Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists…

San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists…

…and the despair of area fashion businesses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGnEV_0zwsc

The last time we visited San Francisco, we noted that its diseased streets were filled with needles, human excrement, and pathogens.

However, in what is a stunning display of misplaced priorities, the city’s supervisors have enacted decisive legislation…banning fur sales.

The ban takes effect Jan. 1 and applies to apparel and accessories featuring real fur, including coats, key chains and gloves. An amendment added Tuesday allows furriers and other retailers to sell current inventory until January 1, 2020.

Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere, said in a statement that “this historic act will usher in a new wave of animal rights legislation across the globe.”

With this move, San Francisco becomes the third California city to ban the sale of real fur, after Berkeley and West Hollywood. Retailers (also known as area employers and the tax base) are balking at this move, and some are demanding a city-wide vote rather than settling for the dictates of the social justice warriors ruling San Francisco.

“It should be a citywide public vote, it shouldn’t be decided by the Board of Supervisors,” said Skip Pas, chief executive officer of West Coast Leather, which sells fur-trimmed items but deals largely in leather.

Pas made an additional point about what the city felt it might be able to ban next.

“What’s next? They’re going to say that you can’t have beef and you can’t have pork and duck in Chinatown? I mean, it’s a little too much.”

Given the extreme behavior of many animal rights activists, you can count that the ban will inspire more drama.

Other business owners are less inclined to resist.

Benjamin Lin, 72, owns B.B. Hawk in the South of Market neighborhood. His showroom features chinchilla, sable, fox, and Blackglama mink.

He is considering keeping his current location but selling fur at a smaller place nearby, outside San Francisco.

“I cannot fight it,” he said of the ban. “I will not win. I do not have the energy and the money.”

Lin is also considering a move to Dallas, where he will find many former Californians who have already fled the state’s business-crushing regulations.

The fur industry vigorously fought the ban, and may continue to challenge the new prohibition.

The International Fur Federation and the Fur Information Council of America wrote a seven page letter to the Board of Supervisors last week opposing the measure. They argued The City should allow fur sales if they meet the criteria of a proposed “Furmark Certification” program. The program would document fur products through the supply chain to prove “that the product has met the highest standards in environmental responsibility and the continued humane treatment of animals.”

The letter warned that the ban “would result in the loss of millions of dollars in tax revenues and jobs as well as the likely increase in retail vacancies in the city’s core” but that it also “sets a very dangerous precedent in opening the door for further actions against leather and wool, already the focus of active animal rights campaigns.”

The industry may sue over the ban.

Perhaps, one day, residents of San Francisco will ask, “Where’s the Beef”… and there will be no answer other than “Texas”.

Meanwhile, the city will continue to be the “Shithole” we all love to hate.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

nest up: “Sales tax revenues are down, City leaders mystified…”

we’re a special kind of 5t()0pid here in #Failifornia.

    Not to mention the likely extinction of the animals now raised for fur.

      Fiftycaltx in reply to TheFineReport.com. | March 22, 2018 at 10:56 am

      And remember, the city rulers will likely RAISE the taxes to pay for roving bands to enforce this edict. Kinda like the Saudi gangs that enforce the rules for “The Prevention of Vice and Promotion of virtue” while armed with bamboo whips. That would work well in Frisco cuz no one has a LEGAL CONCEALED HANDGUN!

    JOHN B in reply to redc1c4. | March 22, 2018 at 8:18 am

    To make p for the lost revenues, they will pass new taxes on something else and call it an “education tax” so if you oppose it, they will say you hate children.

    And on and on…

Is there any reason to kill animals for fur?

Modern synthetics are as good or better than traditional furs, making the slaughter of animals for their skin completely unnecessary.

Is it ok to kill an animal for no reason?

    alaskabob in reply to clubspecial. | March 21, 2018 at 7:29 pm

    Actually modern synthetics are not as good as natural fur in our climate.

      ecreegan in reply to alaskabob. | March 21, 2018 at 8:51 pm

      I don’t have the budget for fur, but there’s nothing like leather for temperature *versatility*: I wear my leather jacket with multiple layers under it in the when the temperature is in the low 30s with a brisk wind, and I wear the same jacket with just a shirt when the temperature is in the low 60s with only a trace of a breeze. Any synthetic warm enough for the former, even with some help from layering, is too warm to be worn above 50 or so.

      My impression is that fur does the same thing, only twenty degrees cooler.

    alaskabob in reply to clubspecial. | March 21, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    “Is it ok to kill an animal for no reason?” Agreed, but wolves and bears up here kill for pleasure.

    Anchovy in reply to clubspecial. | March 21, 2018 at 8:27 pm

    I see your point and tend to agree with it. However, I don’t agree with forcing others to agree with your view. If most people feel that killing an animal for its fur is wrong, then most people will not buy fur. Using the power of the government to force your view of morality on others is way more dangerous than killing and skinning an animal.

      murkyv in reply to Anchovy. | March 21, 2018 at 9:20 pm

      I quit hunting 30+ years ago. Just don’t have the desire to kill healthy animals. Only thing I’ve killed since then have been rabid raccoons.

