"If this ban happens, the leather industry will be attacked, the meat industry will be attacked"
This is a great argument in favor of the ban: If it passes, then other fundamentally immoral industries will be under the microscope as well.
12
"many men who wear fur hats on the Sabbath. ...In our culture, fur is a sign of status, achievement..."
Really? You want to kill animals in order to show off? This is the 21st century.
20
i don't think raising and slaughtering of animals for fur is immoral but would prefer that the animals are treated not inhumanly until they are put to death. NYC has always had a pocket (ever diminishing) of the fur trade near to my home and I prefer we protect those people's livelihood than sacrifice another sector of economic activity to those with moral judgements that may prove transitory over time. I wish Corey Johnson and the City Council would work on much more important problems in our city that are making it increasingly difficult for the non 1 percenters to live here.
The sale of fur is NOT doing so.
5
I would like to paraphrase a famous line from the abortion debate:
If you oppose wearing fur, don't have one.
I personally do not own any fur items, but I fully support the right of those who like it to do so. I do own a number of leather coats and jackets, and fear that these may well be the next target.
11
For the love of God and all that is holy, are there really black folks arguing for the right to wear fur because it shows achievement? For the record I'm a black preacher. First of all, I don't think wearing fur is any longer a sign that you've made it and have money. I think it's viewed by most people as kinda gauche, and especially with the invention of more attractive, quality clothing materials. Let us not exploit or abuse animals unnecessarily. Wanting to be ostentatious is not a good reason to torture our animal friends! C'mon.
25
Fur and leather goods, while once necessary and the best options for clothing and other goods, now face competition from other materials of equal or superior quality. Time to shut it down.
14
I would love to see this ban pass. In Alaska one can argue for the cultural significance of fur and its warmth. Yet-
The trapping of lynx, marten, wolverines, bear, mink, fox, coyote, wolf, ermine and killing of any other living thing for the pleasures of man needs to come to a close. It is cruel, the methods are medieval, trappers do not check their lines daily leading to long suffering of animals trapped in them, plus the numbers of particular species are dwindling in certain trapping areas.
Man needs to forge a relationship with the new material possibilities currently available. We live in a time where alternatives to fur exist. No longer should vanity drive cruelty. Fur trapping is very different from the meat industry (though that also has cruelties), fur provides no needed benefit to man and provides an income to a very limited number of folks.
The time to close this chapter in our history and develop a humane stewardship role towards the animals we share this planet with has come.
112
Luckily, we can care about more than one issue at a time--it's not people or animals. There is no excuse to support animal abuse. Not tradition, not entertainment, not religion.
And good on those asking about leather--the mistreatment of cattle in the meat industry which boosts the leather industry (not to mention the environmental impact of it), is also shocking. And if this comment makes you bristle, ask yourself if you are willing to watch a video about the systemic abuse of farm animals in factory farms and at slaughterhouses. Or, in this case, the journey of animals from fur farms to storefronts.
I hope we will all consider making more compassionate choices for people, animals, and our planet.
146
I am a liberal. I am a democrat. I may even have socialist tendencies. That said, the WORST enemy of liberal causes is the white upper middle class/wealthy liberal overreach. This is a classic example and plays right in the hands of conservatives. Stop being judgmental, stop telling people that are different from you how to live there lives and we might actually win national elections and do some real good for HUMAN society.
144
Let’s destroy the environment then.
29
@MSM
My belief is that human society is improved by reducing animal cruelty.
62
@MSM
Ok, I've been counting - now that we've rolled racism, sexism, abortion, religion & regionalism into this animal abuse issue, I knew politics couldn't be left behind.
What on God's green earth (just a saying, before you religion shame me) leads you to believe that this issue has any more resonance with liberals than conservatives? Especially now that conservatives want to jump into back into our wombs? They have lost the "small government" position on that issue alone.
How I feel about animals has nothing to do with politics, and I would not sacrifice defending my position on this topic to trying to influence a mere national election. Yes, it's true - a couple thousand chinchillas not being abused really and truly matter more to me than transient human stupidity, e.g., politics. I'm glad a few others in NYC (R or D or I or whatever) feel the same. I find humans highly over-rated, by and large. And much less appealing on a personal basis than a single charming Chinchilla.
38
That's great! I hope it goes through, it would be a great model for other cities and eventually countries. Having a status symbol is not a compelling reason to torture animals. 1,100 jobs lost is relatively few, and besides, any kind of abusive practice will always make a job for somebody. That's not a good reason to keep doing it.
154
Cultural tradition is used by Japanese and Norwegians to justify whaling, by Chinese to justify killing elephants for ivory, sharks for soup, tigers for useless folk remedies. There is no moral justification for killing animals for fur now that manufactured substitutes exist. It is primarily a status symbol, an ostentatious show of wealth.
184
Hypocritical. I don’t see the difference between raising minks to slaughter and make warm coats and raising cows to slaughter for meat. And what about our leather boots?
4
I suggest we take this petty tyranny the other way around - make it OBLIGATORY that the stupidly rich have to wear furs. That way we can identify them and laugh.
Wow a person's right to exhibit their "symbols of achievement" and history are hardly good reasons to condone the brutal and cruel imprisonment,torture and death of millions of innocent animals. We are a society who criminalizes and abhors animal abuse so why limit this concern to companionship animals only? Slavery is historical, so why not let fur become history as well? As for economic harm, faux fur is popular and profitable and can easily be sold instead of real fur. Banning fur is good because it's good for animals, our collective humanity and doesn't interferes with anyone's human rights. It's a fact of modern life that any good change and progress is met with hate and resistance and kudos to animal rights activists for facing this resistance with dedication, facts and undeniable truth.
9
Americans are unwilling to give up ANYTHING in the face of mounting evidence of seriousness of the brutality towards animals. Times change, circumstances change. Yes, there needs to be adjustments and limitations. the most ridiculous argument was by the pastor who seemed to think that people cannot be against animal cruelty and for racial fairness at the same time! By the way, these pastors, along with thier rural and white ilk are running one of the biggest scams around these days.
10
The reason of "showing you've made it" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read from a pastor or anyone else. Seriously this guy is a pastor and he's tooting about black women who would be deprived of showing they'd made it by not being able to wear a fur to church on Sunday. Yes, I'm sure God is impressed seeing anyone in church wearing a dead animal fur.
As for the Hasids -- wear hats made of wool. The sheep who is shorn doesn't die -- everyone wins.
End this ridiculous an unnecessary torture and killing of animals to pad the egos of those who wear the furs.
11
It’s 2019. The fur industry should be a thing of the past. Instead of wearing a dead animal as a “hallmark of achievement”, how about a luxury timepiece? As for religious reasons, why can faux fur hats, which are just as soft, warm and look real, be an alternative. The cruelty of fur just to feel accomplished or WHATEVER shows a lack of compassion and morality.
7
Man, you guys are creeping me out!
2
Fur is too hot, leather is too heavy. Let’s ban meat too. Why not? Climate change will do it on its own, anyway. All these animals are going to be in very short supply very very soon. You think they’re expensive now? Just wait.
7
I find it interesting that there are no bans on police brutality, no bans on homelesness, no bans on hate crimes against Jewish people or no bans on racist policing. But yeah sure, lets have a ban on fur!
4
This is another of those cringe moments of white people with privilege forcing their personal "morality" on people of color. Just take a look at the picture of the protesters in Mr. Neuman's and May's article.
Why ban fur and not burgers? Cows do infinitely more harm to the environment than mink? Simple, a lot of white people with privilege eat beef (and pork) and wouldn't want their personal peccadillo disturbed. Also, if you think the killing of cows is humane, visit a slaughter house.
In the hierarchy of environmental dangers, personal degradation or heart wrenching cruelty, the wearing or creating of fur garments isn't even on the list. It is on New York City's list because liberal white folk always think they know best for other folk.
6
"....“These are people who have a craft and have been working in this industry for 30 or 40 years. They don’t know what they will do next, and they have families to support.”..."
Now you city folks know what coal miners are dealing with. They too had their livelihoods legislated away. It happens, and frankly I would think those who sell furs would have better job possibilities in the fashion capitol of the US than coal miners in Appalachia.
If Black ministers are so concerned about Black lives then maybe they should divert the thousands of dollars used to buy furs into their community. I'm sure that someone needs help with rent or food. St. Francis was known to lecture the Pope concerning the Church's accumulation of wealth and I think he was on to something.
Fifty-five thousand for a fur coat, Mr. Samuels? I know nothing about your music but isn't rap supposed to be about the disenfranchised and socio-economically marginalized? You go ahead and rap about the disenfranchised who buy those songs that allow you to indulge in such an ostentatious lifestyle.
I also wonder how many of these anti-fur folks who abhor killing animals eat meat? A cow getting a bolt gun to the head isn't any prettier than a fox being electrocuted.
I'm a vegetarian but at least a cow isn't killed strictly for it's skin. The meat industry is possibly one of the most efficient at using every part of an animal. The fur industry is environmentally wasteful and serves a vain clientele.
6
I guarantee you that coat looked better on the lynx than it did on the rapper.
12
But leather is cool? Smh
2
Compassionate isn’t finite—we can care about both humans and animals. It’s not a competition. I would never wear an animal’s pelt--or abuse animals for food, or any other reasons--but tat doesn't mean I can't also support human rights issues.
7
New York City is the fashion capital of the world. Furriers have been selling fur for decades employing thousands of people. It has brought money into the NYC economy. It is also a tradition to wear fur for some religious groups, cultures and wearing fur is one of the many freedoms NYCers enjoy.
The MTA is still horrible. The roads are NOT being maintained. Traffic and congestion are at all-time highs. The housing crisis is at epidemic levels. This is what the speaker of the NYC Council focuses on? Taking away a right rather than working to protect them for all New Yorkers?
It's time for some changes. Another example of why voting is important.
9
Faux fur take how many gallons of petroleum to produce 1 sq yard of fake fur? And then how long to decompose once discarded? I have an 80+ plus year old fur that is still in excellent condition and service. There is a huge difference between animal welfare and animal rights. People who produce animals products know that not taking good care of their livestock will produce inferior product, there is no sense in that. Animal rights activists are very good at making others feel the need to explain that they aren't into cruelty... this should go without saying.
10
I am in favor of protecting endangered species, such as the big cats, but I think anti-fur and veganism represent a childish anthropomorphism of animals. On the other side of the ledger is personal freedom, culture, jobs, and a general resistance to the virtue signaling of others through government intervention. Passing this bill just advertises that NYC is governed by a group of elitist busybodies who cannot seem to solve real problems. Others here have pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing between leather and fur on some neutral basis. We consume sheep, cattle and hogs, but we use only the fur of lower animals -- thinking about this, I have to say I would also protect foxes, because they are wild and sly.
10
"In its current form, the bill includes an exemption for fur items worn as a 'matter of religious custom.'"
So the reason for the ban is that there is something morally wrong with fur, but an exception is made when morality and religion come into conflict.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
18
Consider the effect fake fur has on the environment and on people, specifically people living in areas where those products are being produced. Consider the environmental and humanitarian cost of cheap garments, fake leather, fake fur and take steps to promote conscientious production of ALL these materials- real or fake. I work in the fashion industry and know that there are ways to do this right, but people aren't ready to pay for it. The decline of luxury and rise of fast fashion are warping our priorities.
Furthermore, the domestic garment industry is already on a decline and limiting its ability to produce will only speed that process. We should be promoting local production, not hindering it.
8
I bought a fur years ago in NYC and will have it for the rest of my life. It’s warmer and more durable than any other coat I’ve ever had, I was shouted at this winter by a man in a coat made of petroleum products by underpaid labor in China or Southeast Asia sold by a company not based in New York. He will have to replace his plastic bag of a coat many times over his lifetime. Mine coat will rot when discarded many years from now. His coats will be clogging our oceans for 20 to 200 years. Fur seems like the more local and sustainable choice to me.
26
As an African American who often saw fox fur draped across the ladies in front of me in church, I think these ministers are totally wrong.
Cultural norms die hard, but some of them definitely need to die. The idea that fur somehow conveys status on its wearer dates back to my grandmothers day.
In the early 1900's Blacks were denied so many things accessible to whites that we copied white status symbols like fur as part of our own personal example of equality.
But those days are gone. And the days of subjecting sentient beings to torture and death for our own subjective pleasure needs to go as well.
This is not a racial issue. It is a simple moral issue. The more we know about biology the more we understand how the nervous systems of these creatures are almost identical to our own.
Mammals feel and express emotions, experience loss, feel pain, suffer depression and a host of other "feelings" normally associated with humans.
It makes no more sense to wear the skins of a fox, mink or other mammal than it does to slaughter your pet dog or cat and drape them over your shoulder.
City Council should do the right thing and ban fur and the handful of ministers who have embraced the gospel of prosperity can find other more socially beneficial and less cruel ways of demonstrating God's blessings.
22
Why all the fake breast beating?
The plain fact is that wearing fur has gone out of fashion and has been out of fashion for some time.
I have a very stylish fur hat that I haven’t worn in a decade. I would look daft in it now.
Who among the mea culpa commenters has forsworn wearing leather?
2
Question for the pro-fur crowd: If furriers used dogs or cats to make their coats, would that be ok?
Question for the anti-fur crowd: what is the principled difference between a fur coat and a leather coat? If there is none, then what is really going on here?
In this news/election cycle I see this playing out as "this is what the so-called "progressives" want to do -- tell you how to run your lives. It squares with De Blasio's campaign announcement and his amazingly unabashed stance in favor of simply confiscating of other people's money. "Socialist" isn't even the right word. There's too much money in the wrong pockets and they're using it in bad ways like buying fur, unlike good ways such as creating billion dollar toys for your wife to play with where no one counts the money or where it goes.
4
What a disappointing, misleading, and poorly researched article.
First, how in gods name is FUR a civil rights issue? I did some research and in about 10 minutes and found that the social media accounts purporting to be representative of “blacks against the fur ban” had about 5 African American followers and dozens of clearly fake accounts (no profile photos, no posts, and screen names like “furlove1”). It seems that the furriers have played a cheap and exploitative game by creating fake race based outrage, exploiting the current movement for BLM. This would also seem obvious if you ask: where is the money in this debate? (Answer: in fur business) Shameful tactics and shameful that the NYT is lazily buying into that narrative.
Second, let’s talk about jobs. Just like any regulation on business, some jobs will be lost, but some will also be gained in the long run as fur alternatives gain market share in the wake of the ban. But the lost jobs are not specialist jobs and the skills needed in retail or fur production are easily transferable. The numbers show that the jobs loss is also minimal. It would be helpful if you included comparative stats for regulations of other industries. Businesses should not profit from a horrifically cruel industry.
Third, how about you detail basic statistics about the fur industry? Maybe start with how it is almost entirely unregulated from a welfare perspective.
8
Can't resist commenting on the statement "They say a prohibition would fly in the face of centuries of religious and cultural tradition." Is that the tradition that subjugates women, indeed even circumcises them ? Is that the tradition which weighs against vaccination ? Is that the tradition which promulgates violence against those of differing proclivities ?
We find "tradition" to be brought into the argument, when all reason is to the contrary. Aren't learning and discovery the enemies of tradition ?
16
Women have never been circumcised in Judaism. Islam also does not require female circumcision. It is a cultural practice that has no religious basis.
7
Hard to separate culture and religion in many people's eyes including Jews.
2
Humans have done so much damage and inflicted so much cruelty on this planet. Slowly we are moving towards a better way. This is one more huge step in a series of huge steps to create a living we can be proud of.
7
What about the poor animals in the sea that are suffering because of manmade fibres?
4
People are actually making a "cultural bias" issue out of this with a straight face? What a hoot!
11
@Glenn Thomas -
Yes - Leave it to the New York Times to locate - and then put its thumb on - any racial or ethnic element of any story --
"Black ministers have staged protests, saying that for many African-Americans, wearing furs is a treasured hallmark of achievement. "
Back in the sixties - when I was a teenager living the suburbs - owning a big white Cadillac was considered to be "a treasured hallmark of achievement" in the Black community - but nobody raised those objections when the EPA set emissions and fuel standards - resulting in the elimination of those giant gas-guzzlers --
Oh - wait --
I get it - moving to smaller and more fuel-efficient cars was good for the environment and climate change - so of course nobody could raise any objections --
4
@Glenn Thomas - Yes, the NYT had a similar article on this theme earlier this year:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/style/fur-black-women-history.html
Stella McCartney is a clothing designer who has accomplished the look of fur via faux fur for many years. It's 2019 and there are many ways to satisfy all of us, this helps in all categories, animal rights, employment, recycling and ethics on all sides. Honestly I would be surprised if this ban in New York was successful, but at least it will spur some of us to think outside the "box" or "cage".
8
I think the big difference between eating meat & wearing leather vs wearing fur has to do with necessity. We can debate the necessity of eating meat (though for some folks, it really is the best health choice), but I haven't yet seen a convincing argument that wearing fur is necessary, as opposed to desirable. It used to be that fur garments were the only real protection against cold weather, but that's no longer the case. As noted in the article, fur is a status symbol in some communities In the 21st century, human beings should be past the point of needing to wear the skins of other animals to promote their own sense of importance....
11
I support a ban on fur 100 percent. Who with a conscience is still buying or wearing anything made from the decomposing skins of tortured animals?
12
And what about pearl necklaces? .....spare a thought for the shucking oysters.
3
we have a city legislator who thinks this encroachment on our 1st amendment rights should be tolerated in the name of morality. OMG, perhaps my sister would expect me to sacrifice her in the name of family honor. Perhaps those that think they can take our freedom to express ourselves should lose their heads as petty thieves should lose their hands. How many animals must die? All animals and humans shall die, even those of good moral character .
3
Real people wear fake furs.
9
"skinning animals alive for a luxury product"
huh????
That would be rather counter-productive, as the blood would ruin the fur, greatly reducing its market value.
7
If furs are banned,why not ban the consumption of meat and poultry too.oh lets stop using leather for shoes and belts.I do not understand this concern for animals and less concerns for people,guess Americans have a fanatical desire to be appear as saints for animals but engage in military actions all over the world,please America get smart.
8
I'm no expert but it seems that these animals suffer the most when they are caught in the wild. Why can't they raise and and kill them in a manner that doesn't cause them a lot of pain.
Maybe they can use a poison that will kill the animal
I don’t really care about the fur coat issue however I am very annoyed by headline
when it is compared to the second paragraph of the article.
Headline
« Proposed Fur Ban in New York Pits Animal Rights Advocates Against Black Ministers »
Second paragraph :
« But the proposed ban, backed by animal rights advocates, has met an unexpected challenge from a diverse set of opponents, including black pastors and Hasidic leaders. They say a prohibition would fly in the face of centuries of religious and cultural tradition. »
Why did the headline stop at black ministers ? Lack of space ?
2
It's a sad, sick fact of life that most Americans care only how something affects THEM. Not what is right or wrong, not what is good or bad for other people, not what is good or bad for the environment, and certainly not whether animals suffer.
If this ban goes through, the people who have businesses making luxury clothing from tortured animals will have to think of another way to make a living! And obscenely wealthy celebrities will have to find other ways to waste their excess money! And people who belong to religious/racial communities in which wearing animal carcasses is important to demonstrates that they've "arrived" will have to think of some other way to flaunt their success! I sure hope they'll be OK.
6
There is no need to use animals for fur or meat.
Just as there is no need for assault weapons.
4
The law is not the proper forum for every dispute.
This is an excellent example of that.
Save government power, and
keep your powder dry
for life's truly few
important things.
Argue and
Persuade.
No law.
7
Animals die all the time, without any human involvement. Many of those "natural" deaths would be regarded as horrific by the weak-kneed 'piliphobes'.
Will they next demand that the Inuit cease to take and process animals for clothing. It would be consistent with their schizophrenic attitude to human survival and comfort.
