SF fur sales ban gets hairy as activists challenge furriers

Jakeclark Bennett ’18, Staff Reporter|May 7, 2018

Geography.org

The mink is one of the most popular animals targeted for its fur.

San Francisco is one of the first major cities in the United States to ban sales on new fur products.

Clothing that includes any real fur will be prohibited from being sold by retailers in San Francisco, starting January 2019. Many retailers dislike the ban, as it may hurt their business. They will see a fine of $500 if they attempt to sell new fur after the ban. This is just first violation. However, it is still perfectly legal to continue selling old fur products.

Animal rights advocates rejoice in response to the news that animals will no longer be killed for their fur to be worn. Local retailers who object to the ban contend they will see a decline in business in the fur department.

In the foreseeable future, there may be a massive decline in the desire for fur, or an uptick in the demand of fur. However, renowned animal lovers and protectors of animal rights believe that the era of fur is now dead.

A tweet from the official Peta account on Twitter, posted on March 20, states, “BREAKING: #SanFrancisco has banned fur! They are the first major US city to ban fur sales. Everyone is realizing that #FurIsDead.”

With the belief that “fur is dead,” supporters of the ban hope to take it a step further, and expand the ban to a new world, and create a new era free of animal cruelty.

Parker Zachary ’19 said, “It’s a ban on new ones, not all of them. So that means there’s not going to be a big demand for fur items. The market for new fur will crash. So I’ll think it’ll create a more animal-friendly world.”

The ban only affects new fur products, so there is no word on the ban on other animal products. There is still a long way to go before a true animal cruelty free world can be made.

Economics teacher David Elu said, “I don’t think San Francisco has any reason to ban fur. If people are are against furs, they shouldn’t buy it. If they want fur, that is their choice. So, in terms of the ban, unless the goods are directly harmful, I’m not sure we should go as go far to ban them.”

While people believe it is unethical to wear the dead skin of animals, it is purely an individual choice. Others think it is a choice that shouldn’t be enforced regardless of morals, as it doesn’t cause any direct harm.

Elu added, “I am aware of the harm it does cause to animals, along with how they are treated. Again, it is an ethical decision and I choose to not engage in that marketplace. I do not believe it is up to the state to tell us what we can and cannot do on a scale of morals.”

Tomizo Callejas ’20 said, “Well, it is unethical—but at the same time, ethical, because we kill animals for food. If we kill animals for fur and also food, it should be fine.”

Food and clothes are necessary to ensure survival when combating the natural elements. However, fur ban supporters say that consumption of food is something that is natural, while wearing animal skin is not needed for survival.

Many see the ban as a historic event, as the day animal advocates won a battle to protect animals from being profited off of by being turned into fashion.