      But I’ll sure take and savor every bite of any and all venison, rabbit or squirrel that somebody passes my way.

      I do however, have a nuisance license to dispatch any beavers I come across, by any means. The anti-fur campaign has caused a beaver population explosion in agricultural areas that cost farmers a ton of dough. Imagine having $12,000/acre cropland sitting underwater instead of producing 250-300 bu/ac corn.

      All that

        txvet2 in reply to murkyv. | March 21, 2018 at 11:19 pm

        Agree, except for the rabid part. Raccoons are predators and varmints who kill for fun, and are target #1 at my place.

        clubspecial in reply to murkyv. | March 22, 2018 at 9:48 am

        Animals exist on a spectrum. Obviously a farmer who is producing needed crops has a responsibility to protect those crops from pests. That would be an example of a justifiable killing of an animal.

        Fur though… What does anyone need fur for? Primaloft is as good as down in terms of warmth and is superior in the wet. Fur is bulky and is typically only used as trim, and it’s function (keeping wind off the face) can be entirely replaced with synthetics.

      clubspecial in reply to Anchovy. | March 22, 2018 at 9:44 am

      Believe me, I don’t like the government either… Hence why I’m on this site.. Big time libertarian.

      But when something is morally wrong, unjustified, should it be a choice that people can make. Slavery, meh up to you. Murder, meh up to you. Animal cruelty, up to you.

      And before everyone goes crazy for me equating animals to humans, please try to understand that animals do not have to be equal in order to be worthy of moral consideration. The arguments are analogous, not equal. The point remains, if a lesser being is killed for no reason, is it justifiable?

        Milhouse in reply to clubspecial. | March 23, 2018 at 3:16 am

        The question is what makes killing animals immoral, in your opinion? By what standard do you decide what is moral or immoral? As far as I’m concerned animals are things, not people, so they have no rights that any human need concern himself about, just as rocks and trees have no such rights.

        My only moral concern with hunting and fishing is that making killing animals into a fun activity coarsens a person, and makes him less sensitive to human suffering. Killing shouldn’t be fun, it should be work.

        forksdad in reply to clubspecial. | March 23, 2018 at 11:22 am

        Animals are property either private or public. Fortunately we’ve been able to keep nut jobs from restricting our hunting rights too much.

    Walker Evans in reply to clubspecial. | March 21, 2018 at 8:29 pm

    “Modern synthetics are as good or better than traditional furs …”

    [Note: My experience has been practical rather than fashion oriented.] Having had both, I have to disagree. Natural furs by themselves are better in moderate cold (down to -15 or so) but synthetics backed by a prime gray goose down filler are supreme in colder situations.

      Close The Fed in reply to Walker Evans. | March 21, 2018 at 10:53 pm

      Re: Walker Evans

      Just curious; did that goose down come from a synthetic goose?

      alaskabob in reply to Walker Evans. | March 22, 2018 at 12:52 am

      Everything making up my parka as described below is totally functional except the tooled leather accents. True mukluks are superior in super cold dry environments. Eskimo culture has perfected clothing and kayaks that rival modern designs for what they are needed for. Where weight becomes a premium modern gear is great. I wouldn’t consider Arctic as moderate climate as I have been in -60 F and it doesn’t feel moderate to me.

      clubspecial in reply to Walker Evans. | March 22, 2018 at 9:49 am

      Primaloft is as good as down for warmth, and is more resistant to water… So…

    Albigensian in reply to clubspecial. | March 22, 2018 at 10:40 am

    Most of those who wear fur do so because they like the appearance and feel of it. There may be some (a few) who wear fur primarily to keep warm, yet if I owned a valuable fur coat I’d not risk damaging it by taking it on a winter camping trip.

    Besides, as good as fur is for insulation, it’s hard to beat down-filled nylon for warmth-per-pound, as well as durability and ruggedness. Assuming it’s made and designed well, of course.

    Which is not to endorse the anti-fur zealots. This zealotry leads inevitably toward no human use of animals at all: first leather and then meats will be banned, then fish and shellfish, and finally non-destructive uses such as eggs and dairy.

    There’s a line between treating animals raised for human use humanely and demanding humans don’t use them. Practically all of us can support humane treatment, but few of us wish to go full vegan.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to clubspecial. | March 22, 2018 at 10:58 am

    Is it OK to kill a mother carrot just to eat it? Or to take her chillun while she watches? Why don’t you just subsist on air?

    forksdad in reply to clubspecial. | March 23, 2018 at 11:28 am

    Furs are sustainably harvested and far finer than any synthetic. I can tell the difference by sight, touch even smell. And there is nothing as buttery soft or viscerally satisfying as a nice mink or beaver. Even a coyote makes a nice trim on a jacket or coat. Nothing protects and feels like real fur and leather.

    Go peddle your petroleum based chemically dyed nastiness elsewhere.

