The California Fur Ban and What It Means for You

The fur industry tortures sentient beings, is unnecessary and barbaric. It is time to evolve away from wearing animals and eating them.

So there’s religion again demanding exceptions.

Fur is cruel and should be outlawed everywhere. I'm proud of CA for taking this important step for animals. It's time we turned to synthetics and cruelty-free alternatives.

Again, this is a prime example of how in American politics any compromise is seen as surrender and any bill just a stop gap until the Faith Militant on either side get what they REALLY want - which in this case is a government-mandated vegan lifestyle with a total ban on the use of leather, wool etc... Doubt me? Just read the comments here: if you eat meat you're guilty of murder, horses shouldn't be at the command of humans, keeping pets is akin to slavery etc...

The newsprint version of this story is directly above an ad for Saks Fifth Avenue. The two models are wearing coats with fur trim. I wonder if the layout person is always this ironic...

Like the choice is to consume animals and animal products, wearing fur is barbaric.

California has rampant homelessness, inequality, problems with migrant workers, wildfires, water shortages past and future, a deteriorating power infrastructure and regressive NIMBYism. But the important stuff is being taken care of.

Given that fur is sustainable and all-natural, and that we could easily enact legislation to ensure that all fur is obtained humanely (SAGA authorized fur already is), this is unnecessary and probably ultimately harmful. I love my fur - mostly vintage and repurposed - for the same reasons that I prefer other natural fibers, organic and humanely-raised foods, and classic vs fast fashion. A more environmentally-sound legislation would focus on banning labels making disposable clothing and allowing dangerous worker conditions.

Anyone with an ounce of empathy would know how wonderful a fur ban is. Let's spread it nationwide now!

Ultra-othodox Jews wear tall fur hats for special occassions and holidays (such as sukoth, celebrated today). What happens to their tradition?

Fur is not necessary. Fur must be banned. This ban is a terrible baby step, the problem of today's liberal wanting to make as many people happy. Non-human animals are not at humans' service to fulfill demented wishes to show off their laughable wealth. I cannot wait for New York City to catch up, and my city needs to hurry. I was---stupidly, regrettably---walking through Central Park this past Sunday and amplifying the noise of the circus that this park always is---the people who travel to see where Lennon was murdered, the acrobatic performances, the thousands of runners who must make sure everyone sees them running in the park because it's so cool to run in the park---was the sound of horses forced to pull people in carriages. I had thought a ban was underway. I guess it's time to make people really really uncomfortable about their animal-abuse choices, again. Stay tuned, people. Disruption is on the way.

Doesn't government have better things to do? If you don't like fur don't buy it - it will naturally go away.

This. Is. Ridiculous. It's "so last century" huh? The synthetic fabrics we're using instead, will still be found, in the garbage dumps, hundreds of centuries, from now.

Native Inuits have hunted seals in the Arctic Ocean for centuries. They eat and use everything, including the skins which are made into clothing. The Inuit have been selling pelts for decades, but are now becoming poorer than they already were because of fur bans.

"Scary!" Really, Ms. Friedman? Was the gradual end of state-sanctioned human slavery "scary" too?

I’ve lived in California all my life. I’ve never seen anyone wearing a fur coat except in old movies. It’s too dang hot to wear a fur coat.

It’s about time.

It seems the height of hypocrisy to exempt leathers and shearling. All of the designers cited in the article other than Ms. McCartney create and sell (at very steep prices) leather garments and accessories. I suppose it's difficult to maintain 100 percent pure self-righteousness.

Aside from all the moral reasons why not to support the fur industry, who wants a dead animal's fur wrapped around your body when faux fur is just as beautiful and sometimes even more so.

Fur bans are so dumb. Sure, I can see that it makes sense to ban many kinds of fur, just as it makes sense to ban ivory. But this should be a case by case ban, not across the board. Consider how much damage seal fur bans in Canada have done to indigenous peoples and the environment (https://video.vice.com/en_ca/video/politics-of-food-canadas-controversial-seal-hunt/57d2de3ef82e2002a8072de2). Or consider how animal rights campaigns have squashed the fur demand so much that nutria (large invasive rats brought to the US for their fur) populations in the south (Florida and Louisiana) are growing out of hand and decimating native species because there's no reason to hunt them anymore on a large scale. Fur bans can often hurt the most vulnerable people and environments. There should be a bit more research into the consequences before bans like these are put in place.

The cynical tone of this piece is shameful. The author has lived too long in the self-serving fashion bubble and it has distorted her values. Friedman presents this new legislation as an inconvenience. It, and those who fought for it, should instead be celebrated.

"Is this the beginning of the end of the mink coat?" Well, let's let's work toward two things: That there will be no more mink coats on people, and many more wild mink coats on minks. Minks are playful, intelligent animals caged and killed for confused people who don't connect their fashion preferences to the cruelty and suffering those preferences demand. I saw a mink yesterday, carrying her kits one at a time across a trail by the river. The way she bounded looked just like music.