As long as the fur-bearing animals are raised and harvested humanely there is no reason to ban the sale or transfer of furs.
This whole shibboleth is an exercise in politically correct 'fedhya'.
11
I’m wondering, are the animal rights activists going to ban leather shoes and boots as well? This is all just silly, from people with too much time on their hands. Let’s concern ourselves with homelessness and hungry children — there are big problems to be solved in America, but this is not one of them,
9
Wearing fur and eating flesh is the same thing. Animals raised for food are treaded in the most inhuman and horrific ways. I wonder how many of these fur banning folks are giving up their bacon and egg breakfasts in exchange for wheatgrass and tempe.
6
In some countries, including the one I live in, we are in the 21st Century.
Never, at least not yet, in my America.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
3
Of course all those animal rights advocates are vegetarians and would never wear a pair of leather shoes.
Oh, for crying out loud. There are hundreds of ways to project status and affluence besides furs. Watches, jewelry, sports cars, Armani suits and dresses, just to name a few. The world is not going to be deprived of knowing how important you are. You don't need to torture and slaughter animals to do it. Just admit it was a bad choice and move on.
12
What’s next? No cotton because the plants are “hurt” when picked? This is the sort of issue that makes NY the laughing stock of the nation.
7
"They say a prohibition would fly in the face of centuries of religious and cultural tradition."
Hmm, where have I heard that argument before? Slavery, segregation? Just because it's a tradition doesn't make it a good one, and there is zero religious justification. Perhaps the black pastors and Hassids complaining about this should focus on the impacts of their beliefs rather than a fashion statement.
5
Let's ban meat sales, it is a great way to curb climate change. If your message is to ban immoral cruelty to animals, ban meat.
4
In a pluralist society, people can have their personal interests and those who want no part of them take no part in them.
In a politically correct petty tyranny, you are confined within mores engineered by social utopians who claim ownership of higher moral ground as entitlement to power.
~~~
Given the means moralist tyrants would implant thought control mechanisms in the public's minds, because the last thing we should allow is the retention of the idea, "fur coat" after the objects themselves were successfully eliminated as a material fact.
Petty moralist tyrant wannbes beg to be sent to reeducation camps where they are taught about the Rule of Law under a Bill of Rights that limits those laws. However I'd oppose that, and not just because it's something they'd do given the power, because it would be against the Bill of Rights.
5
There is no logical reason why this industry is still legal. The quality of fake fur means that these people can wear what they want, they just shouldn't be allowed to prance around with the skin of many dead animals on their bodies. This goes beyond vegetarianism to a realm of indifference and cruelty. Ban it already.
7
If you want to do away with cruelty ban guns. People killing children or other people is cruel. Wearing leather or fur or sheepskin, it’s what people do - but killing each other because we can? That’s what’s really sick.
7
“In our culture, fur is a sign of status, achievement, that we’ve made it"
"prohibition would fly in the face of centuries of religious and cultural tradition."
" wearing furs is a treasured hallmark of achievement."
These rationales sound very much like the reasoning used to justify slavery.
8
I opened the comments to make the same point and yours was the first one I saw. You are brilliant.
1
This proposed fur production ban is ridiculous and is somehow in keeping with the current increase in abortion bans and restrictions. To those who object to abortion, I say: then don't have one. To those who object to fur, I say: then don't wear it. With all of the real crises going on in this country and worldwide, fur is not an issue worth getting in a twist about. We are in a dangerous and obnoxious social climate these days, in which groups of people who feel one way about something want to make it illegal for other people to have a different view. Law should prevent crime, not dictate personal choices. So long as people are hungry, can't afford decent housing, can't make a viable living, can't afford a good education, can't get good health care or even pay for poor health care, whether or not someone wants to wear fur doesn't even fit on my radar. And since this is a significant NYC industry, let's not cause more economic misery - or eliminate the choices of others. When we get rid of assault weapons, human trafficking, treating immigrants like things instead of people, aggressively confront climate change, and make sure we don't destroy democracy as we know it, then maybe I'll worry about the little minks. I am concerned about tigers and elephants - but not as much as old women being beaten to death in their apartments and live babies being thrown into dumpsters with their umbilical cords still attached. Can we please get a grip?
17
Animal Rights should rule. Humans have other means of being warm. Taking fur from animals is beyond Cruel.
9
I am ( mostly ) vegan but I wear leather. Maybe it’s inconsistent but I have my reasons. I’d never wear fur although a dear friend (EEF) insists that it’s the same as leather- a pelt is a pelt. That might be true.
However, this is AMERICA. Banning the sale of fur is just plain weird to me. People should be in control of their own buying choices. We don’t need government telling us what to buy, be it junk food, soda, plastic bags, or fur.
10
Since most of our population is sadly incapable of making good choices, then the government should absolutely pull or limit certain products(cigarettes, trans fats, large sugary sodas, etc) there is no reason for ONE cup of soda contains 36g of sugar. That is dangerous.
The food industry should never have been allowed to introduce and market incredibly unhealthy items that can harm us.
7
@Anton
Regular soda has the exact same amount of sugar as a glass of orange juice. Are you now suggesting we restrict OJ?
A pelt is indeed a pelt. If you wear leather, which is not always a by product of the beef industry, then fur is fur.
Keep the government out of my a) lungs b) digestive tract c) closet d) uterus and e) house of worship.
7
Add to that list the approval of Boeing 737 Max planes!
The government should have banned or more quickly pulled that plane!
2
We utilize not only dead plants and animals but also dead humans. When I die, I’d like to donate my organs and body to be used as a cadaver.
Using ex-biological assets (wood, meat, leather, fur, organs, etc.) involuntarily for animals and voluntarily for humans is not wrong as long as “life” is treated properly so if animals are raised and killed humanely. This is about life, not death, so I see no problem with furs though I would not wear them.
There are no-kill vegans that eat only fruits and nuts and they despise others including plant-eating vegans for killing plants. (Plants suffer when they die even though they lack a central nervous system, we just don’t know how, read the scientific discussion about it.) Stepping into the more extreme views, did you know there are organizations that seek voluntary or involuntary termination of human life on earth for environmental purposes? The latter groups, if they had the weapons, would kill us and our children in the name of good.
Quite an extremism here that I believe is fueled by moral superiority, a false belief that animals should have human-similar rights and the awful conditions of slaughterhouses.
6
Here you can go to a second-hand store and buy a fur coat in perfect condition for the equivalent of $30-40 USD, not because (as far as I am aware, anyway) there has ever been a law against selling them, but because they are not in fashion anymore. You see precious few on the streets and those who do wear them, one can only assume, must feel a bit ashamed of their need to consume so conspicuously. I would hope, anyway.
4
@Deborah
I have no shame when I wear my mink coat in sub freezing temperatures. They were bred for their pelts, much the way cattle and other animals are bred for their flesh. I am not a vegetarian, and while I respect animals, being a pet owner and animal lover in general, I also acknowledge where we are on in the food chain. Your logic suggests that quadruped carnivores all become vegan.
8
I just can't manage to get myself upset about fur. What gets me is pets in shelters. Those animals have learned to trust us and we're letting them down.
6
@Patricia Glad you're compassionate about shelter pets. But you should put that same compassion to animals tortured and killed for fur. It is not in front of you, but is hidden away in massive factories. Look at a video, there are may available.
I've lived in Minnesota for 72 years without wearing a fur hat, fur gloves, or fur coat and I've never been colder than one should expect to be if it's -20F with a wind. Wool, down, layer, layer layer.
I wear leather and eat meat, but the writing is on the wall of the barn: these preferences are becoming untenable in these times of global warming. Fur is simply not necessary.
Stop wearing fur. Eat less meat and more vegetarian foods. Eventually become a vegetarian -- it can be done within a years time (well, quicker, but let's be generous). My shoes are mostly plastic, which is another problem.
16
Maybe not all fur is equally suspect.
Then Canada Goose costs use coyote fur that comes from culling the numbers of coyotes in section six of Canada where they are overpopulated and endangering other species.
I have noticed that since fur has become less acceptable in USA, we have a serious problem with the number of road kill raccoons in much of the Great Lakes. In some of the Great Lakes, raccoons carry rabies. Is it really unacceptable to cull the numbers and use the pelts?
Canada has a very strict protocol for hunting of fur animals, and half of it is done by indigenous populations that rely on the fur trade. I think it would be interesting if NYT wouldn’t interview people in the Canadian system.
I was surprised to learn how many Canadian families rely on beaver, muskrat, lynx and other wild furbearing animals for food as well as income.
Do we want to just have the skins discarded of those animals hunted for food in less populated expanses of Canada? Or can we accommodate a labeling system that identifies and allows such garments?
15
And what about diamond mining,etc. How are the miners treated? Do we not care because they are people and not cute furry animals?
My feelings about fur are mixed. No I wouldn’t buy one and now I hear that my lovely faux furs are also a menace. What about down coats?
8
When I travelled in Poland in January my coat and wool hat did not keep me adequately warm. When I passed ladies in fur hats and coats I understood its necessity in cold climates. New York is a lot colder than CA and I do not begrudge wearing a fur in the city. I think the issue can be resolved with how fur is sourced, distributed and marketed. Of course, some oppose all animal products. But banning all animal products is not realistic. If you wear leather shoes, it is hypocritical to denounce wearing fur.
10
@Jenna
Your comment is correct: Those of us living in the the Great Lakes know that in the two coldest months of winter, it takes a lot of bulk to try to keep warm without down, fur or leather.
My very good quality down cost does not keep me as warm as my sheepskin cost does.
And my bunny fur ear muffs make a big difference under a down or sheepskin hood. No wool hat keeps you ears as warm.
11
I live in Chicago, which is colder than New York City, without fur and without wool (which
bothers my skin). Something that will really help: legwarmers. I am in favor of this law--and I'm not someone who favors soft-drink taxes and paper-bag fees--with no religious exemptions.
4
I guess your delicate skin requires that another animal has to lose their skin in order to keep you warm. Wear wool. Give it time and it will be fine.
1
So let’s ban fur. And how do you feel about every slice of bacon on every burger, particularly your instagrammed Top 10 burgers or whatever. I’d like people to be consistent.
You don’t wear fur = you don’t wear leather which includes footwear (you don’t think the cows suffer???) = you don’t eat bacon (pigs are smarter than dogs,...do you eat dog?????) = have you seen the you tubes on battery chicken/egg raising
3
Believe me, for many of these animal-rights activists, bacon would be out. Dairy? Nope. Leather? Nope. Honey? Those bees are slaves. Fur bans are the thin end of the wedge.
3
A preacher, a rapper, and an orthodox Jew go to a protest on behalf of wearing furs...
I'm sorry, I forgot the punch line.
30
Thank god for peta.
7
Though I am not a fan of animal abuse, many other materials are nonbiodegradable.
7
I disapprove of fur (and faux fur, why look like you killed a small animal) but this is stupid. Bans on popular items don’t work. This is a value judgement thing. Really giving people dirty looks and shaking your head works well enough. There are bigger things this city needs to work on.
7
@MP
I live in the tropics so I don't get the fur-love, but it does seem to be a generational thing to some extent (?), with younger people not being so enamored... so things should get better gradually over time (hopefully).
3
Just imagine that a lynx, fox, bobcat or many other animals are either “live-trapped” or step in steel traps where they languish in pain until they are often strangled to avoid ruining their pelts.".....just for fashion. There are many other ways to flaunt success. Native Americans have a much more respectful relationships with animals in their lives. Let those rabbis and pastors go hunt and skin their desires.
8
@Lucinda Carr
The methods of trapping you describe are illegal in Canada, where much more fur is obtained,
3
Wearing fur is a mark of achievement...? Well, it's time to change our values then. Wearing a dead animal is a mark of achievement? Give me a break!
If you have to advertise achievement, then you have not really achieved much.
18
A few years ago I wanted to replace a Russian-style fur hat made of beaver. My original had been stolen.
I researched fur hats made from fox, beaver and other animals. There was absolutely no single method of killing the creatures that guaranteed no pain. Gassing, electrocution— whatever the method, a number of animals would escape it and either slowly die or be skinned alive.
I wear leather and eat meat. But I never replaced the hat.
You’ve got to start somewhere to stop hurting the animals. Some pastor has to have a fur hat? Really?
14
When your religious or cultural tradition entails senseless, avoidable cruelty to sentient beings, the tradition must end. Humans originally killed animals for the fur to protect themselves from the cold. We have since learned how to do so with other materials. There is no reason to kill an animal for his or her fur in the modern era. It is obscene to do so for the sake of vanity or to indulge an ancient superstition.
When I see someone wearing a fur coat, my immediate, visceral reaction is one of complete repugnance: the person wearing it lacks any empathy for the horrible suffering of animals who provided the fur.
This is not a question of racism or antipathy to any religious tradition. It is a question of protecting other living, sentient creatures for pointless, horrible, ugly and unthinkable cruelty.
17
@Zola - White Americans trying to lecture people about morality and fair play is, frankly, perverse. When people of color are not habitually discriminated against, I will consider joining the animal rights movement.
1
You have no idea if minks are sentient. Do you eat meat? Fish? Dairy? Honey? Those are animal products too.
1
Wow this is a tough one. On one hand you have science denying animal rights advocates who over anthropomorphize and on the other you have science denying people of faith who believe that their mythology should supersede all. Doesn't appear to be any good option here.
1
Rev. Green’s comments about animal welfare advocates attitudes regarding Black lives is very offensive. He suggests that he cannot concern himself with Black lives and animal welfare concurrently. I hope he decides to give it a try. I think he will find that these ideas are not mutually exclusive.
16
People like the look of fur, people like the look of leather. Leather, in particular, is a good product to use for shoes, belts, and purses.
Faux fur, faux leather are really horrible for the environment. Being plastic they last forever, and the shed fibers are toxic and getting everywhere.
Leather is a much more ecologically sound product. And leather/fur from animals raised for food is good management of resources.
America isn't going to give up eating meat. It's ridiculous to even suggest it. So let's use the skin and fur from those animals. It's wrong to waste.
Other animals such as coyotes are shot and killed because they have become a pest. Deer herds need to culled because otherwise, they starve. Using the fur from them makes sense too.
7
I have photos of myself with Barack and Michelle Obama. Thrill of a lifetime and cost a lot of money which was worth every penny. So if you're black and need to show what you've achieved, try spending your money on political photo ops first and see how you feel. Make those connections and show off those photos. Embrace life and the golden rule and leave the animals alone.
11
According to the World Health Organization over 15,000 children die every day of hunger, one every five seconds. Over 800 million people in the world are hungry as you read this.
After you’re done saving animals please consider focusing your effort on saving starving children.
19
Call me when the anti-abortionist crowd starts allowing teenagers to be taught about birth control.
4
In New York City, it's the fashion, like other cities, for people to layer their clothes. All those puffer jackets and coats layered with sweaters and jackets are so cool.
Fur is passe and outdated. With climate change it's easier to remove layers of clothes than to remove a dead furry animal off your back. Fur may have been fashionable in the old days as well as a status symbol that one could afford a mink coat. Times changes - let's not inflict pain on animals for the sake of vaniity. As humans, we don't live in a cave anymore.
8
@Beau
Fur is not just passe'. It's barbarous.
9
There is no reason for almost all of us in this modern world to be causing unnecessary suffering and death to animals. Just like humans gradually left of eating other humans, many of us now realize that animals are thinking, feeling beings who are just like us in the respect that we all want to be happy and free from suffering. If we can reduce the suffering and death of animals we should do it without question. It's called evolution and for the human race to be worthy of survival we need to continually widen our circle of compassion.
11
Then shouldn’t we also ban the sale of plastic (including polyester) based on the amount of plastic consumed by animals?
6
@Rick Zelinsky
Well said. Bravo.
1
I think we work towards helping everyone including animals be happy and free from suffering to our capacity. We can get stuck in the "What if..." Do what we can now and hopefully our capacity to help others will be more effective as we keep trying.
2
The fur industry is cruel start to finish. To hear religious people consider wearing fur as an achievement is misguided, another problem with organized religion. Killing an animal unless absolutely necessary, is thoughtless. Fur coats and hats are not necessities. People have options. The animal does not.
15
Claiming that something is a part of one's "culture" should not be a valid defense of a practice. The culture in which we live is the human culture, and it is the humane standard by which practices should be judged. There is already too much deference and privileging of religious practices, without blurring that notion to include matters of mere fashion and custom.
14
Perhaps limit sales to furs from invasive pest species. Nutria from North America, beaver, mink, and muskrat from South America, muskrat, American mink and raccoon-dog from Europe, rabbits and foxes from Australia, brushtail possums from New Zealand, and cats from all over. Conservation and trapping can and should go together.
6
This is a very nuanced topic. Rather than weighing in on all of these good arguments I would just add one new point .
Faux fur made by fast fashion industries causes a good deal of suffering too.
Because faux fur is made partly of petro chemicals it pollutes the environment when it ends up in the landfills. As well, The manufacture of such low priced garments is very polluting. These garments are not well made and will be thrown out in short order, as fast fashion cycles are alarming quick.
The Amount of toxic waste from the landfills is quite alarming and this particular kind of pollution degrades our soil and water thus threatening every animal and every creature on this earth, including mankind.
14
This is a very nuanced topic. Rather than weighing in on all of these good arguments I would just add one new point .
Faux fur made by fast fashion industries causes a good deal of suffering too.
Because faux fur is made partly of petro chemicals it pollutes the environment when it ends up in the landfills. As well, The manufacture of such low garments is very polluting. These garments are not well made and will be thrown out in short order, as fast fashion cycles are alarming quick.
The Amount of toxic waste from the landfills is quite alarming and this particular kind of pollution degrades our soil and water thus threatening every animal and every creature on this earth, including mankind.
5
Animal Rights Activists do care about both human and animal.
Fur Industry can still make money by making their store fur free and sell some Wully Outwear, Pantagonia jackets, etc.
3
Wearing a coat made from a leopard or other big cat should earn you a stretch in jail.
15
Animals are living, breathing, sentient, intelligent creatures and should be left alone in their habitat. We are overpopulating the earth as it is and soon many of these species will no longer exist. We can coexist without meat, fur, leather, etc. Stop the cruelty.
12
The other day I noticed that Barneys is selling horn products. If that's not illegal it sure should be.
5
The better equivalency would be call me when you care more about giving 55k to improve black lives than you do about buying a 55k coat so that you can brag about spending 55k on a coat.
21
I have no empathy for "cultural fur." Research shows that these animals are sentient creatures. Their lives trump the superficial construct of fur "culture.". Use faux fur.
9
The animal rights movement is guilt-free white privilege. Put people first.
8
I wonder if this headline reflects a true dichotomy or one dreamt up by a fur-industry publicist and fanned by The NY Times. It’s hard to imagine too many ministers, of any race, willing to fight so hard for their right to conspicuously consume.
4
@AJ
You're kidding, right? Ever been to a MTV mega church?
6
A great middle ground would be to pass a tax on fur sales that phases in over a few years (25%, 50% etc.). It would give the fur shops time to adapt their businesses and shift to other products.
Fur sales will slow over time and for those that still want fur, they can buy it, but will have to pay for it. The tax proceeds can then be used for animal welfare projects.
Everybody wins.
Side note, if your pastor is promoting materialism and needless cruelty, you need a new pastor.
12
@Dan
Once such a tax is passed, the city will become the biggest promoter of the product. It will be impossible to get rid of.
To quote one of my old blackjack books, "No one ever got voted out of office for taxing a casino".
2
@Alan
That's funny. Good one.
I am a vegetarian and have never worn furs. But why wipe out by fiat all the people depending on a local industry? Do not the furriers workers lives and livelihoods have value? Let the declining business die a natural death . . . .
