In what animal advocate groups are declaring “a life-saving victory for animals,” California has become the first U.S. state to ban the sale of fur products. AB 44, which was passed in 2019, took effect January 1 and prohibits selling or making new products — including shoes, handbags, or clothing — using the skins of fur-bearing animals.
The reason for the 2-year interim was to allow residents and industry professionals time to phase the fur trade out of business practices. “CA has no place for the inhumane & unsustainable treatment of animals,” CA Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, the bill’s author, Tweeted upon passage. “Now for other states to follow in our legacy.”
While California is the first state to ban fur, it is following the lead of a number of its own municipalities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley. A variety of countries have banned fur farming, including Serbia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Norway, Germany and the Czech Republic. And similar bills banning fur sales have been introduced in New York City and Hawaii, though they have yet to become law.
For the purpose of the law, fur is defined as “animal skin or part thereof with hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto.” For the purposes of shoppers, that means mink, sable, chinchilla, lynx, fox, rabbit, beaver, coyote and other luxury furs.
There are some exemptions to the new law. Cowhide, deerskin, sheepskin (sheerling), goatskin, and other animal skins used for leather, taxidermy, fur taken with a hunting license. Exceptions have also been made for religious observances (shtreimels, the fur hats often worn by Hasidic Jews, can continue to be sold), animal furs used by Native American tribes, and other traditional or cultural purposes.
The law is really about the selling of fur, not the wearing of fur. After all, it is perfectly legal for any California resident to travel to, say, Las Vegas, buy a big fur coat and show it off back home. Some fur partisans are nonetheless concerned that because it is hard to tell what is “new” versus “old” fur, and that they will be ostracized or otherwise seen as having done something illegal if they appear in public in a fur garment. That is a legitimate worry.
Those who violate the new provisions can face civil penalties, including a fine of up to $500 for the first offense, and up to $1,000 for additional offenses, according to the legislation.
As far as the Fashion industry goes, they’re not acting overly worried about it. As the New York Times reports, over the last year numerous brands have jumped on the no-fur bandwagon, including Stella McCartney, Gucci, Versace, Coach, Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Michael Kors, Giorgio Armani and Tom Ford. H&M, which is not exactly a haven of mink coats, has said it will no longer use mohair. One of the few holdouts is Fendi, which began life as a fur house, still has five outlets in California that sell fur and even has “haute fourrure” fashion shows once a year during couture.
Still, all of this just-say-no-to-fur is not quite the sacrifice it sounds, since for many brands fur makes up a very small percentage of sales (at Coach, for example, fur accounted for less than 1 percent of its business). In California, it was an especially tiny percentage.
This is true for department stores, too. Saks does not even have a dedicated fur salon in its California stores. On the other hand, fur is still popular in Miami. Cameron Silver of the vintage store Decades said in an email that while there was “a waning interest” in fur in California, “preloved fur pieces” tend to be the first to sell at trunk shows across the country.
After all, the anti-fur movement has been growing for decades, and for the new generation of fashionistas, there is a sense that fur feels very last century, and contrary to millennial value systems, consumer sentiment has begun to swing against it.
While retailers have already prepared to stop the sales, the Fur Information Council is gearing up to challenge the law. Keith Kaplan, of the Fur Information Council of America (F.I.C.), issued the following statement after the California news broke: “This issue is about much more than animal welfare in the fur industry. It is about the end of animal use of any kind. Fur today, leather tomorrow, your wool blankets and silk sheets — and meat after that.”
Still, with ever-growing textile technologies, as well as beautiful and fashionable fur alternatives, many are wondering if continuing to breed and slaughter animals solely for their pelts should become a thing of the past.
—
Photo Credit: Ian Davidson Photography / Shutterstock.com