I believe that the majority of us in class are animal rights advocate and supporters of fur ban. The excellent news is that San Fransico Board of Supervisors passed a fur ban on March 20th, 2018 to halt all the sales of fur in the city, and now it is effective. The fur ban prohibits the sale of new fur clothing and accessories, including small goods like keychains and gloves; however, retailers and furriers are given a leeway until Jan 1st, 2020 to sell off remaining items. Katy Tang, a self-professed animal rights advocate, is especially excited about the news, and she said “It is estimated that around the world, some 50-million animals are slaughtered in gruesome ways so that we can wear their fur and look fashionable,” and “My hope is that it will send a strong message to the rest of the world.”
However, many people criticized the effectiveness of this ban because they believed that it would not do anything to actually protect animals as the retailers and furriers could simply move outside of San Fransisco. Furthermore, people were also saying that the ban seemed to be missing the point that the fashion industry has been addressing over the years: sustainability.
Alan Herscovici, former executive director of the Fur Council of Canada, thinks the fur ban is a backward movement because fur is sustainable as it is biodegradable, long-lasting, and can be restyled or recycled into many new items. According to what we’ve learned from the circular economy, he seems to have sound reasoning. Furthermore, he also believes a fur ban is unlikely to happen in Canada since the fur trade is part of our heritage and Canadians are better informed on the humane practices of trapping and the sustainability of the industry.
With the problem of using real fur is kind of settled with the fur ban, another question was raised: should the designers replace animal fur with faux fur? The answer is the environmental implications of using faux fur could be disastrous. Faux fur is made from petroleum, which is a non-renewable source and is shown to filter microfibres of plastic into the environment. On top of that, since the size of microfibres are small, faux fur is capable of infiltrating the food chain where wildlife consume. Herscovici said the clothes with faux fur are like plastic bags and real fur should be used instead because of its natural and renewable nature; thus, the fur ban was wrong and misguided.
This is a very interesting and controversial topic, and I definitely realized the opinions from two completely opposed perspectives, and now I am fascinated to hear what you think about it?
Reference
Marilisaraccoglobal. (2018, March 21). San Francisco fur ban sparks controversy: ‘Fur is part of the solution, not the problem’. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/4096624/san-francisco-fur-ban-reaction/
benjamin numerow
March 19, 2019 — 4:59 pm
This is a really neat examination of the issue. Perhaps – since the ‘current’ faux fur is so damaging – it’s time we look into a new material to use in the place of fur? It must be possible to approach it with less harmful materials.
Personally, I’ve never been too sure where I stand on the issue. While I definitely disagree with the hunting of endangered animals for their fur – if there is use for other parts of the animal, using the fur to create apparel isn’t such a problem in my eyes. Further, I believe the controversy over a brand like Canada Goose – which, to their merit, has a pretty decent policy on ethically sourcing fur – could be much better placed on brands which have less intent on doing things in an ethical manner.