14
To people like Mr. Samuels, killing living beings simply for their skin is a fashion statement. To others, who understand that *all* living beings have an inalienable right to life, it's a murder trophy. Also, too many people use their 'culture' as an excuse to murder animals, saying it's important to maintain 'who they are.' Japan has to kill whales, because it's 'part of their culture,' China has to kill and eat dogs, because it's 'part of their culture,' Native Americans in the northwest have to club to death sea otters for their fur, because doing so is 'part of their culture.'
We, as a species, need to quit having murder be part of our collective culture. As it is, we're killing billions of animals a year, and hastening the extinction of over a million others. When will our bloodthirst ever be quenched? When will the we ever have our fill of torturing every other living being on the planet? Perhaps not until we're gone will other species besides our be able to live in peace, and that is very, very sad.
70
@Regina Valdez
You do understand that the hundreds of thousands of years of human animal product use and consumption has allowed you the luxury of of holding that opinion.
We have been able to progress and develop the society we have today because of how we have been able to cultivate and use animals. We should have to stop cold turkey to appease a subset of the population.
6
@Anthony It's called evolution. Perhaps you've heard of it? You could say what you just said about slavery, oppression of women or any other despicable thing that humans have done in the past.
9
Yet another example of "activists" taking away a reasonable freedom of choice. Like gay marriage, vaping, plastic bags, Round Up scares and on and on and on... If you don't like (name your choice) don't have one or buy one. It's really that simple.
21
@-George- just plain old fashioned gross...how about u sit down & watch real films shot undercover at fur farms why don't u check out how these poor animals live, why don't u check out how they're killed- in such humane ways-electrocuted &/or strangled..& why ? so somebody can make a profit & sell the product to somebody who does not care what happened to the poor animal ..the beautiful fur coat looks much better on the animal who was born with it...
32
@NormaKate Animal husbandry has been around for thousands and thousands of years. Both for food and clothing. There is nothing wrong with it.
It’s time to have a more nuanced conversation about the material, one that goes beyond simply FOR or AGAINST, and acknowledges the ethical nuances involved.
Yes, some aspects of the fur industry are absolutely horrific; living creatures suffer miserably for the greed of others. But the ugly truth is that this applies not only to fur, but to myriad other materials in the apparel industry—and sometimes those creatures suffering are human workers.
The question of whether fur can ever be ethically sound is one animal rights activists effectively silence, with a resounding “no.” and that's not nuanced at all. But not all fur is created equally. Fur, like so many other natural materials, is not just black and white. Here, we attempt to distinguish some of the gray areas.
The International Fur Trade Federation says that around 15 percent of fur comes from animals such as beavers, raccoons, foxes, coyotes, and muskrats that are wild, as opposed to farmed. So 85% comes from humanely farmed animals.
So, again, I say if you don't like fur coats -- don't buy one! And please don't blanket the entire industry as brutal. It's just not the case.
19
@George
I assume this comment is meant to be cute.
But to be clear, plastic affects everyone. Poison in the environment, such as Round Up, affects everyone.
Vaping - yeah, whatever. If people want to inhale chemicals directly into their lungs and and not really affect those around them, then have at it. There are too many people as it is, so no loss.
9
Something that is based on actions taken in LA and San Francisco is automatically suspect.
12
@Vince
Based on my experiences in those communities, as well as New York City, I'd say it's automatically likely to succeed in NYC, as well. And that's a compliment.
5
Please ban the air and noise polluting helicopters flying over our NYC parks instead! Every month more and more appear, entertaining tourists while New Yorkers suffer.
18
That does it; I'm moving to NYC so I can vote for Corey Johnson and start a Chinchilla petting zoo.
7
Ban anything as long as "my group" is granted an exemption - This is the new normal for liberals.
5
These "holier than thou" do gooders are hateful, bigoted, lunatic, and well financed zealots.
Zealots of any stripe are very, very dangerous!
5
This title is click bait and offensive. You mention black ministers are against the ban of furs, but only quote a single minister and a rapper ? How many BLACK ministers oppose the ban and what % do they make up of all African American ministers in the city? I’m asking because the article doesn’t touch on these facts, but it does make a blanket statement about a group of religious leaders. Also you mention Jewish leaders also oppose the ban, but they get no mention in the article. Is that because it doesn’t play with the clear stereotype type you are propagating ?
5
What if there are black ministers? Would that make the "fur culture" more morally acceptable than if white ministers were objecting?
@John
Pretty sure most church-going black folks in NYC as well as anywhere else would think this show-off pastor deserves to get a new job. Maybe on a mink farm.
3
That self-righteous pastor really gets me. It is possible to care about BOTH the sufferings of black people AND black minks, and to fight cruelty and oppression in whatever form they take. But his insecure ego needs to be stroked by wrapping himself in the pelts of tortured animals. Shame on this hypocrite!
14
Easy solution: ban all furs except for cat and dog furs. There are too many pets already, especially in cities and nowadays, even dead, they take up too much rooms (pet cemeteries, you know about those).
If Hasidic jews need black furs for their hats, they are welcome to my neighbor's two black cats. You want a fur coat: try spaniel with a poodle trim.
Several problems solved: those who need furs can have them; we can take a walk without having to watch where we step; we can plant flowers and vegetables without ending with a glove full of cat poop.
It's a win-win-win solution (can we ever get tired of winning?), and one that will powerfully contribute to making America clean again (MACA).
4
@Fran
Correction: too much room (not "rooms").
A lynx coat he bought for the event.
That about says it all.
A lynx is a protected species in Canada because it is endangered.
But of course, that means nothing has long as you are
wearing Status.
9
I think everybody should just wear generic gray fleece. Tops and bottoms, preferably shapeless so that gender is invisible. And cut their hair to a uniform 1/2 inch length. And wear rubber shoes, and eat tofu on rice 3x a day (no salt, please, it's harmful). Don't drink anything stronger than water, unless it's a purgative. Beat yourself with a birch whip three times a day to apologize for wearing synthetic fleece which is made from oil, and rubber that come from injuring rubber trees.. Makeup might be bad for your skin and promotes gender stereotypes, so just don't even think about it. Sleep on the hard floor, because growing cotton for futons is destructive to the environment. Don't even think about a conventional mattress -- remember all the unfortunate people who don't have one. Don't bathe, because it wastes water and soap. Don't brush your teeth, because if you eat right it isn't necessary. Don't read books, because paper and ink harm the environment, and some of the ideas in books may threaten offend you. Don't use electricity, because it harms the environment. Likewise home heating. And don't expression any emotions to other people, because you might hurt someone's feelings.
Once you have mastered all this, you are ready to lie down and quietly die. You have achieved self-hating perfection. Congratulations. We promise to leave your body out for the crows and vultures.
Now the rest of us can get on with our normal lives.
10
@Duane McPherson
Chinchillas' natural lifespan is 15-25 years. Do you consider the people keeping tiny animals in tiny cages for their entire lives (presumably less than 15-25, only until large enough to make feeding them further pointless) and then skinning them so that some anorexic model can strut down a runway with a couple dozen on her skinny shoulders for the entertainment of some fat ego-driven preacher is a good use of our human faculties and resources? If so, I don't call that too normal.
4
Hurting animals for any reason is cruel and violent. Tradition of any sort, religious or cultural is no reason or excuse for wearing fur, eating meat, fishing, hunting, or any other monstrous human behavior.
Our violence and disrespect for the world is the cause for Man's cruelty to ourselves. People who can't or won't see this are basically in denial.
Have you ever watched a mother wolf suffering in an leg trap while her pups wait for her to return? How about a seal slaughter with iron clubs? A dolphin slaughter? Ever watched animal treatment and slaughter in factories of death?
On and on it goes for the justification of mankind's dominion over the Earth fostered by religious nonsense. Until mankind tames his out-of-control disrespect and selfishness, don't be too surprised with our violence toward each other.
It is exactly the same thing.
12
I’m against sumptuary laws and laws that police what people wear in general . Could be fur and leather, or headscarves, baggy pants and short skirts. These animals are not endangered species and there are ways to raise awareness to reduce people wanting to wear skins. These types of laws are not evenly applied and we all know who will be singled out once they go into effect.
5
@LaFronde
Who, LaFronde? The poor people wearing those expensive furs? That makes zero sense, but thanks for the vocabulary builder.
I'm trying to think of a more appropriate sentence to use it in now, but it's a bit of a head scratcher. Help us out with more specific examples from your basis of apparent experience with these sumptuary matters. I can't think of one single way to influence someone lusting for a fur coat to change their ways, other than by making it unavailable to them, at least where I live.
And NYC will begin shutting down the thousand plus steakhouses within the five boroughs when ....??
9
@Mike Esposito. Yes, because food and wearing fur are the same thing, is that your point? Making animals suffer and die for a vain, vulgar, empty purpose is absurd. No person NEEDS fur. The animals that have the fur need it. Elephants need their tusks. Rhinos need their horns - made of the same matter as human fingernails. Do you get it now?
4
Put people first? Obviously we do - at our own peril. What a ridiculous argument. People don’t NEED fur coats, but the animals do. What repulsive disregard - treating these animals like things, rather the living, breathing, creatures that deserve respect and kindness, not suffering and pain for an empty, vain, vulgar purpose.
Wear faux fur please. It looks and feels lovely and will be just as enjoyable.
13
@Denise
On the other hand, if you enjoy eating rabbit stew, what are you going to do with the pelt?
4
@Fran
When I was in high school, all the girls wanted "bunny furs" to wear to the prom with our formals. It's doubtful such garments exist now, and teen girls certainly wouldn't want one, if they did. Maybe we are getting better on this score.
If you killed, skinned and cooked Bugs Bunny, you are probably going to make his feet into key chains and his fur into something useful, too, I hope. I suspect Kaufman's Furs in NYC is selling no bunny furs, or lucky rabbit's foot key chains, however.
A West Virginian I knew was used to eating squirrels and all kinds of wild animals he was taught to hunt. However, when his father decided it would be a good lesson to carve up his hutch-dwelling rabbit and serve it for dinner, he never ate another wild animal. Even farmers sometimes have trouble with eating animals they have come to know and care about. Some of us are funny that way.
1
If Los Angeles can do it, New York can ban fur too.
6
The pictures glamorize the fur industry in NY. I wish that the NYT showed pictures of the animals that are exploited. That process is not glamorous and its censorship permits its denial.
10
I used to eat at a diner in Inglewood called Panns. Recently prominent for a Cardi B video it would be packed with elderly African American women coming from church on Sunday. Even on a warm day fur was very popular. Long coats and matching hats were at most booths.
Meanwhile in Beverly Hills protesters would throw blood on white women wearing fur. The AA church ladies never had blood thrown on them.
1
Small groups sometimes are able to convince politicians to introduce policies and laws which only benefit themselves but which affect nearly nobody else because they offer political support that is attractive to politicians. Los Angeles never was much of a place for furs and those who had them seldom wore them. New York is a different story. The fur ban is not going to last. Except for protected species of furry animals, that is.
Animal rights people are advocating for humane treatment of animals, and that effort has made people more concerned about cruelty to animals. But many of them want animals to be treated in the law like humans, which is not reasonable. They call the eating of meat, murder. They want animals to not be used for any purposes by mankind. No horseback riding, even. For that reason they don’t gain a lot of supporters. While most people want to stop cruelty towards animals, they are not going to stop using animals for all kinds of purposes, including for food and other useful products. That is reality.
5
This would be an incredible START to consideration of the animal kingdom in our actions as humans on this planet. Our evolving life on this planet is wiping out species left and right, a big part of this problem is that we have zero consideration of the animal kingdom. Please, let's stop this completely unnecessary practice.
16
@Yo. To make matters worse, WE are part of the animal kingdom. Destructive, cruel, impulsive, arrogant and stupid. And ultimately acting against our own best interests and longevity.
5
@Yo
What about the plant kingdom? Are we grateful enough for plants? Shouldn't we treat them a little better? Growing potatoes just so we can eat them, isn't that unethical too?
Apart from that, aren't roaches and mosquitoes animals too? Where do you draw the line?
2
Well, let's be civil, everybody. Uh, the goal is a better world for everybody? Or as many as possible.
The Fur activists are annoying and intolerant. But with 1 million species going extinct by some very close date, I can't disagree. The point is that if we stop hunting animals for fur, perhaps one or two species would survive. This is serious. And don't be zealots.
3
@Jim Hassinger I'm pretty sure most fur animals are farmed these days.
5
Fur for warmth has definitely been replaced. Fur as a style statement is outrageous but so fringe now. Recognize that humans are causing mass biological extinction of thousands (millions) of species now - mega downer! We are in no position to be cavalier about furry creature lives. The fur trade tortures the lovely animals before offing them, immoral and cruel in the extreme. I can’t endorse “faux fur” because synthetic fibers generally involve plastics or toxic chemicals also bad for the environment. Perhaps only fur sourced from meat trade? And upcycled fur (as allowed in proposed ban) - there should be plenty of it.
3
To the animal it makes no difference if it meets its end as a hamburger or as a coat or handbag.
If that hamburger or steak or handbag or belt is OK, then so should be the fur.
8
@Joshua Schwartz
But burly brown beef cows don't really have soft shiny pretty fur in many shades like tiny chinchillas, you see! So killing 200 or so of the little fellas to make a coat for some anorexic runway queen to wear for a few minutes once or twice a year from the limo to the lounge is probably necessary. An X-large human, whoa, perhaps the gent would like a matching hat? maybe 400 chinchillas? I really don't know, let's hear from one of the makers - how many chinchillas in a full length coat?
@Quite Contrary It makes absolutely no difference to the animals involved if it is killing 200 chinchillas for 1 person or 200 chickens for 200 people. It is still 200 dead animals. One can make do without the chicken sandwich, just as one can make do without the coat.
The life of a chicken is no less important than the life of the "little fellas" or chinchilla, even if your average chicken or cow is not cute.
If you eat that chicken thigh or breast or sit on that leather chair than you cannot object to the coat.
6
@Joshua Schwartz
Yes, I can and I do object most strenuously to the coat. Your false equivalency does not matter to me at all. Wearing fur in NYC and most all urban environs is a fatuous display of wealth, ego and represents as well as entails cruelty to scores of helpless animals, nothing more nor less. More blatantly even than Melania's jacket, it loudly announces "I don't care about animals." That coat is repulsive to me, as is the wearer, maker and seller of it.
Chickens, on the other hand, serve a needed purpose - they feed us efficiently and effectively and sometimes deliciously. We need to eat. We can limit the amount of meat we eat, but not all of us are going to achieve complete vegetarianism. We don't know how to, we lack the skills, equipment, knowledge and time to revamp our habits of a lifetime. We have canines; and our bodies require protein. These factors are evidence that eating meat, although not mandatory, is definitely a natural urge. Maybe the present generation is a transitional one to raising people more adaptable to vegetarian lifestyles and menus.
I've known and visited chicken farmers and sold chickens and fish at a farmer's market. Chickens, although quite stupid, are nonetheless sentient creatures worthy of humane treatment, e.g. not kept in the dark, crowded factories that the big name chicken producers utilize. Free range methods of raising them produce some mighty fine eggs and dinners. They serve a purpose no fur coat ever will.
2
In his day and age there are many substitutes for fur and many "fake furs" are practically indistinguishable from the real thing. There is no point banning fur for Eskimos but there is for status conscious New Yorkers. Animal fur as fashion is barbaric. Fantasy TV characters not withstanding.
6
This idea of competing cultures is interesting. My grandfather was a steer farmer and would have been a bit bemused by the emotion that some people bring into the issue. So too would many Native Americans, many of whom kill animals personally, live alongside them and worship them. My father hunted deer in his youth and then had a change of heart after my sister, aged 5, saw the movie “Bambi” and had a heart-to-heart with him. I guess I have always respected the opinions of the people who actually live and sometimes kill animals more than those who simply read about it all. There are a lot of cultures out there. Which one prevail? That seems to be the question at the end of every article.
4
@Claudia U.
There are very few steer farmers or hunters living in NYC, so it seems appropriate that city folks decide what they want sold in their city. They pay the taxes, they make the laws. They're not telling Eskimos or people in Montana what to do, just telling the locals and visitors what's for sale. Let Amazon sell fur coats if they wish to. Not too many $55K coat buyers for online stores, though, I suppose. Probably the retail experience is important in the skin trade.
Our evolution sure does make us pious. I guess we’ll all live forever.
2
I don't think it's unreasonable to restrict the sale of fur to older garments. It encourages creative reuse of clothing that might otherwise sit in someone's closet or be discarded. And the practice of killing animals for a status symbol is inhumane. Leather is different, as it comes from animals people raise for food, so it's making use of other parts of those animals.
9
I think I’m part of the crowd who believes if you don’t like fur, don’t buy/wear it. I hear these black ministers. Fur has always been a status symbol. If you don’t believe it, check out Game of Thrones. As for Hasidim, they too have right to their mink trimmed hats. Leave them alone & stop being silly NYC.
16
@Prada I suggest you look at some of the footage about the cruelty done to animals in the name of vanity before you comment so blithely.
9
@Prada
I love fur - especially on animals. But...
The black ministers are just trying in vain, and it really is VAIN to think they can compete with the hat ladies in their churches. The hat ladies won a long time ago.
Fur on men is sooo bad. Just look at what happened to the drug kingpin Frank Lucas, who was outed by NYC drug task force police when wearing his full length chinchilla coat and hat ensemble to the Ali/Frasier fight! (You can look it up, or watch Denzel Washington portrayal of him in American Gangster.) And leave the fur babies alone.
4
There is no room in our world for the slaughter of animals for clothes.
17
What about ALL leather products??? Forget about those.
1
@Judy Petersen
Says who..? YOU?
Best bubble dwelling hand wringer click-chum of a Times headline ever. Oh the tribal allegiance, who's side am I supposed to take?!!
9
lets use feral cat fur since feral cats are responsible for killing millions of birds a year
6
Hey, if you have a problem with fur don't wear it. Don't tell the rest of us what to do.
15
... and if you have a problem with drunk driving don’t do it. Don’t tell the rest of us what to do!
2
@MIKEinNYC
Nobody's telling you what to do, MikeinNYC, just where you won't be able to do it. Try Westchester; apparently they have a wide selection of fur status wear up thar.
@Moi ....and if you have a problem with murder, or kidnapping, don't do it. Don't tell the rest of us what to do!
2
Any use of animals for commercial gain is repugnant in a world where there are alternatives. I suppose we can allow for some sheep shearing and some dairy -- but really people, who else but medievalists or nouveau riche idiots think it necessary to wear fur in New York City. GTFU.
17
Alas, the most popular alternative is polyester, which is toxic during the extraction of fossil fuels from which it’s made, and toxic when washed (it can shed microplastics), and toxic when disposed of in landfills and waterways.
6
Ever hear of wool, cotton, canvas, hemp? These are alternatives not made out of plastic.
1
Isn’t religious culture something else. This thinking is what destroys species, jungles, conservation, and on and on....
Mankind justifies everything bad, with religion.
Maybe we ought recognize No Religion. Grow up, face your existential fears and recognize the enormous negativity of religion.
Face reality.
13
@Mark 189
Couldn't agree more, there is no sky wizard.
8
What next, a law banning meat sales? The "moral thing to do" is to convince people, verbally, not to buy fur. Forcing moral choices on unwilling people has no moral value.
9
@Ilya Shlyakhter "Forcing moral choices on unwilling people has no moral value." Ask a mink. It might disagree.
3
I would like the city council to focus on important issues, i.e., vaccines, housing, transportation.
My clothing choice is mine alone and does not require government interference for me to make moral decisions. That is the issue for me. It is a long debate and involves the slaughter of all animals whether for food or for finery.
18
I say ban leather goods including belts, shoes and purses. Why use an organic product when we can use a petrochemically derived product which will last for eons?
8
And leather couches, leather seats in cars, leather boots, leather book bindings.
What are we doing even considering banning fur sales in NYC. If you oppose wearing fur, then don’t. However, there are many people who love wearing it. Not only is warm on bitter cold days, it is elegant and beautiful.
