Macy's, Home to $8,000 Mink Jackets, Will Stop Selling Fur Products by 2021
Source: New York Times
Macys is quitting fur. The retailer said on Monday that its namesake chain and Bloomingdales department stores would stop selling fur products by early 2021, after the company conducted two years of research into alternatives and consumer views on the matter. The shift will mean the closure of 34 Fur Vaults at Macys and 22 Maximilian salons at Bloomingdales, the company said in an email.
The declaration from Macys, which operates more than 600 department stores, follows a string of similar announcements from brands like Michael Kors and Gucci and even the State of California in recent years. The retailer, which is based in New York, announced the change in conjunction with the Humane Society of the United States, which said it had been pressing Macys on fur sales for more than a decade.
Its just a changing tide, said P.J. Smith, director of fashion policy at the Humane Society, which is based in Washington. Consumers care about animal welfare more and more, and the idea of luxury is changing, where its more about whos the most socially responsible and the most innovative.
Macys, which reported about $25 billion in annual sales in 2018, said that the namesake chains private brands were already fur-free, and that fur was not a material part of its business. The company said that its new policy, which was in line with guidelines from animal rights organizations, would allow for ethically sourced sheep and cattle fur products including shearling, sheepskin, calf hair and cowhide goods. Our customer is migrating away from natural fur and we are aligning with this trend, Macys said on a new webpage about the policy. With the rise of new fabric technology, alternatives like faux fur and other fabric innovations make this a seamless transition for our customers.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/business/macys-fur-sales.html
Slowly but surely.
cstanleytech
(26,224 posts)Mind I am not criticizing people that do like it but it just never has been a thing for me just like hunting has never been.
BumRushDaShow
(128,439 posts)My mother (who would have turned 89 a couple days ago) had a mink stole, which were the rage in the '50s when she was a young working woman. She used to chuckle about her aunts wearing fox stoles with the fox heads still attached (another "fad" ). These were all used for evening wear and minks/sable in particular, were a status symbol for quite some time. Trapping for fur goes back thousands of years (which included the time period of the founding of places like Chicago)...
But with the activism behind how the animals were treated, etc., plus with the advent of newer fibers that mimicked fur much better than in the past, the market was pretty much going going gone anyway... except for a certain generation.
Laffy Kat
(16,372 posts)Didnt even realize they still sold them.
BigmanPigman
(51,565 posts)banning the sale of fur in CA.
bucolic_frolic
(43,044 posts)Sad how everything is a consumption raw material. But it was that way even before Europeans invaded the continent. Man requires clothing, food, wood, fire, oil.
MLAA
(17,247 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)But they are also going to be eating the animal in question.
Quite a leap from a fashion statement.
catbyte
(34,332 posts)JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,321 posts)"ethically-sourced ... sheepskin and cowhide".
It seems Macy's is following an anti-fur fashion fad, with the usual corporate regard for ethics.
Nothing to see here.
disclaimer: The only fur product I "own" is a lap-warmer called "cat".
sl8
(13,664 posts)llmart
(15,532 posts)A day late and a dollar short.
I just have never understood women who wanted fur coats. I also believe that it was mostly people born in a certain generation and baby boomers aren't likely to have ever owned one.
The only reason Macy's made this decision is because there probably isn't much of a market for them any longer.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)ethical but fur isnt? Perhaps not draping yourself in the flayed flesh of another living being at all is a better answer.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,439 posts)the leather/sheepskin (& wool) and fur from rabbits are from animals that are also consumed as food (so you use all parts)... where animals like minks, foxes, raccoons, beavers, etc., were mainly trapped and used for the fur.
Similar initially happened with alligators where although some ate them for food, at some point most did not and they were hunted almost out of existence for their skin. Now they have come back with a vengeance.
Happy Hoosier
(7,215 posts)... and ethically, I think using as much of the animal as possible is better. Killing an animal JUST for its skin much less so, IMO.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)All meat, liver, heart, kidneys. Wish I had a way to use the skin. I see it as respect for the life taken.
I cant see killing an animal just for the skin.
Although I realize perhaps I am just creating a narrative that makes me feel better.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Maybe.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,137 posts)Of course, you have to learn the tanning process or pay someone to tan them. It's a lot of work! I knew an artist many years ago that tanned cow and deer hides and made art projects out of them.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I got a strong stomach but it was just gross.
And the chance of the wife allowing a deer rug in the house it less than zero!
Plus, it seems to much like hanging up a deer head. No problem with those that do, but definitely not my style.
I hunt for healthy food and to continue a family tradition of pretend self reliance. Never much liked the idea of trophies.