I’ve recently heard talk that the LA City Council is considering a fur ban and I am angry! As a consumer my #1 concern is the environment and I seek to buy products that meet the goals of sustainability. I prefer to buy natural and artisanal. I choose, to the best of my ability, not to buy clothing made of man-made fibers that emit microfibers into the oceans and seas that are ingested by marine life. These tiny plastic particles may then be ingested by humans and can attach to internal organs presenting a myriad of health risks. But my concerns seem to be outweighed by a vocal group of activists who are pushing you to ban fur, a product that is natural, renewable and sustainable. One that is manufactured by hand rather than in large, energy consuming and polluting factories. The media spotlight shines on LA and what happens there can reverberate around the world. When consumers around the world are overwhelmingly aware of the environmental and social costs of mass- produced fast fashion and products like fake fur, why would the LA City Council say no to sustainability? Shouldn’t the focus be on natural, renewal, recyclable products that can last generations such as real fur, rather than the plastic materials and other synthetics such as petroleum based fake fur? I urge you to oppose a fur ban. This ban would send a dangerous message to other communities, directly contradicting the many positive environmental moves the Los Angeles City Council has taken to establish the city as a leader in addressing the environmental threats posed by plastics. Let the public decide the issues that are most important to us when we purchase clothing.

Like so many women I know, I’ve inherited my mother’s fur coats and there are so many wonderful memories of special times attached to them. My mom’s coats represent so many things to me, so much of her personality and my childhood memories are wrapped up in those coats. There is family history in those coats and they are rich with symbolism that is important to us. Just seeing the monogram of my mother’s or grandmother’s name in the lining and running my fingers across it brings a rush of emotion. As my grandmother handed down her fur coats to mom, and mom handed down her fur coats to me, I someday hope to pass them down to my daughter to continue the tradition and keep the memories alive. But now I’ve learned that a motion has been presented to the LA City Council to ban fur sales in Los Angeles and I wonder if you recognize that without the ability to sell fur coats, the businesses where we store and clean and repair these fur coats…in fact the very same businesses that our moms trusted with these fur coats, will likely have to close. Without these services, how will we be able to carry on this tradition into the next generation? I recognize that there are people who may choose not to buy fur or eat meat or wear leather and I respect their choice. But why are their beliefs and values any more important than mine? Across LA there are likely to be tens of thousands of families like ours where the tradition of handing down grandma’s fur coat through the generations matters. This tradition can only continue if we have the professionals who know how to care for and service these cherished keepsakes. Please don’t put these furriers out of business. Say no to a fur ban.

I’ve recently heard that City Council may be considering a ban on fur sales based on information provided to them by animal welfare groups. Has there been any effort to verify this information through outreach to the fur industry? Have City Council members arranged to visit fur farms to see, first hand, the conditions and practices on those farms? And even if poor conditions are found to exist on a farm, or several farms, is it the practice of our city to punish an entire industry for the bad behavior of a few? In the waning years of the 1990’s the topic of conflict diamonds dominated the news cycle for months. Around the world people learned the human cost of the illicit global diamond trade as in several African nations, diamonds became a means to power, a reason to terrorize millions of innocent civilians, and may have even helped finance some of the world's most brutal terrorists. In 2000 the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme was introduced to trace diamond production in order to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the mainstream diamond market. With human lives at stake, at no time during this period did the LA City Council ban the sale of diamonds. They did not even formally ban the sale of conflict diamonds. Rather than punish an entire industry for the bad behavior of a few, our City Council allowed for the development of a scheme of traceability and consumer education and trusted consumers and retailers alike to make the right decision. Retailers began to market that they sold only conflict free diamonds as a way of attracting business. And the jewelry market in Los Angeles continued to thrive, contributing jobs and tax revenues to support infrastructure development and social service programs. Today, though I suspect there may still be instances where conflict diamonds are produced, the diamond industry has come a long way to resolving the issues through monitoring, producer adherence, traceability and consumer education. Why would our City Council now consider turning their backs on the fur industry over concerns that, because they don’t involve human life, many would consider far less significant? In an age when our city seems to need every tax dollar they can get to combat homelessness, why would they so easily dismiss the revenue produced by an industry that has significant retail and manufacturing concerns throughout our city? And why would our City punish good-standing members of our community, many of whom have a long and rich legacy of supporting the charities and organizations that form the backbone of Los Angeles, for the bad behavior of a few that are most likely in other countries? There are other, better means to address concerns over violations of animal welfare standards. A ban on fur sales is not the best way to address this issue. Please oppose a ban on fur sales.