23
@Christopher Stevenson [A fur coat] "is elegant and beautiful." Well, yes, if you don't constantly register the fact that you are wearing the outer bodies--and yes, sometimes the heads--of hundreds of little animals. It's pitiable, especially among the religious leaders of the human community. Vanitas, vanitas.
3
Animals need their fur. People do not!
There is no excuse for wearing a coat made of animals who have suffered their entire lives.
25
“When the activists are more concerned about saving black lives than black minks, let me know.”
Based on the comments here comparing fur to American slavery, apparently black lives aren’t any better than animals’ lives. And that’s the real sticking point for me about animal rights activism—sorry, but yes, me and my fellow humans deserve more rights and respect than animals. Animals and humans aren’t equal, and the comparison is hurtful and offensive. To think otherwise is to ignore both history and current events (guess I’m equal to livestock who don’t get a say over their reproduction either!).
Banning fur in a single city that’s part of a huge metro area (and a metro area that includes different states, to boot!) is ridiculous and little more than symbolic gesture that will have very real, unsymbolic consequences for those who lose their jobs.
16
@AB. All sentient life deserves respect and rights. Your claim that they do not is hurtful and offensive.
14
So “AB,” we should leave it to the enlightened minds in, shall we say, Tuscaloosa and Chickamunga to foster change? Sorry, change comes from New Yorkers blessed with the moral center to effect it.
10
@AB Actually what they are saying is that at one point some human beings were treated as animals based on the color of their skin, and it was okay to torture and enslave unfeeling animals (some of whom were human beings) with no ethical considerations because some things don't deserve compassion. We no longer accept that some people are not people based on the color of their skin , but you seem to be the one ignoring history if you're OK with the rest of the "some living things don't deserve compassion" logic. The answer is that whomever is drawing the line is probably wrong. In this case it is obvious these animals are suffering; compassion is something you only have by giving it, you can't keep it for yourself.
8
When confronted by people so worried about animals as to make the choice to be vegan or harass people who wear fur, I say, "Get a real cause!" I love animals, but until we have solved world hunger, eliminated racism, ended chronic illiteracy, and found a cure for cancer, I just can't worry about them. How about channeling all of that energy into that? Here's the answer: it's safer and maybe, just maybe, they can feel as though they've accomplished something, without having to worry about human problems - poverty tops the list - that can be far more challenging, but desperately need our attention - and resources - nonetheless.
12
@Anonymous Vegans can do everything you pretend you think they should be doing.. Claiming that they can’t is offensive. Being a vegan has nothing to do with it.
10
We should outlaw all cats and dogs in society and redirect all the resources we put into dogs and cats to go towards feeding and housing the homeless. People are a higher priority than cats and dogs. At what point should we place the cruelty of animals over the cruelty of human beings? When we confuse that line, global warming should take over and move us on to the next evolution of what we are to become.
4
@Rick
Some homeless people have dogs. The other day I saw a young lady and her dog, who was wearing a slick yellow dog-size raincoat, begging in the most affluent neighborhood of Baltimore, Roland Park. (I'm pretty sure the coat was donated, and it was definitely not fur.)
Would you have us separate this girl and her dog?
Most of us would feel sorrier and more concerned for the dog than the girl, right off the bat, if we were honest. I know most of us would find it easier to give the dog a home. So there you are, we humans love animals. It's one another that we're not too keen about. And that's a fact.
9
@ Rick. Rhetorical questions are of no real purpose. They say nothing. Humans do value human life above animal life. Otherwise, we’d be wearing human skin too, not just animal skins. And - We will always kill an animal before we let it kill a human. That will never change. Have no idea what you’re talking about. I thought the story was about not killing animals for their fur when we don’t need it to stay warm. Wearing fur is vanity.
3
@Rick, I know your comment is a joke but I’ll play along anyway. Let me ask at what point will people start taking responsibility for themselves?
Not all but a good portion of homelessness is brought about by people making the wrong choices in life. Shouldn’t be on everyone else to find a solution when most have to worry about their own families or parents for that matter.
We eat animals but can't wear their skins?
4
@Dan
We need to eat. Go to the mirror and look at your teeth. While there, observe: you are not covered in fur. Thus, you must find something to keep your tender skin protected. It need not be fur, or even a skin, however! Options abound.
5
@Dan
Have you eaten a leopard, mink or chinchilla lately? As soon as you can report back on that, feel free to wear their skins.
8
Why not ban meat as well. Just think of all the animals that have to die!
8
Hope th city bans furs. Find it ludicrous that black ministers are opposing the ban on the basis that fur is a signifier to their congregations that they’ve made it. Shallow and superficial and seems completely antithetical to their Christian faith and beliefs,
33
At one time binding the feet of Chinese girls was "traditional" and a "cultural" practice. Thank god it is now gone.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-disturbing-reason-for-the-ancient-chinese-practice-of-foot-binding-2015-9
Banning animal fur, obtained in a very cruel manner (that is a fact which anyone can find out easily)
http://www.humanedecisions.com/the-ugly-truth-about-the-fur-industry-fur-farms-and-fur-trapping/
Wearing fur has NOTHING to do with hate crimes or "killing Blacks". It is a way to show off wealth.
Yes, there ARE and have been for years, faux leather belts, shoes, and probably hats such as Ultra Orthodox Jews wear, could be fabricated as well.
And there are also faux fur coats though I do realize the price and the "prestige" of owning/ wearing such things is in great part the value of it.
13
What difference is there between raising animals for the fur they grow vs the meat they grow?
With cattle and venison there’s a market for both products, hide and flesh. But no reasonable person finds it cruel to eat a turkey, chicken, clam, oyster and discard feathers or shells.
So why is raising a mink or fox for its fur and discarding the flesh considered cruel? It’s an entirely arbitrary standard.
There is a relevant moral position on how the animal is killed. Clubbing wild baby seals to death is demonstrably more cruel than the use of inert gas asphyxiation on farm-raised fur bearing animals.
2
@ mobotocrazy. We don’t need animal furs to stay warm and we no longer need to eat animals to be fed. Vegans believe that if you have a choice to kill a sentient being or not - don’t. They do not believe the Inuit shouldn’t eat meat when they have no alternatives. We all make a choice.
5
Le maquereau must have his fur coat to ride around in.
1
"Black ministers have staged protests, saying that for many African-Americans, wearing furs is a treasured hallmark of achievement"
NOT THIS AFRICAN AMERICAN!
54
Excuse me. Where in Leviticus does it say, "And the Lord commands the People of Israel to walk around Brooklyn with a ring of slaughtered animal fur encircling their holy heads." I am as much a Jew as these people but they are simply, mad. Another group of extremists guised as God-fearing but clad in the armor that is anything but. Like all their fellow nuts on this earth the form of the extreme that becomes the tinder of war.
39
I happened to look around to see what people were wearing on our three recent frigid days. What was Everyone wearing? Down coats. PETA has come out often against the harm they claim down coats do to ducks or geese.
OK, next. If not fur or down, what is the next warmest thing? Wool. PETA has come out often against the harm they claim shearing does to sheep.
Next? Synthetics? Made from processed foreign oil. Is that really what we want to be our only choice to keep from freezing in the winter?
Be careful what you wish for.
28
@akamai
Well - interesting! Let's ask PETA - what should we wear for coats in winter?
2
Synthetic fabrics kill thousands of times more animals (and negatively affects human health) than the number of animals killed for fur (and leather). One has to really analyze the cause and affect of every decision, not just the ones that have an programmed emotional response.
12
@Matthew Waldman
Honey, it's not all about the numbers. Moral decisions seldom rely on statistics, which are understood by few and manipulated freely by all.
5
What's wrong with cotton?
6
in the cold environs of vermont there is a saying that cotton kills in cold weather since it retains moisture and has no insulating value
6
I absolutely agree that the treatment of animals in the fur trade is cruel, inhumane, and barbaric. I would never ever consider owning or wearing a garment made of fur.
I absolutely oppose the ban on the fur trade in NYC, the cost is high but so is the price of freedom.
8
@mlb4ever
If we had the capacity and will to police the humane operation of mink farms and fur animal slaughter, I might see them as equivalent to cattle farms, though I still wouldn't like the idea or buy fur. However, I think the evidence and likelihood is that there is not now, never has been and never will be any such monitoring practiced.
Freedom to abuse animals without regulation, and needlessly - purely to increase profits or satisfy some sadistic impulses is not a freedom I value, at all. Your construct is thus more than a little passing peculiar to me. It is anti-social and immoral, in fact.
7
If Speaker Johnson really believes that, I'd expect him to shut down fast food places like McDonald's and Burger King next. A lot of cows and chickens have to be slaughtered for those dishes, and their treatment isn't any better than many of the animals raised for their furs.
13
@Pete in Downtown
Never thought I'd find myself defending the golden arches, but many years ago Mickey D's hired Temple Grandin, a well-known humane animal treatment expert, to advise them on better methods for their slaughter operations. As a result, she succeeded in reforming the process to be much more humane and simultaneously more sanitary for beef consumers.
About the chicken and industrial beef farms, you are probably right in the majority of cases, but the NY Council can't police all food production in other states, or even in NY state. That belongs to USDA, Temple Grandin and all of us, as we exercise our dining/shopping choices. And look how much trouble we're already giving the Council over one tiny niche they can control! It's hellacious to make change happen on a large scale in our present globally-distributed food system... Which makes small scale symbolic efforts like this all the more precious and rare and laudable, in my opinion. Gotta start somewhere.
4
@Quite Contrary Great fighting words!
@Pete in Downtown
I wish he would.
1
This is sheer idiocy. What's next, banning leather shoes, belts, and handbags?
15
The fur looks better on the animal who grew it. We don’t keep buffaloes for buffalo hunters to kill so they didn’t have to change their traditions. If you have a god who created all of us animals, I suspect he would ask you to care for and love animals and not kill them for your egos.
13
You don't need your stupid status symbols. They are pathetic and cruel.
20
I still remember my mother wearing her fur coat on the licin room couch while she watched television. She had been made too frightened to wear it in public after PETA began both verbally and physically attacking people who wore them (mostly small women like her, of course).
My feelings then were exactly the same as they are now:
If you have to frighten elderly women to win your point, then you are not the good guy in your cause. You are not on the right side of your argument... or history.
11
@itsmecraig
What was she watching on TV in her fur coat? Something tells me it wasn't "Animal Planet". Maybe she saved a few therms on the heat, good for her. I cut up an old coat and had a crafty friend make mink lined slippers out of it - they were fabulous! Mink pillows are good, too. And anybody remember muffs? Lots of uses for elderly fur.
2
@itsmecraig I don't believe in any group that uses "morals" to justify assaulting any people in any way, including verbally.
6
Some people are scared of their own shadow.
How about a compromise? You can wear fur if you go out and trap the critters yourself.
For what it’s worth, I believe NYC was a vanguard in banning the sale of game meat way back when. This played a major role in decreasing overharvest and poaching. Now, if you want to eat game meat you must hunt it yourself or know someone who does. Perhaps this proposed ban on fur will help decrease the rather cruel commercial harvest of furbearers? And again, if you really want the commodity, you’d be free to set off into the woods upstate and harvest it yourself.
4
"People first" This idea that we're the only sentient beings, and animals are here for our explotation, is why the moral fabric of this world is coming apart.
19
If you are going to ban fur, why stop there?
You need to ban any commercial items made of leather. Remember? - the skin of animals.
Animals bred and then slaughtered solely for their skin.
5
I don't wear fur and never will. That being said, I will never offend or abuse someone who does.
Unless Mr. Johnson and friends can think of a way to provide those in the fur industry with a new livelihood, he'd better let this one go. Besides, people who want furs will shop in other states or online.
The poorest excuse is using fur to flaunt your status. I can't think of anything more obnoxious. It has the opposite effect of impressing me.
6
Oh, please... if having a fur garment is so crucial to your status or your beliefs or your precious image, and you can’t buy it in NYC, then go to NJ or CT to buy it. I’m sure, if you can afford the price of a fur garment, you can surely afford the price of whatever mode of transportation can carry you to a fur selling location.
On the other hand, wool garments can keep you warm in winter and the wool producers (sheep) can keep up that supply year after year. But, of course, wearing wool is just too common.
The only people who should be entitled to wear fur are people who truly need to fight off the bitter cold of winter - the homeless. So, all of you fur fans, go ahead and buy furs for yourselves, but show us how generous and empathetic you are to the less fortunate and spring for a fur for people who really need help to stay warm.
7
I wear fur not fur not for status, but because:
- It is natural & biodegradable unlike polyester, which is made of earth-destroying fossil fuel and remains in landfills & oceans forever
- A good, well-maintained coat can last for decades so it doesn’t enter the waste stream for years
- I buy my furs secondhand so no manufacturing pollution involved as with new garments
-it is warm & beautiful
5
Good idea!
Also, how about no more animal skin for:
fancy pumps
sandals and/or flip flops
hand bags
purses
wallets
boots
belts
galoshes
gloves
car seats
couches
chairs
letter opener sheaths
table tops
suspenders
corsets
golf club handles
Please save our hides!
Daryl from the often ridiculous rural road side vegetable stand
10
Book bindings.
Being able to marry girls when they were under ten years old, stoning women who had committed adultery and burning them at the stake for heresy used to be “culture/religion/tradition” (with people who made profits from these things) and we did away with it. It’s called moral evolution. Let’s move past this too. People are too attached to the past. Traditions of repeating immoral things is not an excuse to keep doing them!
17
In the future the environmental impact of raising animals for food will become less and less. It takes a tremendous amount of water and resources to raise these animals which is one more hit on our planet. The fur industry has always been barbaric and cruel; however people don't want to look and therefore they will never see that. Our planet is the garbage can for our immediate gratification.
6
Maybe its just me, but isn't the moral thing to allow people to decide for themselves? If you don't like fur clothing, don't wear it. If you're offended by people who do, don't associate with them. This is what tolerance and diversity are all about, people of different cultures coexisting peacefully.
10
Today it's possible to make fake fur and there is no need to kill animals. The fur that is imported is from animals who are kept in very cruel conditions.
People will always resist change no matter what, and this is no exception.
8
Alas, fake fur is made from earth-destroying fossil fuels — toxic during extraction, toxic when cleaned & washed, as it sheds micro plastics, and toxic when disposed of and ends up in our water, soil, air & food.
5
Keeping animals in horrible conditions is immoral no matter what the end product is. I could accept using some animals for sustenance so as long as they are treated humanely. If those same animals could be used for clothing then I could see making an exception. But treating animals horribly for fashion (or for any purpose) is not acceptable. I am sure 'men of God' could be made to understand.
6
Problem is that the alternative to fur — most often synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those animal species you want to protect.
7
@Madeline I know it’s controversial, but I support the wearing of fur for several reasons: 1. The alternative being proposed (fake fur) is made of fossil fuels. It is not biodegradable. It ends up in our environment as micro-plastics, which migrate into soil, air, water & our food 2. Unlike synthetics, fur is biodegradable 3. A good, well maintained fur can last for decades before it enters the waste stream. 4. The fur industry in NYC provides good jobs to s Problem is that the alternative to fur — most often synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those animal species you so treasure. kill Problem is that the alternative to fur — most often synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those animal species you want to protect. ed & unskilled workers.
So maybe don't allow these fossil fuel derived products that are 'killing our planet' either?
7
@Matt
Isn’t wool one alternative to fur and one that is not destructive of the planet? Maybe people need to let go of the idea that fur grants them some sort of immutable status or that shows them as somehow superlative. Do you want to be warm in winter ? You have alternatives to fur. Of course, wool products don’t look like mink or fox or ermine, but, jeez, get over yourself. Let it go and stop trying to look chic or hot or sooo fabulously important by wearing dead pelts.
As a man of African DNA mainly, I am still opposed to killing anything for adornment. For my black brothers, sisters and anyone else to get their egos massaged by wearing fur is morally repugnant to me, internally.
Cultural traditions may bind societies together but even all of those should/must be evaluated as humans try to survive the climate disasters that we presently face.
As for killing animals for nutrition, each day I am pulled closer to the idea of going vegan. It is the climate wise thing to do, according to all the latest scientific data. I am deeply repulsed by killing the prize animals for luxury of things like sushi or sharkfin soup.
As for all the hoopla that the animal lovers raise about every dog in the world, I am pushed way back from that crowd also. I like dogs but not certain breeds, breeds that were semi-scientifically bred to be killers are on my list to never be on or near my controlled space AND I will avoid with a passion being near them or the people who love them.
I conclude with, let's not make this one more racial/ethnic, religious or gender dividing point, please bring the level of the rhetoric down and search for an amicable solution, such as a timetable or fur-free zones. It deeply bothers me that many can be more heated up about this than they are about the safety of our children at schools. Educate, people, educate and learn how to be reasonable.
20
"Are politicians going to tell us what to do, what to wear and what to eat? It’s a little bigger than fur.”
She's correct. It is actually about one particular group of people riding roughshod over others who don't belong that particular group.
I am not going to apologize for saying the environment is more important and that includes cleaning it up.
My feeling is this. If we all would set everything else aside and work together in cleaning up the environment and bring pollution down to zero everything else will fall into place. As people are working together to do all they can within their own lives to to improve the environment and decrease their carbon footprint they will discover they have more in common than not. This will lead to more respectful listening and slowly we will all change for the better, at least that is what I hope.
6
Will you also ban the sale of leather coats??
7
It's always unbelievable to me the people who use Jesus or God as an excuse to torture non-human animals for clothing or food. I always expect these should be the most humane guardians on the planet, but they are always using the bible to excuse their cruelty. An older black woman was quoting verse today and stating Jesus says animals are here for us. Why would an oppressed minority think it's acceptable to oppress another? Also, we too are animals. It's unbelievable to watch people ok with slaughter and abuse and then state they do it in God's name because the Bible states it's their right to do. What kind of God do these people pray under that would ever be ok with such barbaric brutality and murder?
17
When Tim Gun is the spokesperson for animals, you know the vegan movement has changed the game! Its 2019 and we’re still enslaving, torturing, killing, eating and wearing animals as if we dont have thousands of alternatives. We consider ourselves to be so advance as humans yet we’re still living like high-class Neanderthals. It’s cruel and completely unnecessary and I am fully in support of any legislation that will protect these living beings. The dairy movement is suffering big time. Our obsession with meat is literally killing this planet. Milk producers are suing vegan brands over the use of the term “milk”. And plant-based meat is penetrating America’s prized fast food industry. The movement is happening now, people. And its long overdue.
18
Why must the workers in the fur industry be sacrificed? Will the animal rights activists support the furriers families and feed their kids?
5
If they can ban fur they can ban meat. What's next, cars? breathing?
1
@Allen
Not to worry, the cars - and airplanes and meat consumption - will take care of the breathing. No one will have to tell us not breath; we just won’t be able to.
4
Don't these so-called activists have anything useful to occupy their time or is whining about anything and everything their only talent. So long as the animals are killed mercifully that's all that really matters. What;s next, a ban on leather products? Any business or individual with any smarts should consider moving out of NYC or any other bastion of Dem liberal socialism.
5
Don’t approve of abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t approve of fur? Don’t wear it. Otherwise, mind your own business.
15
Nice let's add some identify politics into the mix for maximum outrage. Nice work NYT
8
First fur then steak.
5
Why would the rights of a few people to wear dead animals outweigh the rights of said animals to stay alive? Absolute nonsense.
10
Does it matter if it's some rich black people's tradition or whatever to wear fur? Maybe it's the rich white people using them to advocate for fur coats. It just sounds silly, like The Onion news article.
3
Do the fur protestors eat lobster?
5
Yeah! Let's ban fur but keep the guns :(
7
Best comment
Cruelty should be banned, but this is just a step in the goal to ban all uses of animals including leather, wool, meat, eggs, research on animals and pets. Is New York prepared for legislated veganism?
