LA Plans To Ban Fur (Should The Rest of The Country Do Likewise?)

[Spidey Revivey]

Los Angeles Will Ban the Sale of Fur

Los Angeles is on track to become the largest city in the United States to ban the sale of fur clothing and accessories.

On Tuesday, the City Council voted unanimously for the ban, directing the Los Angeles City Attorney to formulate a policy that would render fur sales illegal. The council expects that the city attorney will return with the requisite language in about a month. The ban will take effect two years from the day it is signed into law.

Council member Bob Blumenfield, who introduced the motion, said: “This is L.A. taking a stand and saying we will no longer be complicit in the inhumane and vile fur trade that’s been going on for years.”

The average temperature in Los Angeles hovers around 75 degrees Fahrenheit, so fur is … maybe not as necessary as in, say, Alaska. But the City Council members hope that their vote could see a ripple effect.

But Mr. Smith said that within the United States, cities were competing with each other “almost to see who’s the most compassionate city out there.”

“San Francisco’s colder, and when San Francisco banned fur sales, it was considered the compassion capital,” he said. “Then you have L.A. turning around and claiming that title back.”

Of course, not everyone in the city was happy about the news. Harry Naim, a proprietor of the downtown store Furs by La Fayette, said that he was absolutely against the ban and was very angry about it.

“We have been in business for 30 years and suddenly some stupid people decided to ban it,” he said of the fur clothing he sells. “I don’t think this bothers anyone. Why do they want to kill the business I’ve built?”

Three things stick out to me about this article:

1. I think the argument about a warmer climate is a practical approach to this controversy. Southern California rarely sees freezing temperatures. I can buy this reason for banning fur as long as it is met with other options, which a quick look at sites such as Alternatives to using fur suggests this to be ample.

2. While I think Mr. Smith didn't mean his words to be literal in nature, more like a carefree, "sure why not try to better ourselves" thing, the thought of an ethics race is alarming in its broadest sense. Anyone can ask where does this betterment end, ban furs, ban red meat, ban animal captivity, etc.

3. Harry Naim may be using the tried and true "they're taking my job" defense, but he has a point in arguing for established businesses. I don't know how many families would be affected by a fur ban in Los Angeles, but people losing their jobs does usher in a new problem.


Every ten years or so we face this dilemma, but now large cities are calling for the ban. Some would argue that the fur business runs on a closed loop system - one where the end of a garment's shelf-life can still aid the growth of new garments, while faux fur and otherwise do not, and therefore a waste. Others look at the problem ethically, as previously stated, and some like myself see the practicality in certain regions wanting to dismiss the use and adopt other means to stay warm, but places like my state and north of me may want to hold on to the old practice of leathers and fur.

Do you guys feel the same way? Should the United States (or wherever you're from) do likewise and ban the unethical application of killing animals for their skins? How do you feel about Los Angeles banning the sales of fur?

 

[Hyorinmaru]

LA doesn't need fur but it does start this whole ball rolling in a bad way.

I'm of the mind that if you kill an animal you should use every single part of carcass including the skin/fur. If places in the north especially follow LA's lead and ban the sale of fur the only thing that will accomplish is the people that made or even the hunters that sold the fur would just leave it. They won't stop hunting or killing animals which i'm assumming is the aim here.