Let's not forget the awful history of the fur industry: nearly wiping out the European beaver, driving the sea mink and the toolache wallaby to actual extinction, slaughtering eight-million koala and then intentionally mislabeling them as "wombat" after consumer push-back (there are only 43,000 kolala left in the wild), helping wipe out American Bison for buffalo robes, incentivizing a US government campaign in the mid 1900s that poisoned almost 10 million coyotes with strychnine, the introduction of invasive species like nutria, the mislabeling of domesticated cat and dog fur in American stores (still happening!) - and of course, the advent of fur factory-farming that was created asa "solution" to dwindling wildlife from overhunting for furs, and has now resulted in cruelty and ecological destruction on a massive scale - 100,000,000 fox and mink every year. Fur is not "natural" or "sustainable" in the fashion context. Formaldehyde and chromium preserve pelts. Killing methods like anal-electrocution are considered "industry standards". We cannot ever hope to have a sustainable fashion industry while ignorant attitudes towards animals continue to inform and inspire stylists and designers, or be the driving force for sales. A truly sustainable fashion industry requires that we respect the biological and evolutionary reality of our fellow earthlings, their interests, and their habitats as well as acknowledge that they have long been misunderstood, undervalued, and invalidated.

Doesn’t affect my life at all. Never wore fur.

Pardon me, but buying and wearing fur is draconian not the law banning it.

All sentient being are worthy of dignity and respect. It is not our place to mutilate these beautiful creatures, often skinning them alive, without anesthetic, for a pointless luxury good that could easily be replicated using faux fur. Thank you to California for taking a step to end the cruelty. No more fur, ever.

As a Californian, I'm kind of proud and kind of embarrassed...

Another example of extremists -- for those who would ban fur are ready to move on and ban meat -- forcing their views down the throats of the rest of us. Along with their vegan diet, a diet well known to be unhealthy. You want a cause worth fighting for? How about restricting births? The real cause of climate change is people -- too many of them. We may well have passing the tipping point -- the point in a process after which recovery is impossible -- half a century ago. But if we don't try: We, and most animal life, are doomed.

Have neuropathy, wear fur and shearling (two new, one vintage), no regrets. No faux fur holds warmth like the real thing. No real fur is made of toxic chemicals that wind up in trash heaps. Is fur cruel? Yes. So is leather. So is down, unless it’s responsibly sourced (from poultry who have already been killed for their meat). So is meat itself, unless steps are taken to minimize animals’ suffering, and even then there is always suffering. (See Temple Grandin.) And vegan and vegetarian diets can also be cruel when they rely on back-breaking labor performed by pregnant women and small children who are forced to work in terrible conditions. (Drive the Imperial Valley. Notice the portable toilets.) Americans and Europeans who abstain from fur for moral reasons will do nothing to dent the multi-billion dollar market in China ($17b) or Russia ($5b). In those countries, human life and freedoms are often afforded little value. Animal life? Next to none. Those who dislike fur don’t have to wear it. Me? I’ll be warm when the apocalypse comes, side-by-side with my sweetheart, who I rescued as a kitten from an animal shelter when no one else would take her.

"it is following the lead of a number of its own municipalities" There's the rub. Somebody in the land of lala needs to point to the electoral map and notice that the municipalities are one color, and the rural areas are of quite a different complexion. Being a blue state doesn't make you all blue, it just means the red bits got outvoted. For now.

I've never understood the uproar over fur. With fur the animal's sacrifice/usefulness is extended for a a lifetime and beyond, where as with meat, they're just one meal. If there is an order of operations to suffering on this planet, fur seems like one of the silliest places to start but it is often declared the loudest. My mother used to make my clothes when I was a child. She would make rabbit fur lined moccasins and coats and hats. Sometimes she bought the fur and leather, sometimes she raised the rabbits and cured their pelts herself. They were soft as a dream and were warmer than any polysynthetic fiber I've ever encountered and when I grew out of them they were preserved and passed on to the next generation - talk about real sustainability in fashion. What is the real cost/benefit to all life on this planet by using the planet's resources and filling it with pollution to create cheap plastic garments that can only be worn for a season and then tossed into a land fill?

The logical result of excessive anthropomorphism, plain and simple. The industry is such that every part of the animal is used in one way or another - just as it was when the "noble" Native Americans did it to sustain their "heritage" (in quotes because when those groups do it, apparently it's wholesome and altruistic). And of course, no mention of when we do this to sheep. I guess that a sheep's life is less valuable than that of a mink? Obviously Australia paid good lobbying money for this exemption. Average people with their eyes open will see this for what it is: A moral salve in the same vein as those who order up a diet coke to go with their Big Mac meal.

Good. There are so many alternatives to fur, and "fashion" seems a particularly frivolous reason for slaughtering animals. As the article points out, many leading designers have already come to the same conclusion.