The City of Los Angeles has not enacted a fur ban – but rather has asked the City Attorney to draft a proposed law that will still have to go before full council and be debated. There is a significant difference between the two. Once the proposed law is drafted and debated by City Council, it could still be amended and changed considerably, if members of council decide to do their homework.
“This is public policy based on lies, flawed studies and false allegations as those proposing the ban have not proactively reached out to the fur industry to learn about the high animal welfare and environmental standards in place – nor have they learned about sustainability in a meaningful way,” said Nancy Daigneault and Mark Oaten of the International Fur Federation.
“The motion put forward to the Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee in support of a fur ban was pulled nearly directly from a 2009 Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) propaganda filled with lies and inaccuracies that are rebutted in detail in the attached document. This proposal could cost hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenues on the basis of lies about industry practices that are nearly a decade old,” said Keith Kaplan.
“This is a slippery slope – while this is happening to fur today, leather, wool, and silk will be tomorrow. The campaigns against these products have already begun,” said Daigneault.
LA city council is being challenged to answer the following questions:
1) Have any one of our City Council members spent time on a fur farm to see if the claims put forth in the motion are really true?
2) Have they met with wildlife biologists to really learn about trapping and wildlife management? Will they read through the rebuttal presented to you today and engage in any further investigation in an attempt to get at the truth?
3) Are they aware of the regulations covering the fur industry and have they reached out to any of these regulatory bodies at the state, national or international level to better understand the depth of regulations that govern the fur industry?
4) Will Council meet with scientists or others within the fur trade to understand best practices or the environmental impacts of real fur versus fake fur?
5) Has Council reviewed any studies to better understand the core principles of sustainability and the value of real, natural fur and its production process in this regard as opposed to the impact on the environment from the overconsumption of synthetic fast fashion?
6) How will Council respond when this same group of activists comes back to them for the next ban on animal use products, telling us we can no longer buy leather shoes, wool blankets, or hamburgers? Fur is the easy target because it is a luxury product, but campaigns against leather, wool and meat are already well underway around the world.
“A small group of very vocal activists is asking our City Council to make a choice for the rest of us. They are asking City Council to take away our freedom of choice, assuming consumers are neither smart enough nor considerate enough to make a decision for themselves,” said Keith Kaplan of the Fur Information Council of America.
“For over 40 years groups like PETA and HSUS have been hard at work to convince consumers to stop buying fur. They have been loud, graphic and in-your-face. Certainly, consumers have been bombarded, more than any other product category. Still, they are buying fur. They have listened; perhaps they have done their research and they have made up their own minds. No matter what claims are thrown around about consumer attitudes and research, the cash register tells the truest story. If nobody was buying fur retailers would not be selling it and manufacturers would not be producing it…and a ban would be a moot point.”
TRUTH MATTERS! If you would like to pursue the truth, please contact Keith Kaplan via e-mail at email@example.com or Nancy Daigneault at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Photo by Charisse Kenion on Unsplash