Tatum2U
CA Fur is now illegal..
by Tatum2U
November 22, 2011 at 9:29 AM

When I first heard this I thought it was fur and leather etc.. I also heard it was PETA behind it all. So at first I thought it was absolutely crazy and awful. But now I am hearing it's just fur and I don't have as BIG a problem with that. My thinking is we eat beef ( leather) so it's not comparable to killing a mink ( I don't eat mink ...do you?) just for a jacket . But then again I still dislike PETA and is it right to outlaw the fur trade which employees people etc..Doesn't supply and demand keep the fur trade in check, sorta speak? -

I now don't know how I feel about the ban , I think I don't support it but I do hate thinking of little chinchillas being killed just for their fur ( which btw I would never wear)

from article I read this morning;

(ANTI-FUR) CALIFORNIA —  Following the temporary ordinance issued last week, Hollywood has officially outlawed the sale of all animal hair, skin, and fur. Hollywood is the  nation’s first city to implement such a ban, and officials are hopeful it will ignite a new anti-fur movement.
This progressive city is at the forefront of animal welfare movements, previously being the first city to ban live pet sales. The law is set to take effect June 30, 2012. Read on for more regarding this animal rights victory and how the fur industry is reacting. — Global Animal

http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/09/27/update-hollywood-fur-ban-now-reality-video/52329/

would you have voted the same as these California residents ?
  • Only group members can vote in this poll.
  1. 46% - yes , I think so
  2. 48% - No , I doubt it
  3. 4% - Maybe /something else

Replies

  • b0bbied0ll
    November 22, 2011 at 9:31 AM
    Yes, I would have.
  • mama_2_jasper
    November 22, 2011 at 9:31 AM
    I think its fantastic!
  • Tatum2U
    by Tatum2U
    November 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM

    what about being a free country ? How about letting public opinion put the fur trade out of business etc..

    (again I probably would have voted yes , but there is something I don't like about an out and out ban...)

    Quoting b0bbied0ll:

    Yes, I would have.


  • alwayskk
    November 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM

    It says it outlaws the sale of all animal hair, skin and fur. Why wouldn't that include leather?

  • southern.momof2
    Mel
    November 22, 2011 at 9:34 AM
    Yes, I would have. I don't think animals should be killed JUST for their skin and fur.
  • Tatum2U
    by Tatum2U
    November 22, 2011 at 9:35 AM

    Would people feel differently if Leather was included??

  • AnnieMcD
    November 22, 2011 at 9:35 AM

    Does this mean that you can only purchase dead pets in Hollywood? Cause that seems a little mean to me...

    Quoting Tatum2U:

    This progressive city is at the forefront of animal welfare movements, previously being the first city to ban live pet sales. The law is set to take effect June 30, 2012. Read on for more regarding this animal rights victory and how the fur industry is reacting. — Global Animal

    http://www.globalanimal.org/2011/09/27/update-hollywood-fur-ban-now-reality-video/52329/


  • Tatum2U
    by Tatum2U
    November 22, 2011 at 9:36 AM

    I am still unsure of that . My SO said leather , fur everything ..then the article I read sounds more like just fur??

    Quoting alwayskk:

    It says it outlaws the sale of all animal hair, skin and fur. Why wouldn't that include leather?


  • phantomphan
    November 22, 2011 at 9:37 AM
    I'm on the fence. It seems like a really bad idea to be putting people out of work.
  • mehargval
    November 22, 2011 at 9:37 AM
    No.