I bought my wife a $4,500 muskrat coat with a Wolf ruff from David Green’s in Anchorage.

    alaskabob in reply to snopercod. | March 21, 2018 at 7:32 pm

    David L Green, master furriers! My parka was made by them. Beaver with wolverine sub-ruff , wolf ruff and tooled caribou hide for cuffs and trim. 60 below? No problem.

Walker Evans | March 21, 2018 at 7:23 pm

I’ve heard they’re trying to ban screenings of John Wayne’s WWII classic “Flying Leathernecks”. No sarcasm markers on this one – my brother-in-law lives out there and swears it’s true!

My wife wanted to buy a fur coat on sale in California. The minute she said she was from Alaska.. it suddenly became all right to those that questioned her about the purchase.

Alaskans love all animals, some take longer to cook than others.

Leslie Eastman, GREAT line, “Where’s the beef?…Texas!”

4th armored div | March 21, 2018 at 7:41 pm

where will the sale of baby parts fit in ?
aren’t humans thought of as lower than animals to
these shlemiels ?

residents who are anti abortion should use the premise of 3 billboards.

in terms of furriers moving to Texas –
they will turn a red state blue
keep ’em in Kah-Lee-4-nia where they need to live with their damage.
see Kah-ned-ah and immingration woes.

They went after those who wore furs. They used to throw red paint on those wearing fur. They did not go after those wearing leather – Bikers and the sexual deviant community.

Silly Kalifornians.

Who here thinks, “I want a fur” heads off to SF?

I’ll sell you a fur. I live in Tejas now, but it’s the same. I have to buy a trapping license to traffic in furs.

Who here wants to buy furs and their intentions are upset by this latest move to regulate fur trafficking?

One day, humans will look back upon early humans with the horror that we ate animals.

But for now, evolutionarily, we need to still eat them, and use them for fur and leather. And medical research, unfortunately.

That said, it’s nice to use synthetics and alternative research when you can, and spare animals the grief.

I wonder what these fur banner’s shoes are made of? Are they all vegans? What did they have for lunch? Just because humans can’t hear them, don’t you think a field of corn is screaming as the combine comes through chopping up the stalks and ripping the kernels from the cobs? Oh! The Humanity!!

SF banned Happy Meals. Okay, they banned the toy included with the Happy Meal. The zero-calorie toy was evil. Because it was happy. Can’t let that go by without regulatory enhancement.

So now the same scolds ban furs. And instead of little kids crying over a stupid toy? We have have full grown SF adult residents tilting at surprise.

Plastic bags for dog poo? Legal.
Plastic bags for groceries? Illegal.

Animal parts are a renewable resource. Among the biggest we have.

Planned Furrier

I wonder if diversity (i.e. color) matters.

The activists believe that animals “=” humans. They are known for supporting policies that stress native populations and normalize/promote predation of wild, domestic, and human prey.

Animals which are raised for slaughter should be housed in humane conditions. But, they are still being raised to produce products for human consumption. Animals raised for their fur are no exception.

If the animal rights wackos are arguing that these animals are not being raised for meat, that can be changed. We can see upscale restaurants serving chinchilla, mink, fox, etc, just as they serve beef and pork, the hides of which are turned into shoes, jackets and the ever popular pants so loved by motorcyclists and actresses.

As for banning beef, pork, chicken and other meats, this will not happen, even in SF. However, a meat tax is not far away for these liberal hotbeds. A customer a Mickey D’s will soon have to pay a sales tax, a sugar tax and sales tax for a burger and sugar based soft drink. Let the good times roll.

I wonder what they will do when plant rights activists start arguing that plants have feelings. And then there is the whole evil petroleum industry, from whose products most synthetics are made. Pretty soon the residents of San Fran will look a stone age tribe from the jungle clad in mud and naturally shed seagull and pelican feathers. Cue Twilight Zone music.

Pretty soon we’ll have to be genderless vegans, and then we’ll be forced to have feelings for vegetables.

I have a pair of leather boots made from genderless vegans.

Smooth and softer than a virgin’s inner thigh.

Surely one must contemplate the moral agony of the carnivorous fur-hater? How can one justify one and not the other?

“First they came for my fur coat, then they came for my hamburgers!” Today it’s high-end furs; tommorrow, McDonald’s?

How could a ban on fur not logically extend to a ban on all human use of animals (or at least all those that require death of the animal)?

I hope Stanford University has good security for any labs that use animals for science.

So, now the last remaining normal folks that can afford fur can go buy it elsewhere. This will surely help the plummeting tax haul in loonyville.

When this doesn’t satisfy the demons infested Left, they’ll start jailing people wearing fur, have deferring views, etc. Be this will be another max exodus from Kalifornica. That’s OK. Just don’t bring your libtard intolerance with you.

I bought some really nice crocodile belly shoes in San Fran back in 1987…..still have ’em and wear ’em several times a year… I wonder if reptile skin shoes, belts, purses, wallets and stuff are next????

The basic progressive approach is “What else can we screw up?” rather than “What do we need to fix?” This is just as well, because their fixes tend to be even worse than their screw ups.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend