San Francisco becomes largest United States city to ban sale of fur

Share

On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors held a unanimous vote prohibiting the sale of any and all items newly made with real animal fur products (that means coats, apparel, accessories, key chains, and so forth), which will go into effect on January 1, 2019, according to the Associated Press.

Humane Society International (HSI), the international division of the Humane Society of the United States that advocates animal welfare, applauded San Francisco's legislation Tuesday. He is considering keeping his current location but selling fur at a smaller place nearby, outside San Francisco.

The fur ban is estimated to affect about 50 retailers within the city, including stores like Neiman Marcus and Saks 5th Avenue, as well as furriers.

After Tuesday's announcement, San Francisco has become the third city California city to restrict fur sales after Berkeley and West Hollywood. He said of the ban, "I can not fight it". "I will not win".

"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. "I do not have the energy and the money".

But he's appalled that 11 people on a board can arbitrarily tell retailers what they can sell, without a vote by the public, and at a time when the city has more pressing issues, such as dirty streets and homelessness.

Animal rights groups have come out in favor of San Francisco's decision, but some say the move will take an economic toll on businesses.

'It is estimated that around the world some 50 million animals are slaughtered in gruesome ways so that we can wear their fur, ' she told the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chamber of Commerce is more pessimistic: Based on a survey of city retailers, it suggests a ban would cost $45 million a year. Reselling vintage and used fur by outlets not usually in the business of trading fur, such as secondhand stores, pawn shops and nonprofits, will still be allowed.

Tang is also the supervisor who introduced the legislation, the Examiner notes.

However, the city said the prohibition is unlikely to harm the city's overall economy.

"But I think it is wrong to profit off the backs of animals", she said.

Share