3
How about banning the fossil fuels used to make synthetics? They are destroying the planet — not just a relatively small number of animals, but potentially all life in earth. Fur is long lasting, biodegradable and, yes, beautiful.
2
If fur is so important to you personally, perhaps YOU retrieve animals from days in traps, and kill the farmed animals for their pelts yourself? Face the suffering, and then perhaps figure out a way to ethically source fur if it's still important to you. As far as I know, the only "ethical" source for fur is being harvested from roadkill. You want more options? Plenty of vintage fur in excellent condition out there.
8
“When the activists are more concerned about saving black lives than black minks, let me know.”
This is a false argument. Measures to prevent the killing and suffering of fur-bearing animals in no way weaken concerns about saving black lives. I work as a wildlife biologist in a part of Canada where large animals are trapped for their fur and I can confirm that there are many, many cases of unimaginable pain and suffering inflicted on these animals in the interests of the fur industry and their clients. It is long past time to stop this horrible practise.
11
Look at the videos people. Look and listen to the animals screaming in pain.
For a luxury item like a fur coat?!
Don’t try to hide behind “tradition and culture.” There are many vile practices, such as human slavery and foot-binding, that people have defended for traditional or cultural reasons but have become unacceptable in our society for obvious reasons.
It’s called moral evolution.
12
I've always been a liberal, but I am getting as annoyed by the extreme left as the extreme right. Both believe the world should be governed by *their personal* consciences. Eroding are the individual independence to make decisions, also the right to privacy. Even to be different. It's the Facebook culture and I'm sick of it.
8
Animal fur is a criminal enterprise. It has to be banned.
8
This will just create an underground fur market or make people shop in Connecticut. Or Long Island. We have a city council obsessed by fur and straws, a corrupt state governor and legislature concerned with ensuring crimes pardoned by the presidential can be brought up again by the state against individuals based on their hatred of the president, a state AG aiming her guns at ensuring the tax returns of private individuals can be handed over by the state should the federal government deny disclosure, all again to pursue Trump. . .All this and dysfunctional, wasteful, corrupt school systems, public transportation and public housing--the three largest services that the city and state are responsible for managing. Welcome to NY, the One-Party State of Utopia.
3
Fur is dead.
We no longer have to raise and slaughter animals just for their skins.
We can make beautiful, comfortable clothing out of natural fibers with no need to harm animals.
That is putting people first.
10
@Kenneth Ranson
What natural fibers are you thinking of that provide enough warmth for a New York winter?
2
Akamai: I've been to Scotland recently. They use wool.
4
There are people who think shearing sheep is cruel too.
2
what's next, chicken, pork
or steak? and people wonder why Trump may
be re-elected? the loony
left has already banned
plastic ( none of their
business.) goodness
only knows where they
will stop. as an older
new yorker, I need strong
plastic bags to avoid my
purchases from falling in
the middle of the street.
now I am being told what
to wear and soon what to
eat.where does it end?
5
You know what else used to be a symbol of status on societies past? The number of slaves you owned. We rightly ended that barbaric practice. It is time to end this one.
9
How is growing animals for clothing objectionable while growing them for food isn't? Both practices result in more animals on this earth. So busybodies -- stick your noses somewhere else.
3
No life should be taken for a luxury item, there is no ethical or moral argument to defend this foul industry.
I was very concerned with the mentality of that black pastor, I think he does a disservice linking his culture with animal cruelty.
2
This bill doesn’t stop trapping or animal cruelty all it does is put people out of business and the customers will buy their furs in NJ/Outside NYC/AmazonFurs.com. Any other businesses we need to destroy?
4
I support the wearing of fur for several reasons:
1. The alternative being proposed (fake fur) is made of fossil fuels — like most coats worn today. It is not biodegradable. It ends up in our environment as micro-plastics, which migrate into soil, air, water & our food
2. Unlike synthetics, real fur is biodegradable
3. A good, well-maintained fur can last for decades before it enters the waste stream.
4. The fur industry in NYC provides good jobs to skilled & unskilled workers.
7
Based on the evidence, I think fur is gentler on the earth and my fellow humans than synthetic alternatives. Some people might draw a different conclusion— that doesn’t justify militating their opinion to those of us who have carefully considered and reached a different conclusion.
As a reminder, the manufacturing process for many synthetic polyesters uses huge quantities of water, produces carcinogenic chemicals which then require disposal but frequently end up in places where they’re not supposed to be (like rivers), and even if properly manufactured, are dangerous to the humans involved in the manufacturing process. Beyond danger, fast fashion— those $50 faux fur parkas that are “indistinguishable” from real as long as you don’t touch them or look too closely or keep them around for more than two months— is a huge contributor to human rights abuses including child labor and modern slavery among others.
Natural products often serve purposes that synthetics don’t. Synthetics typically don’t breathe well, wash well, or wear well— resulting in the need to dispose of things and repurchase. Polyester fibers break off with every wash, polluting the oceans with micro plastics. Natural fibers, including leather and fur, breathe, stretch, and insulate. They’re useful and beautiful. They can last decades rather than seasons.
So yes, I have some fur.
6
“These are people who have a craft and have been working in this industry for 30 or 40 years. They don’t know what they will do next, and they have families to support.”
-- This is no reason at all. The same comment could have been made by morse code telegraph operators, shellac record manufacturers, etc etc. - Jobs and trades disappear every year; those people need to adapt and retrain.
3
When it comes to animals dying for the benefit of human beings, people of good will can disagree; but the killing of animals to benefit the fur industry - and the very few people it employs - is harder to justify than most.
Vegetarians and vegans have impressive arguments against killing animals for food.
That acknowledged, Native American tribes, and many other indigenous societies took the view that it is vital to revere and respect the animals killed for food, and use every part of the animal to honor their sacrifice, and honor the environmental systems that sustain all living things.
There was a time when animal furs and skins were the only readily available protection for humans in extremely cold environments. That time is long gone.
As we become more and more aware of the intricate relationships in the natural world, and how humans have had sometimes negative and sometimes disastrous impacts on species and systems; it seems like a particularly craven kind of selfishness to argue for an industry whose existence now is solely to satisfy human beings sense of "style".
The strange fruits and effects of human vanity are sometimes fairly harmless. Not so much for fans of the fur industry, as animals needlessly spend their entire lives in cages.
7
The alternative to fur — synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those animal species you so treasure.
5
I love non-human animals (a few humans, too), and have learned many valuable lessons from them. But it's always tricky to try to legislate morality, especially when the law clashes with bona fide religious customs or with traditions rooted in a 400-year history of racial oppression. You really need an ironclad reason, firmly grounded in universally accepted public-health or -safety considerations (e.g., vaccination); short of that, serious unintended consequences will often be the result. Take abortion, to pull an example out of the air. It seems that the majority of citizens in Alabama are rejoicing today because the state took radical action to "protect life". But some of them may begin to feel otherwise down the road, when the mortality rate for women of child-bearing age in that state begins to climb. Sometimes fetuses, or mink -- or people -- have to be sacrificed to a greater good. Want to live peaceably in a diverse society? Then don't try to legislate morality.
5
I like your nuanced response to this complex issue. Fact is, the alternative to fur — synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those critters that animal-tights activists claim to treasure.
2
@Viseguy Why make an analogy to abortion instead of reading the text of the proposed ban? If you had read it you would know it exempts religious uses.
@Robert: My response -- if you read it -- did not focus solely on religious uses. The key language -- I'll make it easy for you -- was, "an ironclad reason, firmly grounded in universally accepted public-health or -safety considerations". And if you need a key phrase within that, it's "universally accepted". The abortion law in Alabama is clearly trying to legislate morality based on less-than-universally accepted norms. Point?
This smacks of the modern day “progressive”: it isn’t enough to dislike and avoid a practice. You also need to ban it and prevent others. I don’t wear fur, but I also don’t see the need to control other people’s choices.
10
@Aaron We live in a nation of laws, we regulate and even ban many things, many of which don't cause nearly the level of needless suffering the fur industry does. Fur is mostly self-regulating, which has led it to be cruel and also a good target for a ban because it has failed to police itself, and because the animals suffering cannot advocate for themselves. It's rather simplistic to dismiss proposed laws which don't concern you while presumably, there are lots of laws you support and benefit from. Fur industry has simply proven that it cannot regulate itself (we were finding cat and dog fur in our department stores, even!) , so somebody has to do it. The dogs and cats (and foxes) care, even if you don't.
8
@Aaron The thing is it doesn't just involve us as humans, there is so much animal suffering for trivial things such as fashion, Banning this is the moral thing to do.
6
@Aaron
This is not about controlling people, it's about stopping animal abuse. People are still quite capable of finding helpless animals to abuse; we just don't want to legitimize it as a business.
6
Almost all fur-bearing animals kill other animals themselves. Some won't do so well in the wild without being culled. We frequently help provide that balance when imbalances impossible to reverse exist. This will do nothing but inconvenience consumers and do nothing about the underlying issue, which should not be an issue at all. Will the CC next ban the wearing of fur altogether? It sure is reassuring knowing that the CC doesn't have any bigger problems in the city to deal with.
3
@Allen Not so, my friend. A balanced ecosystem doesn't need people to keep it healthy. We have created the imbalance. The eradication of top predators such as wolves, which happened all over this country nto so long ago, led to a explosion in some areas of species such as deer, wolves' natural prey. Humans are now the top predator on all species, but are utterly lacking the inherent wisdom or good judgement necessary to even come close to balance.
The battle over wolves is still raging in areas where ranchers graze cattle on public lands. For steaks and hamburgers. For leather coats. For people.
3
I have the perfect solution for New York! Ban all fur except Norway rat fur. Need to keep the population in check and I'm sure it's very nice for coats and hats too.
7
@nerdrage
Better adapted for gloves and nose warmers.
Clearly, given the flourishing and horrific trade in rapidly-approaching-extinction species and the escalating destruction of the planet, humanity's answer to the question "How many animals have to die?" is "All of them".
There is no excuse for anyone on the planet over the age of 5 for putting themselves and their desires ahead of the well-being of the world. The idea that humans have dominion over animals, and therefore whatever they choose to do to them is fine, is sending all of us rapidly down the road to self-destruction.
The excuse 'it's part of my culture' to defend the killing, consumption, and destruction of species is going to be humanity's epitaph.
10
Problem is that the alternative to fur — most often synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet and eventually all living things on it, including those animal species you so treasure.
2
The arguments by those who prefer to continue wearing fur don't hold an ounce of water. So you've always worn fur, so maybe it's time for a change. I remember my mother proudly modeling her mink stole in the early 60s, and how unbelievably tacky the idea of a mink stole was by the early 70s, at least in my culture. Cultures can change. Dead animals don't ever come back to life.
20
I am opposed to fur, so I don’t wear it, I do not object to people who do because I think it looks out of place and the practice is dying out on its own. What I object to is the growing practice by legislators of banning things because they don’t trust that the people will end up in the right spot in due time. The banning of plastic bags can be considered laudable, but the overreach of not allowing merchants to offer an alternative, and government getting into the business of setting prices for bags smacks of a contempt for the people - based on an assumption that we will not rise to the occasion and do the right thing- which brings us to a slippery slope that is now leading legislators to propose banning fur. People are hungry and homeless, government can be used as an agent for good, but when it attempts to be a scold it’s no better than the well meaning fools who brought us prohibition.
7
@Ralph J The reason we have laws and a government is that people often make selfish decisions that hurt others. There is a ban on child labor because people actually sent their children to work in factories instead of school. We did not wait for the parents or factories to come around to understanding that is wrong and give it up -- we banned it-- because the purpose of government is to protect those who cannot protect themselves . It's true for children and its true for animals.
6
I can say with certainty that these black pastors do not speak for the African-American community as a whole. There are many animal activists in the African-American community who could care less about outdated status symbols based on cruelty and are far more concerned with justice for all. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
16
Samuels the rapper said his lynx coat was expensive at $55k. Not as expensive for him as what it cost the lynx. And to think that one reader thought fur coats on men were "tacky." I am sure she would change her mind if she saw him in his $55k coat.
7
I have been watching the testimony from the NYC Council this afternoon on the fur ban hearing. While I am sympathetic to the businesses that would be affected by the ban, I am dumbfounded that they are in denial of the cruelty inflicted on these animals in the so called name of fashion and status. I truly hope this legislation passes . The methods used to obtain fur for fashion are completely cruel and inhumane.
22
You know what’s also cruel? Oil and gas drilling, which is what most synthetic garments are made of. Problem is that the alternative to fur — most often synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those animal species you want to protect. Fur on the other hand is biodegradable. A good fur can be resold and restyled and can last for decades.
3
There's a direct link between how we treat animals and how we treat other humans. Banning luxury items that are the end product of cruelty, torture and a lack of basic compassion is not only good for the animals but for human culture as well.
19
@Michael
And it sends an unmistakable message to kids who we might hope are learning to be kind to animals. Whereas wearing fur sends a different message, entirely.
10
What’s crueler? The death of a bunch of (mostly farmed) animals or the death of a planet and the life it supports. Problem is that the alternative to fur — most often synthetics made of fossil fuel — are killing our planet, including those animal species you want to protect.
2
This ban isn't about reducing or ending animal cruelty. It's about the fact that fur is less common in our culture than leather. An animal killed for a fur coat is no different than an animal killed for a leather coat, but the animal rights activists know that they have no chance of passing a leather ban.
Our choices of what we wear and how we choose to present ourselves to the world are a form of speech. Since there is equal damage done for leather clothing as fur clothing, a ban on the sale of one and not the other is a hypocritical violation of free speech.
It is also worth noting that most fake fur is made from acrylic, which, when washed, contributes large amounts of microplastics to our waterways, which build up inside marine organisms. So fake fur isn't exactly great for animals, either.
31
@Diana I agree, there is a level of hypocrisy here. Leather isn't particularly better than fur, except that it usually comes from animals we eat. Of course, in an time of industrial farming practices when animals live horrific lives, that isn't saying much. Maybe it's even worse.
I suggest this to clarify ethical stances and avoid hypocrisy: wear and eat what you yourself are prepared to kill.
1
A lot more animals die per fur coat than leather coat.
1
The first line of your very flawed argument is patently incorrect. It’s about banning unfathomable animal torture carried out for the sake of vanity and no doubt the bottom line. Some people are more sentient than others-evidenced by the energy poured into this timely and very crucial ban. Some people are simply vapid as far as what came before - whether on their back or even on their plate for that matter- as long at it’s self-gratifying. Hopefully the fur industry will become obsolete, and those that make a living off of such abject cruelty (not to mention horrific insensitivity) will pursue less awful and more agreeable professions. The slippery slope/whataboutism is tiresome. Glad NYC is stepping up.
2
You can lead a fox to water but
you can't get him to give up his
coat.
Pretty soon we'll all be wearing fur.
We are not a nice bunch.
7
Maybe we should skin a few humans so an animal can look nice dressed to the nines.
23
Hyperbole. Satire. Swift didn't actually want people to start eating poor Irish babies when he wrote A Modest Proposal.
2
Starting with you? How about your child?
(Hint: Reasonable people can disagree. A civilization relies on our showcasing our most conscientious selves. When you suggest others deserve to suffer depraved violence, don’t be mortified when you’re offered up as the next sufferer.)
Lets worry first about children, especially the thousands sitting in holding pens on our southern border.
I wonder how many of these PETA people are Trump supporters.
6
Shocking as it may seem, we can concern ourselves with improving several things simultaneously.
8
@RebeccaTouger actually in life you need to deal with more than one thing at a time, just fix both problems and we're all much better off.
3
Zero, probably.
4
The hypocrisy of the animal rights movement is astonishing. Especially at a time when Alabama is banning abortion. Let's get our priorities straight, if we can?
9
Activism is not monomaniacal! You can care deeply about many different things at the same time. Give it a try.
4
What an antiquated country minister
I’m the city. Jesus take the wheel!
3
Killing animals for fur or leather (or food) isn't morally different in my mind from poaching them for use in Chinese "medicines". (See pangolin).
4
The lack of self-awareness on the part of the Rev. Johnnie Green Jr., the pastor of Mount Neboh Baptist Church in Harlem, is breathtaking.
20
Let's devote this moral outrage to saving abused children.
13
Why not both? How many of the people saying "help people first" are actually involved with charities which help humans? I raise a lot of money for a homeless teen shelter AND I care about animal welfare.
14
@landless
Hello, anybody home? The people who abuse animals don't stop there.
6
@Benjo. I am. And I don’t think most people have the energy or time to seriously devote themselves to multiple causes. People first.
Yet I don’t wear fur.
1
Hypocrisy at its height...why not just ban meat...that would save animals too... America has lost its mind...
10
@Ardyth
Or has gained a conscience, at least a little one.
2
When did thinking you should tell other people how to live, whether to have a baby or whether to eat meat or wear leather or fur become so acceptable?
Are you going to start shooting people who wear fur? Are you going to shoot people who eat hamburgers next? Isn’t this the logical extension of this thinking? When did this maniacal, sanctimonious overreach, this hypocritical encroachment on other people’s civil liberties and human rights start to seem okay?
2
Wearing furs to church to impress the other churchgoers. Just what Jesus would have wanted.
54
Once again the people with no skin in the game are calling for sacrifice by others to save the planet. When these people ban drive thru windows which are huge waste of petroleum and add tons of pollution to the air or an end to eating veal at fancy restaurants, I will take them seriously. How many of these "fur fighters" refuse to eat at restaurants that don't pay a living wage and provide employee benefits? How many of them wear clothes made in factories that are little better than modern day sweat shops? These people are great at being self-righteous but come up short on being righteous in the true sense of that term.
13
The animals are the ones with skin in the game. You sure walked into that one.
6
@TigerW$
Now Tiger, we have to deal with our human lack of fur covered bodies somehow, do we not? Sourcing absolutely every thing we touch, eat , wear or buy is really hard in the modern world; sourcing senseless, unnecessary cruelty caused by the production of luxury items and banning selling them in our local retail operations is really a whole lot easier. What's your argument for not taking this simple, easy step to reduce just a few of the harms done by our bloodthirsty species?
3
@TigerW$ Actually there are lots of us who don't eat meat of any type, don't shop or do business with those who don't pay a living wage and do what we can to avoid causing more human or animal suffering.
I've added to my list not doing business with any company or person I find out pays no federal taxes. Cancelled Netflix, haven't set foot in a Starbucks and cancelled Amazon, too. Will no longer shop at Whole Foods because Amazon owns it.
It's not that hard in NYC. It's called being aware of how our actions perpetuate harms and doing what we can to speak by our actions.
NYC mandates fair wages, benefits like paid sick days and many other actions to address the harms you identify.
But I expect you have issues with that, too.
1
Luxury items for women are vulnerable because women's preferences are seen as frivolous. If this were an attack on expensive leather items for men (shoes, belts, wallets, etc.), the pushback would be strong and immediate.
8
@TH
I would venture to guess that a whole lot of men buy fur coats. For women. Either way, the mink just wants to live a mink's life, not a jacket's.
It’s about stopping cruelty to living creatures. It’s not about denying rich women some useless vanity item.
1
Isn't the subway system going to wrack and ruin? What about infrastructure in NYC? Too many ubers? Too much midtown traffic? Absentee 1 percenters not paying their fair share of real estate taxes? Can the city council not address any issues of importance to the city, but why deal with a pet interest project? Really? The sponsor of such a time wasting bill should hope he doesn't have a competitor nipping at his heels.
15
I remember an old SNL "ad" from the 1970's showing a woman wearing a fur coat walking down a NYC street. After that you see the same woman who is now dead and looked to be bleeding and bruised flung over the back of a horse. The caption at the bottom of the "ad" said "Fur..... because you deserve it." It was a very powerful message.
