the conditions it is produced in, if it's there. I also like to support store chains that ban clothing produced in sweat shops.

 

The only way to put a stop to exploitative and plain nasty practices is to make them illegal. Isn't legislation against cruelty to animals OK ? One HELL of a lot of fur is produced in conditions that constitute such cruelty; I never understand why the owners of mink farms (and indeed most egg farms and others) aren't prosecuted under animal cruelty legislation. And so often the public simply doesn't know what goes into making the stuff they buy.