How much is that fur coat in the window? Well, soon you might not see one if the West Hollywood City Council passes a revision to its fur ban on Monday night.
The Council will consider banning not only the sale of fur, which it did in 2011, but also banning the display of fur apparel, putting an end to a practice in which some merchants have directed customers to order a fur item in their shops online or go to another shop outside the city limits to make the purchase.
The City Council in 2011 passed a law banning the sale of clothing made in whole or part of fur. That law took effect in September 2013. The ban was promoted by John D’Amico, who was running for election to the City Council. Among D’Amico’s supporters were Animal Alliance California and Ed Buck, a local fur ban advocate. The city became the first in the United States to ban fur apparel. West Hollywood also has banned the retail sale of cats and dogs, and it recognizes their human companions as “guardians” rather than owners. The city has banned “pet rentals,” cat de-clawing and also performances by exotic animals.
The fur sales ban has been especially controversial, with local businesses saying the city has no right to tell them what products they can or cannot sell. West Hollywood’s Design District, which encompasses Beverly and Robertson boulevards and Melrose Avenue, is a fashion hub with boutiques that historically have offered fur products for sale. A 2012 study commissioned by the city found that 16 of 27 businesses responding to a survey said the ordinance would have a negative impact on them.
Mayfair House, a clothing and home furnishings retailer at 8844 Beverly Blvd. near North Clark, has challenged the city’s ban in federal and state courts. Mayfair contends that the ban has had a negative impact on its sale of Uggs, a popular type of boots made of sheep who were slaughtered for their meat and not to fabricate boots.
Unfortunately, animals will continue to be killed,and in much larger numbers when they become a nuisance because the wild fur managers are not doing it. All you have to do is look at the millions of Beautiful Muskrats that are slaughtered in Holland and thrown in the incinerators,because there are no fur managers in those countries, Once this valuable, renewable natural resource was managed for sustainability,and health,and now the millions of sick and starving rats have been turned into nothing but a pestilent nuisance to be gotten rid of.Instead of having a capital enterprise that values animals as well as… Read more »
Alan, your argument is based on a faulty premise: the state (aka the law) is imposing an ethical view/morality on the public already. We have human rights, civil rights, anti torture laws, as well as laws about the treatment of animals. You and I are not allowed to mistreat or kill just any animal for any reason, nor should we be. If my “lifestyle choice” is beheading squirrels in the park and displaying their heads in my store window for decoration, I would surely get in trouble in most civilized societies. In your opinion, should someone be allowed to impale… Read more »
@Allan Herscovici: I reply to your propaganda. “Surely the people of WeHo should understand that better than anyone?!” Obviously you are referring to WeHo’s support if it’s gay population, another point irrelevant to the subject at hand, but a low one nonetheless, to compare the right to sexual freedom to the right to animal torture. Your perception of Councilmember D’Amico being “embarrassingly incoherent” on a radio program is completely irrelevant as well, but a personal attack, also a typical method of response by those who wish to convolute the discussion with irrelevance because their arguments are otherwise weak. To state… Read more »
There are many very strange things about the WeHo fur ban. First, I thought that WeHo was founded on the principle of freedom of lifestyle choices? If you don’t want to buy or wear fur, then don’t, but it boggles the mind that WeHo’s political elite would choose to use legislation to dictate what other people may buy — or now, even show in their store windows?! Second, there are strange double standards at work: e.g., why is fur in clothing banned, but not fur for blankets or pillows or other interior decor? It has been whispered that this is… Read more »
@Rudolph Martin: Thank you, very well said. This is not about belts or purses, religion, gay flags, traps in store windows, the Civil Rights movement. Westborough Baptist Church etc, but about the torture & killing of innocent animals for needless & virtually useless human so called luxury apparel. Unfortunately so many convolute the subject matter by straying to unrelated subjects which though they may certainly be worthy of concern & discussion, they are too far off topic & contribute nothing to the subject at hand. I can’t figure what part of “fur” so many people don’t seem to understand.
Interesting points but I don’t see how this is a “free speech” or “freedom of expression” issue at all. The ban is meant to prevent the sale of fur products. Everyone can express themselves all they want. Just like money is not speech, fur is not speech. This is solely an ethical issue. Where should we draw the line when it comes to the treatment and the killing of animals? Do animals have rights? Is it really in our best interest to kill animals just because we feel like it? The fur ban opponents are absolutely right when they point… Read more »
Shoes? Belts? Wallets? Anything is up for grabs at this point.
@Robert Roy You know, since the Lion was Killed In Africa …. it wasn’t the worldwide ‘outcry’ that got my attention, but the very large number of people who live full satisfied lives …. which include for them Killing Animals for pleasure. I happen to be unable to understand anyone wanting to kill anything (not trying to kill them first). The Lion just got the world’s attention. THUS – I don’t think there is any point in discussing, arguing, or canvassing either the Lion Killing Story or the People who are Anti-fur and those who live fulfilled lives with fur.… Read more »
You know, what’s always bothered me about the whole ‘animal rights’ faction is how selective they are re. their ‘targets’. which has led me to wonder if there’s a degree of anti-semitism at work here. I live in a conservative , quite up-scale part of my native city. About twenty years ago, the local furrier was having terrible problems with his premises being vandalised. Glue in the locks, his sign being smashed, that sort of thuggery. However, this was the lead up to a night when his shop front was covered in red paint and two of his windows were… Read more »
@ butnotrose
…on the mark.
Banning the display? — isn’t that like banning free speech? I’m for animals.. but I am also for living in a free country where I have my choice to not purchase fur or frequent businesses that want to sell those type of products. What’s next? Have you seen the way pigs get slaughtered or chickens rounded up in chicken mills? If this update to the fur ban goes into effect then it should apply to the Pacific Design Center.. there should not be the Charles Cohen free ride on display or sale of fur in the red, blue or green… Read more »
Banning the ‘sight’ of anything is a scary start down a dangerous hill. Besides not understanding under what law, the city/city council will be able to regulate what business owners display, just because WE ALL (most of us) might like this to happen, government regulating what can be displayed is wrong. BETTER – assuming most people don’t want to see business with certain displays, make the stop the AMERICAN WAY …. don’t shop there. Tell friends not to shop there. Hey even have public protests in front of any such offending business ….. That’s the American Free Society we are… Read more »