8
@susan
Reminds me of a great Hallowe'en costume I once saw in a street parade in Madison, WI- a big deer hunting state. A buck was driving a VW minibus - with a hunter strapped to the top of it.
3
I feel about furs the same way I feel about steak. It was already dead when I got it. By the way, you know that raw oysters are still alive when you eat them? Does not bother me. I have an "r" in my name so I can eat them anytime.
7
But it’s not meat. Not sustenance. It’s cruelty called fashion.
And as for “it was dead when I got it,” I wonder if you could stomach killing and butchering your own food...
4
Tradition is no excuse for cruelty.
10
If you can afford to buy furs, you can afford to travel somewhere else to buy them. Fur is necessary for cultures who live in subarctic and arctic conditions. Fur as a status symbol is kind of sick when you think about it. Like a trophy hunter who straps the deer head on as a crown.
5
Ban fur, don't ban fur, whatever. But I can't help thinking about all those nutrias that were introduced in the USA from South America (their fur is very pretty, looks like beaver and is much cheaper) and when their fur fell out of fashion, in order to control the nutria population growth (invasive species) they started being hunted massively and destroyed under piles of quicklime. I think it's still going on. Apparently no one cries for them. No one cries for the slaughter of rats either.
2
@Pibinca
With rats in Baltimore, it's more like self-defense than slaughter, isn't it?
1
Ha. I never saw the NYT interviewing coal mining families and other industries that suffer from environmental regulations. But the furriers have it sooo bad.
Some businesses, like furriers and com mining, just need to stay in the 19th century. Find a line of work that doesn’t inflict needless cruelty and pain on others.
13
@C
Maybe everyone who works at a coal power plant or in coal mining should walk off the job tomorrow to repent. How would that work out?
1
Wow... just buy synthetic fur, and I’m not even a huge animal rights advocate, this is 2019, Davy Crockett passed in 1836.
12
Animal fur (except wolverine on hood hems) is a luxury/vanity item that should be taxed at a level that insures and promotes conservation, plus a little extra because it is needlessly cruel.
Everyone gets what they want and need without more look-good-feel-good stupid prohibitions. Some furries will suffer but more furries will benefit.
1
What does Black Lives Matter have to do with banning the harsh raising conditions and horrible methods of killing animals for a coat. I thought Black Lives Matter has more to do with equality, respect, education and freedom from prejudice for our African-American citizens. A bit of stretch don't you think? It is silly to make such a statement and takes away from what the movement is all about, makes people wonder if it is just an excuse for anything goes and diminishes what few gains have been made. How about instead of a fur coat, contributions towards education or better housing. Embarrassing.
11
When animals are bred solely for coats how does it save lives if coats are no longer allowed?
It prevents suffering. Take a look at the confusions animals raised and bred for fur slaughter live in. Consider that there are virtually no regulations protecting their welfare in the US. And, that much of the fur sold in NYC comes from China, a country notorious for its abysmal treatment of fur and skin farmed animals.
Fewer animals will be bred to suffer horrific lives and painful deaths.
10
@Ella
Nobody's trying to "save lives". They're trying to prevent lives of unnatural abuse and suffering by sentient, innocent creatures and the continuance of an industry that could care less, lies about it and feeds off such practices.
Your coat can be made of many other things that do not cause suffering, at least not directly!
8
Beautiful vintage furs in good condition are available on the used market at prices quite affordable to the middle classes. Check eBay sometime in the fall. Those animals have been dead for years. How will anyone who wants to attack you for wearing furs know the difference between vintage and new?
6
@Frances Grimble
If you see a can of red spray paint pointed in your direction, run. Or, explain that it belonged to your Great Aunt Minnie. Either way will work.
1
This is an awful practice that needs to end. The arguments defending it are not compelling.
A long sunset period could reduce most of the economic harm - people can move (probably a few miles) if they are that attached to this and have plenty of time to do so.
The "slippery slope" arguments are laughable considering some cities tax (which is a power to ban) soda.
A fur ban might actually make it easier to wear fur without being confronted for those so inclined. If sales are banned, there is not much left to protest, and it will be the assumption that the fur is old and not a product of recent killing.
The idea that people come first overlooks the desensitizing effects of cruelty. If someone develops empathy for animals, they just might develop empathy for other people in the process.
Thus ends a completely objective take from a vegan "parent" of a pet chinchilla.
12
@Alan
Chinchillas rock! I hear they're picky eaters, however. Hoping your little 'chilla is a vegan gourmet, too.
2
@Quite Contrary
Thanks. He eats hay, lettuce & pellets that are mostly hay. He is also fond of sweet potato, furniture, shoes, books...sigh.
This seems to be all about killing animals. Read "Eating Animals" and then decide if you get to have your hamburgers, bacon and turkeys after banning fur.
Fur is a great material for the winter, but they make some really good fake ones these days. In any event, it is disingenuous to condemn one practice of using animals, and not all the rest. Ready to give up that Thanksgiving Turkey?
A lot of the comments seem to be about how people are mistreated, so who cares about the treatment of animals? People who don't mistreat animals tend to be a lot better about not mistreating human beings. How does mistreating animals improve the quality of human life? Why defend it?
12
Leather and fur are easily replaced by vinyl and nylon products. Did I say vinyl? The one thing you can say about leather and fur is that it's natural and doesn't pollute. But the poor creatures. They have lives too. Everything should be made of cotton and hemp.
5
Fur used to be rare, and expensive. I have always hoped that was due to the fact that not too many animals have to be killed in order to make for that one gorgeous fur coat.
Over time, I find that wishful thinking increasingly dissatisfying, not the least because however few animals are killed, it's totally unnecessary. These days, there are many fabrics options that make for just as warm and beautiful a coat that I want it to be. It turns out, I don't need a fur, and winter goes just fine.
I still have a few shearling and leather coats from years ago. If you take good care of them, they are like heirloom items. I'll keep them, but there'll be no more new business from me.
(Some day, I'll probably turn vegan altogether. It just feels like the right thing to do.)
6
We are now witnessing how progressive movements die, they shoot themselves by separating themselves from the people and do just want the right says you will.
Good luck Cory. We could use some street and storm drain cleaning, I know that’s boring bit isn’t that what city government is supposed to do!
9
How many of "the people" wear fur in NYC? Talk about coastal elites! Fur is as elitist as it gets.
3
@Benjo
Fur is very warm, I'll give you that. Equally as popular in the Windy City as in the City That Never Sleeps. But speaking of sleep...Fur For the People would be a great project!
Some fabulous nonprofit entrepreneur should hire all those soon-to-be unemployed fur industry craftspeople in NYC to design and build recycled fur tents/sleeping bags for the city's homeless population. They could do it in a storefront pop-up arts scenario, maybe in that new Hudson Yards performance facility. Maybe that pastor up in Harlem would like to take this on. (It would give him something real to be proud of.) I'll donate my 40 y.o. blue fox fur collar and $40 to such a campaign.
Thus, killing more than two birds with one stole, pardon the mixed metaphor. And no further animals abused.
This is not progressive.
How is banning fur "putting people first?" Fur isn't life sustaining. It's warm but so it wool and down and polyester. It's just preening. And making it a racial issue is just cheap.
12
My wife is strange sometimes. I was cleaning out a closet and found an old bag full of fur collars of hers that she once wore long ago when they were popular and she didn’t flinch. A mouse runs out from the woodpile behind the garage and she shrieks in horror.
4
@John Doe
I'm pretty sure she would shriek even louder if a live mink ran out from behind the woodpile.
2
Gee, why don't we bring back slavery for the sake of the many fine men for whom owning a healthy stock of slaves was a "treasured hallmark of achievement" or because of the massive loss of income ending slavery caused for those in the cotton and tobacco industries? And speaking of tobacco, why don't we roll back regulations and restrictions on that too so it can become the thriving industry it was in its heyday?
And before you lambast me for equating the lives of animals with the lives of humans, save your breath. I do. To argue that their suffering is somehow less than or more condonable than ours is no less willfully ignorant or self-serving than the racism that enabled slavery.
Fur, leather, factory farming... it is all flat out wrong in a society as advanced and privileged as ours. We don't NEED any of these things anymore. Which means we continue to use them for sensual pleasure or convenience on indulgence. Try to justify it all you want, but how many would choose to bash a cow's head in themselves to get its hide or meat instead of simply wearing or using synthetic textile or eating a big plate of pasta primavera?
25
This is the sort of sideshow that puts liberals in a bad light. Johnson should focus his attention on serious issues--homelessness, affordable housing, transit--instead of trying to shutter productive businesses.
13
These animals (mink, chinchilla) are raised specifically FOR their fur. Distaste for animal products based on cruelty to the animals does not account for the fact that, without their value as furs, chinchillas and mink are just nasty little rodents to whom we would normally be cruel.
6
@John Bologna
Actually, John, chinchillas are not nasty at all! Many zoos include them in educational programs because they've portable, cute, harmless and playful. They are also known to be picky eaters, and somewhat capable of bonding with humans. They make good pets for some. And even if they didn't, cruelty is not ever normal toward any sentient being, mink or mouse.
True, I once captured mice in glue traps, and then executed them (quickly). I now recognize that I was then at a less evolved state of mind regarding peaceful cohabitation of the Earth with other creatures. I would no longer be capable of doing that, even to a mouse. Such cruelty is not "normal".
You, too can change. Though humans are certainly capable of remaining forever nasty and cruel, toward some, many or all living things, you still have a chance to become a bit better than that. Please adopt a better attitude before you practice on anything live, though.
4
Have you ever met a chinchilla? They are anything but nasty. They are the cutest, softest, sweetest rodents in the world. I've never met a mink so I can't speak to them personally.
7
Ban-Schman - that leopard coat with sable trim is STUNNING!!
4
What about wearing leather shoes? Plastic just doesn’t make it. Or is it that we’re eating the cows anyway so why not just use all of them?
7
I've been wearing non-leather shoes for the last 20 years. Plastic is not the only alternative material. What I will say about leather and fur in their defense is that they can be very durable. So buy them secondhand. Ivory is durable too, but we don't make new things out of it here in the USA.
4
There is very little chance of rational debate on this issue. I think everyone can agree on minimizing suffering but there are far more complexities than fit a simple pro or anti fur agenda. We need to end trade in endangered animals, we need to increase the welfare of domesticated animals, but remember the best protect for a species from extinction by humans is domestication. We need to transfer use of fur to species already earmarked for destruction (possums in NZ as an example), and be aware that the increasing use of plastics (microfibers) is extremely damaging to the environment (sorry Peta but woolen carpets are better for all life on this Planet than nylon ones.) Let's all think through the consequences before enacting change that will bring unexpected outcomes.
5
@Shane Murphy
Even PETA is not against shearing sheep of their woolly coats! And unless it's done in the dead of winter, they are none the worse for a proper clip job.
1
@Quite Contrary sadly you should tell PETA this : https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/whats-wrong-with-wearing-wool/
2
Animals raised on farms have a better life than in the wild. Wild animals have a constant struggle for food an protection
against predators including others of their kind . For some humans, furs and wild meat are their only means of livelihood.
Cruelty must still be avoided.
3
Is this a joke? There are virtually no welfare regulations on farmed animals. If you’re referring to fur farms, you should do a 5 minute google search on what the inside of one looks like.
If you’re talking about farms for food animals, the same comment. It is not only legal but is industry practice to, for example, castrate piglets without anesthesia. You can find this info even on industry websites.
Do your research before making assumptions and spreading misinformation.
9
@C
Some animals raised on some farms probably do have a better life than some wild animals, which are oftimes starving and/or hunted and killed by predators, human or otherwise. The warming climate is killing some, too.
And yes, there is plenty of evidence that most industrial farms, and even some "locavore" farming operations are not operated humanely. I've personally witnessed examples of this.
So what does it take to police these operations? A lot more than we have invested thus far, apparently! We can't even summon the humanity to police horribly abusive puppy mills in PA, for crying out loud! The PA agriculture lobby scares politicians - I've had it explained to me by one such PA politician. Are puppy mill puppies still sold at NYC pet stores? I hope not...but they sure as heck are at PA farmers/flea markets/Amish farms.
None of this has anything to do with outlawing the sale of luxury fur goods in Manhattan or any of the outer boroughs, however. But - ya gotta start somewhere! If it's only possible to do so at the retail end, that's unfortunate, but perhaps the reality.
Regarding impact on "fur craftspeople" - what are their skills? Would these same skills translate to similar occupations in related industries? Is there a demand for such skills? I've no idea, but I'm sure they do. I do hope their legitimate concerns are addressed by Corey Johnson et. al.
Wearing, eating or using animals for our amusement went out with the caveman and Ringling Bros. circus. If you do your research, you'll see that the practice of doing so is dated.
It's 2019 - get real. Plants provide better nutrition than the animals we eat that eat them. Sustainable clothing trumps dead animal skins for warmth, durability and cleaning. Most shoes today use little dead cow skin and don't need to.
9
It seems the Council is short of useful purposes to pursue.
I didn't realize that New York is perfect and not in need of attention.
There are many cruelties to the people of NYC that are in dire need of attention. Fur isn't one of them.
9
@Austin Liberal, re your statement "There are many cruelties to the people of NYC that are in dire need of attention. Fur isn't one of them." It must be a misprint. It should have been:
"There are many cruelties to the people of NYC that are in dire need of attention. Fur *IS* one of them."
5
@Austin Liberal I guess what passes as liberal in Texas is a far cry from liberal here.
A hearing was held on proposed legislation. All government didn't grind to a halt. There are hundreds of local laws passed here that address all kind of cruelty -- abuse of children, underpayment of workers, not providing benefits like sick days to employees.
1
if you want to save animals, ban meat.
number of animals slaughtered annually in the fur trade (global): 1 billion.
number of animals slaughtered annually as food product (global): 150 billion.
8
@drollere, Absolutely. We have to start somewhere. Fur - in this day and age where there are so many different alternatives for a warm and beautiful coats - is absolutely unnecessary and totally avoidable. I'd say, let's start with fur.
8
It’s easier to ban fur right now.
Your argument is like saying we shouldn’t have any environment regulations like air quality restrictions unless we ban all cars.
4
People who are talking in support of fur apparently have not seen the horrible torture and abuse that is perpetuated on animals. Do some research and see what humans do. This world is not about only you. You are approving raising animals in filth and squalor, abusing them, and then ripping off their fur to use for your pleasure. It is sick and inhumane, and the more we continue to abuse animals, the more we will abuse humans. We lose our humanity when we do this. The world is not just about or for you. Have some decency.
26
How do the anti-fur enthusiasts think chickens arrive at their tables? The Thanksgiving turkey? The neck is chopped! Pigs are slaughtered. The pollution from pig farms should concern these activists because of contamination, especially water. Shoes will be next. Are cattle humanely slaughtered? Does Tim Gunn advocate abandoning leather shoes? Really!
12
@Kathryn Most anti fur folk don't eat meat. Also the process for extracting fur is brutal to animals. Before you speak ignorance maybe have a look online and watch the process if you can't stand it.
7
I don't eat any of those things, obviously.
4
@JayThanks for the tip. Oddly, I rarely eat meat. If you'll visit a turkey farm or chicken farm, the process is brutal as well: death. Remember, Flannery O'Connor taught a chicken to speak. Are they deserving of their conditions? You can see that online too-very edifying? And I do investigate before I write my opinion. I respect your opinion but would never assume ignorance.
Ban over-dimensioned egos and wait for the collateral gains. I’m better than him, her or them because I have more money but my ego requires that I affirm this by wearing soft dead animals on my back or head? And that’s only a tiny portion of the myriad sociopathic symptoms that happens to be on subject. No empathy. None. As a species we have so far to go but those same egocentricities will ensure that we will not endure. We are but a part of our world and not the masters of it.
10
$50,000 for a rapper's new fur coat, so he can style and preen.
As my mother use to say, "New money, no class."
51
@frankly 32, Many from old money did the same thing and style and preen with their fur and mink. It's far from just a "new money, no class" problem, as you posit.
3
It smacks of restraint of trade, personal judgment imposed on the city population. That said, no animal should be killed FOR the fur, but what if populations need culling? We do it when the winter food supply is insufficient for deer or elk; should the hides be discarded? Most of us can't afford fur coats, but what about sheepskin mittens?
69
@cjpollara In NZ there is a fur industry around dangerous feral invasive species (Possums). These pests need to be removed so what is wrong with using their fur? We should be moving to this type of fur source rather than banning just to feel good.
10
@cjpollara, Isn't that exactly the same argument about ivory trade? That consumers are sold on the idea that those beautiful ivory products came from dead elephants. It's an argument for the ivory trade solely for the purpose to make the consumers feel good about buying the products without regard of the elephants. But of course everyone knows that's just a lie.
And so it goes, with your same argument about the fur only comes from animals that have to be culled and killed anyways, so why not make a better use of their corpse, skin and all. Guess what, I just don't buy it.
23
This isn’t an evidence based argument. For example, Canada Goose and other brands that exploit a greenwashing tactic to justify their horrific practices argue that trapping and hunting coyotes helps to cull overpopulation. Virtually all reputable scientific studies have shown that this exacerbated the nuisance issue, causing coyotes to trigger an evolutionary mechanism where they increase their litter sizes and ranges.
In short, “culling” is a lazy and uninformed excuse the fur industry uses to stay alive in society rapidly progressing away from it.
33
If the City Council isn't banning leather shoes, MacDonald's and steak house, then this is a hypocritical PC ban. I don't wear fur but I would hope the council would be more concerned with human trafficking and homelessness than grandstanding with this bill.
26
I agree with the minister. Stop NYPD from killing black people before we get all freaked out over these animals who were bred to be skinned. City Hall needs to get priorities straight.
6
@Clarissa
...bred to be skinned... Oh Clarissa! So Sweet!
5
How is it one or the other? Did you make this same argument when the city council was meeting last week to discuss gender equality? Or what about when it met to discuss the budget? Why do you get to decide what issues matter and what issues don’t?
7
I'm really, really, really tired of justifying animal killing under the excuses of "religion", "culture" and "tradition." People do not have any "right" to torture animals.
98
You don’t have the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t like.
2
@Lilly
I don't think that Carrie used the word "like."
Are you suggesting that if one likes torturing animals, then it's ok to actually do it?
I'm really having a hard time figuring out what you're meaning is.
9
Animals look naturally great in fur, especially their own.
Humans just look ridiculous and arrogant.
Killing an animal merely for its pelt is beyond disgusting, cruel, mean and murderous. Necessity is not warranted in humans wearing fir. Animals on the other hand is truly a life and death situation.
72
And elsewhere in New York; the NYC Housing Authority continues to warehouse the poor in conditions unfit for a rat, the subways are falling apart, the streets are full of pot holes, the schools decay, bridges rust, vagrants defecate in public, and our "mayor" is nowhere to be seen.
Way to get the priorities right.
31
Interesting. I bought a rabbit fur vest for about 24 hours. I had thought about buying something like it for 15 year - I'm not kidding. It stayed in the Nordstrom shopping bag due to my angst and anxiety about whether or not it was right for me. It went right back the next day. Yes, I have leather shoes and bags, but fur felt somehow like I was crossing the line.
I feel like as I get older, my anxiety about how my life impacts the world and my community gets larger. My commute now is taking the bus and the MARTA train (yes, I'm very lucky that it is convenient and relatively inexpensive), and my diet is now largely pescatarian. Nothing is perfect, but I'm feeling that somehow, I must try harder.
26
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that the more helpless a creature the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of humankind.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
50
I was going to post that. Thank you for doing it.
1
I am pro-choice. That includes the choice to wear fur. I don't wear fur or believe that you should. But you do have the choice and right to do so.
16
Should "choice" apply to everything? Is it OK to say, "Well, if you don't believe in murder, then don't kill anyone, but I've got the right to do it."?
6
@john g I don't kill other people and don't think that you should. As a society we've decided it is immoral and have passed laws to punish that behavior. We'll get there with animals.
