The Latest: San Francisco becomes largest US city to ban fur

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Updated 4:32 pm, Tuesday, March 20, 2018

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Latest on fur sales ban in San Francisco (all times local):

2:25 p.m.

San Francisco supervisors have unanimously approved a ban on fur sales, making San Francisco the largest city in the country to have the prohibition.

The legislation voted on Tuesday goes into effect January 1, but retailers have until January 2020 to sell off existing inventory.

Animal advocates say a prohibition would reflect the city's kind and progressive values, but retailers say it's yet another decision burdening small businesses.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-San-Francisco-becomes-largest-US-city-12768315.php

[StarryNite]

1. Excellent!

[sl8]

2. Text, link:

From https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3295007&GUID=88DF4995-087A-4843-843D-642F

FILE NO. 171317
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
REVISED LEGISLATIVE DIGEST
(3/20/2018, Amended in Board)

[Health Code - Banning Sale and Manufacture of Animal Fur Products]

Ordinance amending the Health Code to ban the sale and manufacture in San
Francisco of animal fur products.

Existing Law
San Francisco law does not presently address the sale or manufacture of products made with
animal fur. California Penal Code Section 598a makes it a misdemeanor to possess, import
into the State, sell, buy, give away or accept any pelt of a dog or cat with the sole intent of
selling or giving away the pelt. California Fish and Game Code Section 3039 provides that
goods made from furbearing mammals and nongame mammals trapped lawfully under the
authority of a trapping license may be bought or sold at any time.

19 U.S. Code Section 1308 makes it unlawful to import or export any dog or cat fur product, or
to engage in interstate commerce, sell, offer to sell, trade, advertise, transport, or distribute in
interstate commerce, any dog or cat fur product, punishable via civil penalty of up to $10,000
per violation.


Amendments to Current Law
This proposal would ban the sale, display for sale, and manufacture of “fur products” in San
Francisco. For the purposes of this ordinance, “fur” would include any animal skin or part
thereof with hair, fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state, and
exclude such skins as are to be converted into leather, which in processing shall have the
hair, fleece or fur fiber completely removed, cowhide with hair attached thereto, or lambskin or
sheepskin with fleece attached thereto. “Fur products” would include articles of clothing or
covering for the body, or any fashion accessory, including handbags, shoes, slippers, hats,
earmuffs, scarves, shawls, gloves, jewelry, keychains, and like items, that is made in whole or
in part of fur, excluding dog and cat fur products. “Used fur products” would include any fur
product a person has acquired for his or her own use and has worn.

The sales ban would not apply to certain sales of used fur products, or the sale of fur products
made from furbearing mammals and nongame mammals lawfully taken under the authority of
a trapping license, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3039, subdivision (b).
The manufacturing ban would not apply to the manufacture of fur products from fur sourced
exclusively from used fur products.

FILE NO. 171317
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2

The ordinance would charge the Director of the Department of Public Health and/or his or her
designee(s) with oversight and enforcement. It would be become operative on January 1,
2019.

The proposal’s enforcement and penalty provisions would not apply to persons selling fur
products between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, if the person purchased or
obtained the fur products on or before March 20, 2018, so long as the person produces upon
the Director’s request an invoice showing that the person purchased or obtained the fur
product items on or before March 20, 2018.


Background
This legislative digest reflects amendments introduced at the Public Safety and Neighborhood
Services Committee on January 24, 2018, and at the Board of Supervisors on March 20,
2018. The ordinance was originally introduced before the Board of Supervisors on December
12, 2017.


n:leganaas20171800234�1261802.docx

[Judi Lynn]

3. Thank you for the info. Very helpful. n/t

[Collimator]

4. Not particularly impressed.

Nazi Germany banned animal experimentation as cruel and barbaric. Despite the belief by many animal rights activists that "Man's humanity to man" is fostered by our habit of using animals as resources, there is no direct correlation that being nice to animals automatically makes one more humane to people.* Remember: Hitler loved dogs.

Another point worth making is that San Francisco's open and progressive attitude towards sexual mores (which I generally support) is very likely to include tolerance towards those who enjoy the use of leather. Is leather being banned from sale in San Francisco?

One comedian put his or her finger on the point regarding the hypocrisy of the "fur is murder" activism.