Several months ago I read about the SF Fur Ban and I thought “Thank goodness I live in LA. Our City Council would never force that kind of a ban on us.” And yet, I’ve recently learned that our City Council is considering a similar ban. This is not progressive government. This is not smart thinking. This is a government pushing the agenda of a special interest group on the rest of us and taking away our freedom of choice. It is nanny state governance at its worst. Let me make myself perfectly clear. I may choose to wear fur, or leather, or wool. I may choose to sleep on silk sheets covered with a wool blanket. I will order a steak, roast chicken or a burger for dinner. And I do not appreciate my legislators telling me I cannot do these things. Do you really believe that I am incapable of considering all the factors and making my own decisions of what to wear, what to eat, what to buy? Do I need my City Council to make these decisions for me? If you interpreted my vote as a green light to do so, then shame on you. And you won’t get my vote again. If you really want to address concerns about animal welfare in the fur industry or any animal use industry there are better ways to go about it than a ban. Take the time to properly consider the issue and come up with a plan that will improve welfare standards, insure adherence and provide consumers with the information and transparency to allow us to make our own decisions. Once you do it for one animal use industry it will establish a template for all animal use industries and you will have achieved a much greater goal. Bans do not represent progressive thinking. They represent laziness. LA can do much better than this. Do the right thing. Do the smart thing. Dismiss the idea of the ban on fur.

Every day I open the newspaper and I read about the problems we are having in LA with homelessness. Human beings are suffering and we cannot find them adequate mental health services and housing. Week to week, month to month the problems only seem to get worse, with no solution in sight. And now I learn that the City Council is wasting time and resources on consideration of a fur ban. Why would a City want to ban any industry or business that provides jobs and taxes, particularly when they are so sorely needed to address an issue like homelessness? LA is one of the largest fashion manufacturing centers in the US. In addition to being home to a number of fur manufacturers, it is home to a broad array of RTW and accessories manufacturers, many of whom include fur as it is such a popular item in fashion today. Walk the main floor or accessories departments of most any major department store in the US and you will see the fur bags and scarves, fur-trimmed gloves, boots and coats. And then, of course, there are the fur salons that continue to contribute to the economy and have a long history of generous support of the charities and organizations throughout Los Angeles. Los Angeles is not in a position today to give in to the whims of special interest groups and turn their back on industries that can actually play a role in helping to resolve homelessness through jobs and taxes. I urge you to focus on what matters. End the conversation of a fur ban and tend to more important issues.

I’ve recently heard talk that the LA City Council is considering a fur ban and I am angry! As a consumer my #1 concern is the environment and I seek to buy products that meet the goals of sustainability. I prefer to buy natural and artisanal. I choose, to the best of my ability, not to buy clothing made of man-made fibers that emit microfibers into the oceans and seas that are ingested by marine life. These tiny plastic particles may then be ingested by humans and can attach to internal organs presenting a myriad of health risks. But my concerns seem to be outweighed by a vocal group of activists who are pushing you to ban fur, a product that is natural, renewable and sustainable. One that is manufactured by hand rather than in large, energy consuming and polluting factories. Why are their concerns more important than mine? Isn’t it my right to choose? I urge you to oppose a fur ban. Let us, the public, decide the issues that are most important to us when we purchase clothing.