9
@gregorito3
Does the fetus have a choice when a woman choses to have an abortion that is not medically necessary? Alabama says no.
Are we to save the animals before we save humanity? Is this what progress looks like?
1
Seems to me this is a fairly easy "free market" situation. If people really feel no need or absolutely against fur then do the PSAs, etc and convince people not to buy them Frankly I thought that had already been done.
I'd rather see people riled up over how people are treated than getting this excited over minks.
12
What the pastor said: When you are more concerned about saving Black lives than black minks [or any other animal], let me know.
9
@Judith false dichotomy. We can be concerned about both, and you know it.
7
"Skinning animals alive for a luxury product"
???
I thought the rest of the article made it pretty clear that the animals are first killed, then skinned.
Does Dan Mathews or anyone else have a source for this claim that they're being "skinned alive?"
10
good question
Yes, which you can find with a simple Google search. There are virtually no welfare regulations on how fur farmed animals are raised in the US. And much of the fur sold in NYC comes from China, where animals are routinely skinned alive after a failed or half-hearted slaughter.
5
@asdfj
PETA's officials and spokespeople are renowned for their hyperbolic messaging. They yell, they exaggerate, sometimes they flat-out lie, but they do not cite sources.
1
Wow this is ridiculous. If you really care about animal rights and the environment ban beef, an industry that is orders of magnitude larger than the fur industry both in size, inhumanity and impact on the environment. Banning fur and bemoaning the rights of minks is a status social issue and nothing more.
13
@Qnbe Yep. Can we just stop killing animals altogether, please?!
8
This is the (I’m)logical equivalent to saying: “we shouldn’t regulate air quality or emissions of toxic chemicals if we really care about the environment. We shouldn’t implement such regulations until we ban all cars and air travel.”
3
It’s completely different. If you really care about animal rights than why go for the tiny but flashy low hanging fruit and not after the real problem?
I don't think this is the City's business to decide.
This is not meant to insult animal activists, who have every right to fight their case.
But what is the City going to do? Stop people on the street for wearing furs? Oh, yes, of course -this said it isn't going to require people to turn old furs in, like unregistered guns. That means the businesses move.
But then -what about leather goods? : banning leather would put a crick in the sales of some of NYC's major fashion retailers. And what about serving meat and poultry in restaurants? What is the ethical line that is being drawn?
The City government has the obligation to promote the health and welfare of residents, not to act as their conscience. It should better place more effort into helping children and families than into protecting animals who don't live locally. Or in helping the animals who do live here. And cleaning up and reducing the garbage it generates, which will help animals everywhere.
24
Does anybody realize that leather is still the skin of a killed animal only with the fur removed? Another faux controversy. As far as prancing around in leopard skin, that’s just plain weird.
9
The Flintstones was cute, with their fur costumes. In real life, not so much. Haven’t we evolved, at least most of us ??? When I see anyone actually wearing “ fur “ i.e. dead animal skins, I feel disgust and amazement. Are they really that clueless, or does Vanity and “ prestige “ outweigh decency? Apparently, it does.
Wear what you wish, but don’t be surprised to get side-eye, and glares. Seriously.
9
@Phyliss Dalmatian
I always mumble insults under my breath.
Like Popeye.
The fur industry viciously brutalizes innocent, defenseless beings for their entire lives, and then gives them a horrendous death.
It is therefore an immoral product. They cannot be any serious debate about that.
21
My goodness, what am I going to do for shoes, I can only wear 3EE, or Extra Wide.
Sneakers aren't made in wide.
How bout my belt, I hate suspenders.
Bye, bye, leather couch, and car seats.
6
While I don’t personally care to wear fur as a matter of personal taste, I love leather products and would be a massive hypocrite to advocate for banning fur while carrying my beloved leather handbags. Furs have fallen out of fashion for quite some time, and the fur farming industry is on the decline, let the market take care of this issue. Meanwhile, though, I will say that I would prefer not to see my pastors wearing fur coats, as furs on men just look tacky.
174
May I recommend checking out some high-end vegan handbags that are increasingly available? I find it hard to avoid leather in some situations (such as my large size 12 feet), but there are some great handbag options out there if you are looking to reduce leather purchases!
14
@Amy Raffensperger
Hi Amy, Guess everybody wearing stuff out of the LL Bean catalogue works in Elizabethtown, PA during the winter. It probably is a matter of survival in E'town for everybody to look the same there in winter, or something lie that, I guess.
Have you ever spent a winter in Grand Marais, MN? It is a tad cooler there than E'town. A fur coat/hat/scarf is the set up of choice simply from a practical point of view when the temperature is -25F and it is windy. Man made fabrics just don't protect anywhere as well, with any comfort or safety.
Plus, no 2 coats/hats/scarfs look alike since they are from a different critter. It is fashion a la mode ... each garment being a conversation piece.
... and men look pretty good in a fur up here.... as well as women.
Daryl
3
@Daryls Don't live there, then. If you don't grow fur on your own body, maybe you don't belong in that frigid climate.
5
"electrocuting and skinning animals alive"
If this is indeed how pelts are obtained, then obviously it should be banned. Tradition or job loss are poor excuses for continuing this obscene behavior.
But surely there are humane ways of killing animals raised solely for their hides? It would make more sense to legislate the procurement process than the product.
7
Yes, Ms. Reich, "it's a little bigger than fur." It's about all the unconscionable ways our species visits cruelty on others. It's about the victims our species creates, those who are actually under attack.
17
I hope that fur goes the way of slavery, but of course, many will just say it's part of their heritage, and in now way is tied to inhumanity or global ecological destruction.
12
" “When the activists are more concerned about saving black lives than black minks, let me know.”"
I hear that.
2
@APS
It's been observed that various kinds of abuse by humans - whether of animals or humans - are often first seen in the abuse of pets. Teaching our young to care about and for animals - whether eating, wearing or simply observing them - could contribute much that should matter to all of us. Abuses of animals and humans are far from mutually exclusive realms.
4
What do these religious traditionalists think about rhino horn, tiger penis, shark fin, pangolin scales, alligator skin, and gorilla hands and feet? I can't see any difference between these more exotic desires and those associated with various furs.
Just because you want to, just because your parents or grandparents did doesn't mean you should.
61
Sorry, but as much as I love animals and hate the thought of them suffering, I don’t think that it’s any more right to tell other people what they can wear than it is to tell women whether they can terminate a pregnancy.
If you have an objection to fur or leather or other animal-based items, don’t wear them. Simple as that.
8
@JM I am against killing, be they animals or human fetuses. I always thought it funny that the left is big on saving animals but fine with being pro-choice, and the right is just the opposite.
4
"Slippery-slope" is the go-to argument made by people who are unable to defend their position.
13
50+ years ago my mom bought a used beaver coat for us. I remember standing in five degree weather feeling warm.
Treat all animals as humanely as possible, but allow for their use.
6
Many years ago, I bought a vintage fuzz coat: it looks like short black fur, but it's some kind of old synthetic sewn into a heavy silk lining. It's shiny, still gets compliments, and has held up beautifully over the years. It's the warmest coat I've ever worn -- so warm, if I was heading to a polar region, I'd take it with me. It cost me six bucks.
Fake fur can look great and doesn't require trapping animals or raising them for only their pelts. Plus, synthetics today are warm and durable. Fur is unnecessary, except as a status symbol --- and our society can do with less emphasis on those, I think.
14
Fur and leather are the earliest human garments, with enormous historical resonance to the craft, and animal skin from farmed animals such as mink (we all agree, I hope, that wild animals should never be used) is a renewable resource that requires few inputs. Plastic in clothing is a major source of pollution in our oceans, and cotton crops are the world's largest source of pesticide contamination and use vast amounts of water. It might well be argued we should all be wearing much more fur and leather ( as well as low-water fibers like hemp.) If we eat meat, and over ninety five percent of us do, there is no logic to this ban. The lives of steers and chickens have no less value than minks, and in factory farms, they are treated just as cruelly. Instead of this feel-good ban which will only put craftspeople out of work, it would make much more sense to create strong legislation enforcing humane treatment in animal agriculture, with criminal penalties against cruel practices.
87
@Cyntha
Nobody eats mink. And animals that taste good should be raised and slaughtered humanely, agreed. We all should eat fewer of them, and consume fewer fabric items, too. We should waste less of everything, and there should be fewer of us, of course!
I don't have any answers for those in the fur trades whose jobs may be endangered - except to say that there may yet be a great alternative for their dying profession in designing, sewing, selling and treating existing fur garments as recyclable materials. Vintage mink, when used to line slippers, is magnificently soft, warm and guilt free! You could make 10 pairs out of a short coat, and the raw material would be cheap.
As for leopard skin coats trimmed in sable - I suppose it's the right thing to trot out to wear with your blood diamonds. Aptly and amply displays your ignorance and disregard for animals, the earth and other humans. Not an enviable look for anybody, not today.
9
Do not support it because it treats furriers differently than animal protein eaters, hunters, etc. Too much loss of jobs, taxes.
3
@NR
Jobs and money loss are minuscule, and irrelevant to NYC.
And I agree that it is to small step, but a good and public display of our moral character as a society. And yes indeed, I'm for a factory farm ban as well.
10
People have worn fur since the dawn of man. Having grown up with New York winters, I would say that wearing fur is not just a matter of vanity. Many commenters say that there is no reason to wear fur since there are manufactured substitutes. However, the manufacturing processes for these often result in pollution and environmental destruction, not to mention exploitation of foreign and even child labor. Fur farming must be regulated to provide humane treatment of these animals.
27
@JF
Good luck with that Humane Treatment biz.
Should be no problem for such a Humane species as us :)
6
@JF There were rather fewer people around at the "dawn of man"
Tradition is no excuse for cruelty. With so many stylish and warm faux fur options, there’s simply no defense for wearing a coat made from animals who spent their entire lives pacing the wire floor of a tiny cage, slowly losing their minds from the extreme deprivation, before being cruelly killed.
427
@PaulaRenee this is exactly why I could not rationalize keeping a fur vest. It took me 15 years to buy one, and 24 hours to return it. I just couldn't make it work for me.
16
@PaulaRenee Where do you draw the line? Polyester microfibers from fleece are an enormous threat to the entire natural world. Perhaps, a more temperate approach would be in order--legislating humane conditions for raising animals and encouraging the recycling of vintage furs. I'm extremely allergic to chemicals and can't wear synthetic fibers. I'm dependent upon leather and sheepskin, down, etc. Next time you put on your polyester fleece just think about how many fish you are killing and how much pollution YOU are causing with your insistence on artificial materials.
46
@PaulaRenee - Obvious question is what's next? Why not ban the sale of leather belts, leather shoes, etc. Then ban exotic meats, then beef, lamb, pork, etc.
Yes, fur coats are not a necessity, but neither is a hamburger.
17
How many animals have to die?
Don't all of them? If someone is offended that a dead animal sometimes becomes apparel then said person should choose not to wear dead animals. I understand a lot of people make that choice. Fine by me. But quit telling all the rest of us that we, too, must live by your rules. Otherwise, come out to flyover country and start collecting roadkill so you can provide appropriate disposal of remains. Because more animals are killed by cars than they are killed for apparel.
29
@Vanessa Hall You're actually saying that the people of New York can't decide for themselves what is sold in their city. Why can't they?
5
I must have missed the part about voters getting to have a direct say in a fur ban. If the majority of voters approve such a ban, then fine, but this isn't about a ballot measure. And what's next? Banning sugar as an added ingredient? Meat?
2
@Vanessa Hall How many animals have to die? All of them. But how many animals have to be raised and slaughtered in cruel conditions? None of them.
2
I love it when people get so invested in defending something indefensible that their defenses start to sound like complete nonsense. Oh, but it’s our cultural heritage! Give me a break.
55
It sounds like a diverse group of opponents to this measure. So I don’t understand why your heading only mentions “black ministers.”
8
When we banned public indoor smoking in I think 2001 or 2002, the doom sayers told us we had no right to infringe on other folk's life choices and that it was not fair and blah, blah, blah...
Almost everyone now agrees it was a great move. No one really wants to breath cigarette smoke all through dinner or come out of a bar smelling like a a filthy ashtray.
Time to move forward and stop the needless cruelty. In five years we will wonder what took so long.
85
When will perfume be banned? There are many people who are allergic and have to avoid others wearing perfume just to be able to breathe.
But the industry will never let that happen.
5
@Will. Smoking affects the health of other people. Wearing fur doesn't. It affects the health of animals and I get some people must love minks all animals. I don't particularly think minks provide much else to the world but what do I know? Do they have rights? I don't know. Maybe. I just wonder where it all ends in terms of bans and what the real priorities should be.
But my point here is the two issues are not the same.
8
I have two pets and love animals. I purchase free range eggs and chicken, and support small, sustainable farms. I have a leather jacket which I love. I do not wear fur, not for ethical reasons, I simply don't feel it matches my personal style. That said, I do not support this ban. I think it is the wrong approach. If most fur coats were made from wild animals, that would be a different issue, but the truth is that most fur is raised and then killed for their pelts, not unlike how we manufacture our food. For those who have never visited a slaughterhouse, it is not a pretty affair. As long as fur is raised for this purpose and killed humanely, by all means, enjoy your fur coat. Legislating morality is never a good idea and the backlash is sure to follow.
46
@j - I hope a ban on fur is passed and I hope it's the first step towards banning the killing of animals for food. People come up with all kinds of reasons to kill animals for food. It's time we all became vegetarians. Enough with killing poor animals, whether wild or farmed.
16
@j Actually we legislate morality all the time, because if we did not, we would still have children working in factories, unsafe food, unsafe working conditions in lots of jobs, and many other things that are obviously wrong but required the force of law to make people stop doing them because they are otherwise profitable. Fur is one of those things. I don't know if farming can be ethical, but domesticated cows and chickens don't inherently mind being on a clean, spacious farm (they can't survive on their own). A wild mink being farmed is being tortured from birth to death -- they never have a moment of peace, since they are wild animals being caged is totally unnatural for them. There is no ethical way to raise them for fur that turns a profit. Fur is a small business that is always cruel and we're better off without.
12
@Robert
I remember seeing a documentary many years ago that included a segment on mink "farming" and mink behavior. They showed the psychotic minks in the standard cages and they showed minks being the happy weasels that they can be -- running and playing and being friendly to their keepers. I think that they had the same mink density in each treatment. So there probably is an ethical as well as profitable way to raise them.
3
If it’s uniting Hassids and the Black church and doesn’t oppress women or queers, I’m all in. More fur, less strife.
9
I am a wildlife biologist and hunter, so not sentimental or squeamish about animals. However, fur trapping is very cruel, with the animal's leg gripped in crushing jaws, often for days before the trapper checks his traps. And minks raised in small cages are psychotic.
People's vanity is a pathetic reason for inflicting such pain and suffering on sentient beings.
250
It's pretty easy to ban fur in California, it rarely gets cold enough to wear it. PETAns are so radical that they push me in the unintended direction; I don't respond well to terrorism or didacticism; I like to make up my own mind.
5
Animal rights versus babies in the womb rights. These same people who are defending the rights of animals are protesting abortion bans across the country. I guess animals are on a higher plane than infants and take precedence over humans. This is disgusting and I would never risk my life for an animal over a child. I certainly would value the life of an unborn child over an animal every single time it came up for debate. Always.
3
@KMW A fetus is not an "infant."
13
@KMW
How do you know they're the same people? Why can't folks be against killing animals and killing babies?
2
Ban it! Fur is cruel and it's time to break with tradition.
19
I think everyone can agree that no one wants to be abused and gruesomely killed for their hair. We don't need to wear animal carcasses to formulate our identities or decorate traditions anymore. We can evolve and choose nonviolent fashions instead.
271
@KW
Do you have any leather handbags, belts, or jackets? Many of us have.
Leather is the twin sister of fur.
6
@KW
Would it matter if the animal is humanely dispatched for fashion? What if the animals are killed in a more humane way than say a food processing plant?
Who are you to force your own moral beliefs on any other individual? What make you think you have the privilege to do that?
4
@KW
Turning 75 years old shortly -I would kill for some more hair.
5
I am a longtime vegan who, like many other vegans, tries to avoid wearing leather and other animal derived products. Of course, this means that my pants are constantly falling down and I can't find shoes for the life of me. So for the last several years I have just given up on clothing. I go around naked everywhere. It is hard, and sometimes cold, but I know I am doing the right thing. Of course, when I go to vegan and vegetarian potlucks, half the people are naked, and the pants are falling down on the other half.
Yes, furs are a status symbol in some cultures, just like slaves were a status symbol in some cultures. How would cultures survive without their status symbols? I've been losing a lot of sleep over this.
And, like banning slavery, banning furs is a slippery slope. We slipped from slavery to black people wanting an education and the right to vote and then we slipped to where black people thought they could get jobs and use the same bathrooms, and buy houses in nice neighborhoods ... What a travesty that was!
But seriously, there is an ecologically correct answer to fur: Recycled human hair. Everyday Americans discard many tons of human hair that could be processed and used to make many types of garments. We need to get moving on this idea. I don't want to have to spend another winter buck-naked!
33
@Dan Frazier
This made me crack up! Thanks for the giggle.
8
Ha ha...nice!
1
People with any class know how goush it is to wear fur.
Here in New York mostly pimps wear fur.
17
@New World You watch too much television. Bet you've never even seen a pimp.
7
@New World
First, it spelled gauche. Second, as the minister in article states "when they start caring more about saving black lives than black minks, then let me know' Nobody cared when white society was buying all those furs years ago; if you dont like fur dont buy one. Stop telling me how I should spend my money. And if you attack me for wearing fur, you better call you momma and tell her you loved her first.
6
Well, who's got more intersectional juice - freezing black ministers or helpless, sheared animals?
5
The first thing I have to say is the argument for wearing fur because it makes you feel better about your status in society (which I heard this morning from some who are against the ban) is pitiful. If you need to sport fine clothing and jewelry to make yourself feel valuable, that is sad. The other argument that jobs are at stake is an understandable one. I also take issue with imposing laws that may violate people's individual rights. However, the fur industry is one of the cruelest industries in animal husbandry, but it is not the only one that abuses and tortures animals. I think most people would at least think twice before purchasing animal products if they saw where the animals came from and the way they are treated. Maybe the best approach is to educated people and show them videos of animals raised for fur and food and let them make thoughtful, humane choices. Humane education is about imparting the facts so that people can make compassionate choices.
27
I appreciate the argument that the commercial fur industry is cruel. But it is false to say there’s no such thing as ecologically sound fur. Some indigenous communities harvest animals for food and fur. While that may not be a big factor in NYC, outright bans limit traditional artisans’ markets and income potential, as well as the opportunity to appreciate another culture and support traditional practices.
4
@Anne
Not just indigenous, but rural folks as well. I know laid off construction workers and teens who supplement their winter income trapping.
5
“Corey Johnson, an enthusiastic animal lover”
Not so sure he is an enthusiastic lover of mosquitos, ticks and leeches.
Really I think the City Council has more important things to deal with.
If they are really concerned about this they could require that vendors disseminate some “unbiased” information on how the various animals are housed, grown and dispatched. Then let the consumer decide.
6
Animal fur, unlike synthetic clothing and plastic bags is compostable, renewable and doesn’t use hydrocarbons in it’s manufacture. I think that there are much more important issues to protest. Like, how about controlling feral cats. Cats are devastating the wild bird and small mammal population. The city, state and federal governments do nothing. This is a truly important issue the anti-fur folks would better spend their time and energy on.
27
@Wpearce I'm just wondering why cats devastating the wild bird and small mammal population is a "truly important issue"--I get that it's undesirable, but what makes it more than that?