To paraphrase:

"It's easier to throw paint on old rich ladies in fur coats than to mess with a leather-clad biker gang."

* Deliberate, consistant abuse of animals is an indicator of a propensity for cruelty than can extend to people. This is often the case in psychologically unbalanced young children who have no other--physically weaker-- available targets for their violent drives.

[ffr]

5. Makes sense, there's almost no fur left.

We've hunted, poisoned, poached, netted just about every living creature on the planet. Are there any left?

[GulfCoast66]

6. Ridiculous.

Makes liberals look plain silly to working families.

You are having a hard time affording ground round and forced to buy bulk packages of chicken legs to feed your family. Suffice to say someone wearing leather with the fur still attached is not top of your agenda. And when you hear that it is an agenda item of even a minority of a political party...well you have a hard time relating to that party.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Poor people can't help being orcs? Being poor means you're free to be as thoughtless as you want?

Only snobs can be decent?

I don't think so.

Actually, nothing of what you said had anything to do with the article. It appears you're on a tangent.

Over my lifetime, I have known innumerable poor people who were in every sense people of conscience, respectful of people and animals, and completely balanced and civilized in their daily lives. "Poor" is not an invitation to live as if nothing matters but yourself, never has been.

[GulfCoast66]

10. I get it...wearing fur makes someone an orc.

And your photographic choice of poor people does not reflect my picture of the poor people, who I see every day. Most of the poor people I see are immigrants. And they would amused that a political party would waste time on issues like someone wearing animals skins.

Many of them regularly slaughter, dismember and the cook animals in their yards because it is not only cost effective but also becomes a cultural event reminding them of the place they came from. And they used ever part of the animal they can.

So keep getting your panties in a wad about people wearing fur. Free country and I respect your views. And I do not totally disagree because I do not love fur and there will never be any in house.

But this is a first world fucking problem. Laughable man, compared to all the issues we face.

[melman]

9. So you're saying no working families believe in animal rights

And you base this on what exactly?

[GulfCoast66]

11. I think most people, working, rich or otherwise value animal rights

That said, most working people I work with are either immigrants from South or Central America or rural southerners. Almost without exception they have experience with either hunting animals in the case of the rural Southerners. Or raising or purchasing animals for slaughter in the case of many of the people I know regardless of their circumstances.

Especially for immigarants, the cooking of an entire animal can be a chance to reconnect with their culture, and often that means buying a live animal, slaughtering it(killing), cleaining it and cooking it. Being sure to use every single bit of the animal possible.

When this is your reality, a political party that will expend efforts on preventing animal products from being used just seems, well, kind of crazy.

Not saying I am a fur fan. There is none in my house. And will never be. But to many members and potential members of the Democratic Party, this is just crazytalk.

[melman]

8. Fantastic

I am all for it.

[leftynyc]

12. Until they also ban leather

this is just cosmetic nonsense - and speaking of cosmetics, they could also be leaning on cosmetic companies who still use animals for testing.

[Drahthaardogs]

13. Are they going to ban leather too?

What's the difference other than pigs and cattle aren't cute.

Stupid law based on emotions

[Bayard]

14. Probably stepping into a hornet's nest again

BUT, I think the difference is cattle are already being slaughtered for food, and the hides are just another bi-product. Whereas, captive mink, chinchilla, fox are being raised in tiny cages, and being killed strictly for their fur.

Who the hell buys a real fur coat anymore, anyway?

[Duppers]

15. +100

[Codeine]

19. Its all dead animals.

Just because sometimes people shove the muscles down their throats and sometimes they don’t makes no difference to the creatures in question.

[samnsara]

16. a 'small business' that sells fur coats? small cuz its got limited high end inventory.

[Retrograde]

17. I used to think SF voters

chose their supervisors based on who would have the most amusement value in the next morning's Chronicle.

I suppose it's easier to ban something that doesn't sell all that much in San Francisco (fur in California?) than it is to do something about the proliferation of fugly buildings downtown (yeah, I'm talking about you, Giant Gherkin Wannabee) or figuring out how to make the city affordable for the people who do the day-to-day work there, or a few other more urgent problems.

[BreweryYardRat]

20. Good.

Hit the wealthy barbarians in the pocketbook.