Yes, yes, let's slide down that slippery slope, eschewing the Judeo-Christian philosophy that we are here to have dominion over all the creatures of the earth, embracing that we are all creatures. On the way down, we can find ethical ways to stay warm....then let's descend further with a carbon tax on beef. Let's find a better, more sustainable way to live--oh wait....actually it's going to be a CLIMB which sooner or later, we're all going to have no choice but to make.
8
The fur industry may have once tried to convince consumers that its cruel products were a signifier of some sort, but these days, people overwhelmingly recognize real fur for what it is: the product of immense suffering and inexcusable cruelty. With so many animal- and eco-friendly materials available to help us keep warm and stylish, it's time to ban fur.
320
@Lucy P
I think you might have it backwards: historically, people wanted (aspired) to wear fur (this goes back thousands of years) and thus an industry was eventually started to meet the demand. Then again, when people today stop wearing leather garments (footwear, jackets, pants, purses, etc) and stop eating animal meat- then we can address furs. Then again, just coming from the gym I am reminded again that wearing spandex is a privilege, not a right. Following that, men should only wear muscle shirts if they have actually muscles. I speak as a former reporter for WWD, DNR and Men's Wear Magazine, but don't hold that against me. Blame John Fairchild. PS: both my ex wives have full length ranch mink coats. My father made them...and hundreds more, but seal and Persian lamb were easier for me to work on. But i have no bias.
5
@Mark Shyres
Always loved Do Not Resuscitate magazine. Hope to read it on my deathbed.
@Greater Metropolitan Area
I'm off to get my copy now. Thanks.
I should start off by saying that I think killing animals for fur is immoral, and even more so when those animals killed for fur are treated inhumanely.
However, I am not sure why it is inherently worse than killing an animal for meat or for leather. This is not to condone any of these activities. I am just pointing out that many of us find wearing fur morally repulsive in a way that we don't find eating meat or wearing leather morally repulsive.
People say we eat meat--meat is a source of nutrition--and this is what justifies killing animals for it. However, we can live just as well without meat and leather as we can without fur.
If there were a law banning the purchasing of meat, many of us would find that unreasonable, but why would that be any different than this law?
I think the answer is that meat plays a big role in our lives and in our culture, whereas fur does not. However, for some people in the article, fur does play a big role in their lives and in their culture. We should acknowledge this point. We often view people who wear fur as barbaric--as lesser people than ourselves. To avoid being inconsistent, we should also view meat eaters in this way.
I don't support this law. A better and less controversial place for people to put their efforts would be on passing laws ensuring that animals slaughtered for fur and meat are treated more humanely. They could even pass a tax on fur and use the money from the tax to support the humane treatment of animals.
357
@EL
To clarify what I said--I think both eating meat and wearing fur should be regarded as barbaric.
HOWEVER, I do NOT think the people in either case should be regarded as barbaric. My point was that people who wear fur are no more barbaric than people who eat meat.
28
It's the cute and fuzzy factor. We're more appalled by the mistreatment of creatures we wish to scratch under the chin. If people wore bug carapaces, no one would bat an eye.
14
@EL
I'm not challenging your response here, but I have to take issue with the common assumption that people can easily do without meat. Some can, some can't. Dietary needs varies widely between individuals. I need a high protein, high fat, and low carb diet, aka Paleo. I've tried vegetarian food, but I shouldn't eat legumes and can only tolerate a few beans without digestive distress; not to mention that all the carbs that veggies eat damage my health and sense of well-being. If I don't respect these guidelines, I feel awful, am always hungry, and lose cognitive ability. Vegetarians and vegans are very self-righteous regarding their own dietary choices, and have no concept of other's actual needs based on dietary science. I think it's great that they choose to eat lower on the food chain, but I don't have that choice, and they are arrogant to assume that I do have that choice.
41
Hey Pastors:
"The Righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the Wicked are cruel"
Proverbs 12:10
15
We kill pigs, chickens, cattle, lambs, fish, goats, sheep, snakes and we eat them. We process their parts to make apparel. We call exterminators to murder rats.
A mink is a weasel. Do you know what a weasel looks like? Is it more worthy of life than a beautiful brown cow, or a pig -- both sentient beings?
Get a grip. Fur coats are no big deal. If they are, for you, then tell me when you forego: steak, ribs, lobsters, KFC, barbacoa, burgers, roti, belts, shoes, coats, leather car seats, etc. etc. Otherwise, pipe down.
20
@KKW Many of us? Please provide metrics on those in your camp, vs. those who eat sentient creatures. Why does a huge majority end up being bullied and badgered by a small minority.
Further, what is the difference between the argument you make, and the argument of those against abortion rights? You and they "choose to live by moral and ethical principles" and wish to impose that moral view on a majority. You live your way, I'll live mine. Hope you enjoy your Thanksgiving soy burger.
1
“In our culture, fur is a sign of status, achievement" . . . Hmm, I wonder if Jesus wore fur too?
15
Isn't that statement so sadly shallow and devoid of anything even adjacent to spirituality? @APH
6
@APH - In the desert?
2
The only people who should wear fur are northern indigenous people.
4
@Kerry Li - And characters on Game of Thrones. And can we define "indigenous" ? My ancestors all come from northern Europe and I'm pretty sure they would have worn fur.
Living in Seattle, fur would just be a sopping wet thing to drag around town so I opt for REI outerwear.
1
"Culturally insensitive"?
How about "insensitive to animal torture"?
75
Bottom line is that innocent animals are tortured and murdered for nothing more than vanity.
79
Furs should be banned primarily because they are abysmal fashion taste! Animal welfare is a secondary reason. And for those crying about the use of "plastic" to make coats - it's a justifiable use of resources to use polymers to make durable goods, things intended to last for years. It's single-use plastics that are the actual problem.
10
Bill de Blasio blindsided his voters first day after his election by announcing the ban on Central Park carriage horses. I learned that he claimed it was a promise. Only to be informed later that he was in cahoots To get the west side stables property for some pal. Never felt the same about the man. Now I will never feel the same about Corey Johnson. You cannot get up early enough to get ahead of the self righteous.
10
To be consistent, shouldn't those opposed to fur coats also actively fight against (human) abortion?
If you don't think animals, who will die at some point in any case, should be killed for their coats, what do you think of terminating the life of a fetus for the sake of convenience?
1
@C Moore Because the woman carrying that fetus (which is not viable outside the womb) is entitled to bodily autonomy. Similarly, the animal is a sentient being already living outside its mother's womb. It's actually pretty simple and consistent. What is not consistent is valuing bodily autonomy for males while denying it to women.
8
What ISN'T banned or taxed in NYC?
1
Air to breathe I guess.
1
Haven't these people seen the incredibly convincing "fake fur" that's easily available without killing what's left of our dwindling wildlife, or caging these wild animals for our sartorial amusement?
36
One day in the far future people will look back at this time and see how barbaric we've treated our fellow animals. They will judge us because morally we are wrong to cause suffering to sentient beings. The next evolution will be extending our empathy to all our fellow earthlings.
53
@Ed
Ban over-dimensioned egos and wait for the collateral gains. I’m better than him, her or them because I have more money but my ego requires that I affirm this by wearing soft dead animals on my back or head? And that’s only a tiny portion of the myriad sociopathic symptoms that happens to be on subject. No empathy. None. As a species we have so far to go but those same egocentricities will ensure that we will not endure. We are but a part of our world and not the masters of it.
4
This is really strange that blank ministers are defending wearing furs as a treasured part of tradition and culture. Ideals of morality change with the times. For some white families of the past, owning slaves was a treasured part of tradition and culture too, but that didn't make it right. Changing moral values made that taboo. Changing moral values is making the wearing of furs unacceptable. I was surprised to read that black people have a long history of fur wearing. I recently heard a black woman complaining that now that black women can afford to buy furs it is becoming unacceptable as if the change is being made to spite them. I have noticed that black people like to dress really nicely for church, but it can be done without killing an animal just for its pelt. If this law passes, it will be a long time before the present selection of fur garments are worn out and irreplaceable.
47
@S.L. Slavery is analogous to wearing fur?
1
The fur industry is dying. The number of mink farms in the US has dropped from about 1000 in 1990 to fewer than 300 today, and the market for furs has largely shifted to Eastern European and Asian countries. A ban in NYC or anywhere else in the country will have no impact on those markets.
It’s difficult at this point in time to justify killing animals to keep warm or to make a fashion statement, but it also seems unlikely that urban fur bans will have any impact. If NYC bans furs, businesses will simply move, and they won’t have to go far. This may be a case where education is much more effective than legislation.
10
This doesn't make sense. If the industry is dying and then the biggest city and market forces out those businesses, they won't just move someplace else. Logically, if the industry is shrinking, they aren't going to find some other growing market for their business. I do not support the existence of this industry, just pointing out the logical fallacies here.
5
The argument 'it'll destroy industry and tradition' is hilarious.
Here are some industries:
-- slavery
-- narcotrafficking
-- arms dealing
-- child prostitution
If an industry is morally wrong, it should be destroyed, period.
Here are some traditions, to refresh your memory:
-- female circumcision
-- again, slavery
-- bullfighting
-- only property-owning white men should be able to vote
-- everything terrible the world has ever moved past
So whenever you say 'industry' or 'tradition,' know that these are not values in themselves.
187
@Tom why do some people always feel the need to use black peoples suffering to make your point about animal rights. Believe it or not black people should not be compared to animals. Stop it.
3
@MP A disappointingly ironic response given the headline the NYT chose to publish, which feeds into white furriers' cheap and exploitative use of black bodies to support their dying industry.
Tom is right.
3
". . . the Council would ban the sale of fur garments and accessories, but it would allow the sale of used fur garments and new apparel using fur from older garments. Violators would be subject to fines of $500 to $1,500, and any money made from selling banned fur would be subject to forfeiture."
So what's next? The "Fashion Police" who will be able to actually differentiate between new and old fur? Please.
Isn't it long over due for humans to cease killing animals simply to adorn their selfish bodies with the fur from these murdered beautiful and magnificent creatures?
7
Wearing a fur coat is much better for the environment than wearing a coat made of polyester and goretex. If fur is bad and feathers are bad and silk is bad and leather is bad, there isn’t much left to wear other than fibers derived from oil. What’s left ? Cotton and bamboo? Neither is a good insulator.
12
I only shop cruelty-free. There's no reason to buy fur in this age!
27
If you got rid of fur and leather the alternative will be PLASTIC. Plastic is the real killer of our environment.
I am all for the ethical treatment of animals, but people have to come first. We are getting rid of Plastic Bags in New York. Why exactly would be be encouraged to switch to Plastic Clothing?
35
@Arlene Recycled materials and organic materials are amazing. It's a very exciting time to explore alternative materials. New jobs and better footprints.
17
@Arlene what about wool and planted based fibers like cotton?
7
@Ariene
Have you heard of cotton? Linen? Hemp?
4
I root for the animals. People in the fur trade should have their kids learn technology and medicine.
37
@Adele 1,100 jobs is relatively few, unless it's your job. Personally, I'd like to see a ban on carriage horses in the city, but the the 400 or so carriage operators were deemed too important to get it done.
The City has more important issues to resolve than this. The furriers will relocate, only their workers will suffer, and the fur industry will continue around the world.
6
While it isn't great for people to lose their jobs, killing animals purely for their coats just isn't supported by most people in this country. Leather is one thing, but mink or lynx fur just isn't necessary.
I could see a religious exemption being made for the Hasidic community, but as far as fur coats go, there's no real excuse. We have modern coats that work perfectly well that don't require killing anything. We even have perfectly wearable synthetic fur that looks just as fashionable. If your only defense of doing something is "it's tradition", then maybe the subject is overdue for an ethical re-examination.
18
@Greg
I’ve just about had it up to here with religious exemptions.
3
There is a bill going through the California legislature at the moment that would ban fur in the entire state. I hope it passes.
Arguments about culture and tradition should fall on deaf ears. Also, the loss of jobs. Culture and tradition must evolve - especially against such cruelty. How many jobs have been lost due to changing times? Millions! Jobs are constantly evolving. People can learn to do something else to make a living.
Over the years fur is becoming less and less popular. I rarely see anyone wearing it now. Those animals need their coats more than we do. And there is plenty of faux fur available for those that like that look.
And why is it that some people, in this case black ministers, think that people that care about animals don't care about people?? Yes, black lives do matter, whether they are human beings or minks.
116
@Sharon I guess, technically, the animals don't need those coats anymore since we've been kind enough to take their lives away from them, in exchange for skinning they're body so we can look all pretty and stuff.
This whole slippery slope thing is ridiculous. Food is a lot lot different than fashion....meanwhile leather is taken from cows that are slaughtered for food. Cows aren't just being killed for their skin.
7
NYClass and PETA are also among the supporters of this ban. First they wanted to take the livelihood away from carriage drivers, now the people who work with fur. Who will be next? Anyone who sells meat?
I'm afraid this is a slippery slope.
For example, PETA thinks that ultimately, no one should have a pet.
The council should be concentrating on ways to help people. not wasting their time on measures that would hurt them.
11
@JsBx
First off, PETA and other supporters of the ban are not proposing it because "they wanted to take the livelihood away" from anyone. They propose the measures to protect the lives of the animals involved.
Your "who will be next? Anyone who sells meat?" comments are spurious. Fur is not the same as meat. It is a luxury item that comes by means of epic animal cruelty. It has no value in terms of life sustaining nutrition as meat obviously does. Fur is a pointless vanity. No animal should be killed or caused torturous pain for the purpose of human vanity.
17
When I see someone wearing a fur coat, I'm so repulsed that I have to hold myself back from saying something.
I just attribute it to ignorance.
64
@John Doe - So, I'm guessing you don't watch Game of Thrones? I have never seen the show, only promo pictures for it, and it seems to be a fur fest.
8
@John Doe
Let us pretend I walk past you. I have a lovely gray fur coat collar, with a complicated history. And I am one of those people who would never buy fur. You are repulsed, and finally say something, and I explain.
At auction, a rack of clothing was going to be consigned to the dump, and I was appalled, because there was this lovely fur with it. I could not bear the callous indignity, when a dear animal had died just to have its pelt taken. It reminded me of my own beloved dog that had recently died. The silky soft fur, the ready affection, the joyous walks.
So I went to the auctioneer, and he let me have it for $1. When I occasionally wear it, I think of the animal it came from and honor the presence it once had on earth, its alternative potential to give joy, and regret how it died. I think of my beloved pet, and animals in general. I admire its silky beauty. It's sad, and it's complicated. But to take an animal's life and pelt, and consign it to the dump was just something I couldn't live with.
I don't wear it for vanity. I wear it to remember, and to honor, and I will never buy a fur coat. People are strange and complicated, aren't they?
7
@John Doe I feel the same way about people covered with tattoos.
8
We use and often kill animals for many purposes — food, science and medicine, footwear and yes, warmth and display. The ethical issues are worth pondering and, if so moved, a person can change their behavior. But having the New York City Council consider a fur ban is an abuse of power and abdication of their duty to serve the interest of the City and its residents. If they have some free time on their hands, how about addressing our unfunded retiree pension and healthcare obligations (over $140 Billion), our lack of preparedness for the next natural disaster, an education system that fails low achievers, our struggling public hospitals...there’s more than enough relevant work if the Council was looking for something more than cheap piety and headlines.
191
@10009
A person acting as if they are apart from the natural world is not human(e). If the Pastors asked their congregants to sacrifice a pet each for the greater good of creating furs for the community, that would be the end of fur.
20
@10009
You are forgetting about basic decency, ethics, and morality. Those are vitally important.
13
@10009 it’s possible to focus on more than one thing: address pension, healthcare, and questions of basic ethical and moral decency
2
I'd like to see those who wear fur kill and skin the animals that make up their wardrobe. If they can do that, then let them wear it (and for those who eat animals, too).
27
I take it you serve roast soy at Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings?
15
@Fast Marty - ouch! yes, Tofurkey is the Thanksgiving food plus I have the most exquisite Neiman Marcus faux fur, which my husband doesn't like because it looks too real.
3
@Megan Hulce
After you have harvested the meat of an animal you've killed, it's not that hard to skin it.
Depending on the value of the hide it might not be worth the effort.
Not all leathers are alike, or can be used for the same purposes. Processing the leather is the trick. Using the brains to process the hide as was done back in the day is discouraged due to Chronic Wasting Disease.
1
They should ban fur. As a society we should not encourage animal cruelty. They are many types of fake fur that people can use that don't cause animals to be tortured.
196
@MaryEllen So it's impossible to ethically source fur? Why is that not true of meat and leather, and if it is true, why wouldn't we ban those?
I've never owned or wore fur, and I very rarely eat meat, but I think we're much better off trying to regulate the industries to prevent animal cruelty rather than outright banning products. The only reason that a fur ban is on the table is because not many people wear fur so it's an easy win with few "victims," not because it's inherently a better law than banning meat or leather.
11
@MaryEllen
How about changing the law so that animals are not tortured instead?
8
@MaryEllen
fake fur = plastic, like we don't have enough of that
6
The responsible presentation of this article would have included a picture of the animals that Corey Johnson is talking about alongside the picture they chose of a woman wearing a leopard. When we’re actually asked to look at what is happening in the fur industry, it is impossible to look away. I hope more cities move in this direction.
154
25 years ago when men were successful or had a good sales year, they went out and bought a new car during lunch. When women were successful or had a good sales year, they went our a bought a new fur coat during lunch. I am proud to say I own several. While I definitely understand the cruelty issue, I can't help but wonder when we will ban leather pants, leather coats, shoes, etc.
Is my well-deserved Birkin next?
15
No, but I wonder what endangered species with beautiful fur will be the next to go extinct.
23
Good for you. My mother and her sisters wore fur coats.
Skinning nearly extinct animals is different from breeding animals for furs. The way they're bread for pork chops, steaks, and shoe leather.
No, I wouldn't want to kill and quarter a cow.
But an old friend would eat only what he killed, and he'd go back home, down South, and do some shooting.
2
No, but your merkin may be. This is, after all, an issue regarding fur...
2
As much as this article tries to identify legitimate criticizes of the fur ban, it really just exposes their frivolity.
The industry is a minuscule one, and the cultural importance argument falls flat on its face when it is revealed it is primarily just a class distinction symbol, which is already losing its significance because of its increasing affordability. Religious significant items are exempted and so are used fur sales.
Also lets not neglect the fact that propping up the importance of furs as a class signifier as a counter argument to the ban is just problematic.
125
@Dubblay
On what planet does Mr. Samuels's $55,000 coat represent "increasing affordability"?
6
@Dubblay
Thank you for noting the "affordability" angle, and (implicitly) the issue of social class.
Back in the 1980's, furs were marketed aggressively. Prices were cut. Stores which were like "warehouses" of fur coats (sold at cut rate prices) sprang up and advertised on every radio and TV station. The family-owned, small boutique seemed to be on the way out. The wearing of fur began to expand to strata of society lower than the upper-crust. You could see secretaries in the Wall Street area wearing their furs. It became déclassé.
Quickly, many upper-income women stopped wearing fur, and the anti-fur community's activism became more aggressive. I can't speak for any one person who stopped wearing fur. I'm confident most would state concerns about the welfare of the animals and the ethics of wearing fur. However, I do believe that the association of furs with the lower classes made possible the decline in fur's popularity. I note here that the Pastor is correct: Black people who have achieved success have worn furs for a long time. They were customers of this industry long before anti-fur activism. Still, I believe race needs to be taken into account during this discussion.
I don't know that this law would accomplish anything. I don't wear fur. The weather in New York does not justify it. I do believe, however, this issue is one where changing minds will be a better approach than legislation.
1
@Andy Jo Fur is extremely common in NYC and is becoming moreso. If you walk around in winter, it's like every third person is wearing a Canada Goose coat with coyote fur trim.
It is embarrassing that tourists from other countries--many of which have banned fur--see this when they come here. What does that say about our values to the rest of the world?
This is such an easy thing to change, an easy way to be compassionate in a divisive time.
2