SF supervisor Matt Gonzalez on banning fur sales

[Guest guest]

From today's Bay

Guardian: http://www.sfbg.com/36/38/x_oped.html

 

 

Escaping the ice age

by matt gonzalez

 

 

THERE WAS A time when fur played a

necessary role in a

person's ability to protect himself

or herself from the elements.

Even in the 20th century it was a

given that a good winter coat was

made of leather and had a fur

lining, not to mention a fur collar. And

there were the nonessential uses,

too, which kept the nightclub set

of the 1950s looking cool – and

which allowed Meret Oppenheim

to create her lovely surrealist

object, the fur teacup and spoon. Not

necessary, but not trivial either.

 

With the advent of synthetic furs,

which many argue look better than

the real thing, and with the

development of new fabrics (such as

gortex and polypropylene) that make

animal fur obsolete, the

question arises: should our society

continue to tolerate the cruelty

to animals that harvesting fur

causes – solely to satisfy this

generation's need for ornamental

trim for its coats? Shouldn't San

Francisco push this issue by

enacting a ban on the sale of fur?

 

Opponents cry that we should allow

the market to cure this problem

– if it is one – and that we should

respect free choice and not

hinder business in an already

depressed market. But hasn't it

always been the case that we as a

society occasionally legislate

emerging contemporary norms?

Consider the ban on smoking in

restaurants or the divestiture

campaigns against South African

companies.

 

Exotic furs (fox, mink, etc.) are

often harvested by child laborers in

third world countries by methods we

would decry if they were

occurring locally. Investigators

have documented death by

clubbing, strangulation, hanging,

stabbing, and drowning. Even

electrocution, where an electric

prod is inserted in the animal's

anus, so as not to damage the pelt,

is common.

 

Animals are caged without food or

water for days, awaiting their

deaths, and are often skinned

alive. And this doesn't address the

trapping of wild animals.

 

The industry claims its product is

" natural " and from a renewable

source. Yet formaldehyde, chromium,

and other dangerous

chemicals are used to process fur.

In 1991 the Environmental

Protection Agency fined New Jersey

fur producers $2.2 million

because of runoff leaks from fur

farms into rivers.

 

Some say a fur ban compels a ban on

leather products. But leather

is a by-product of the meat

industry, whereas harvesting exotic fur

is for the purposes of " luxury "

consumption – and exhibiting social

status. Nor do contemporary norms

support a meat-eating ban.

Does banning smoking in restaurants

lead to mandatory wheat

grass on the menu? Certainly not

anytime soon.

 

If San Francisco bans the sale of

fur, won't companies just sell

elsewhere? Yes – but the symbolic

gesture would sound an alarm

in an industry that opposes reform,

forcing it to either adopt

humane standards or risk other

cities following suit.

 

What about lost tax revenue and

tourism? Well, there's no evidence

that tourists come to San Francisco

solely to buy fur or that, if they

can't find it here, they wouldn't

simply purchase other products.

Ironically, fur retailers that now

claim to be concerned about our tax

revenue are among the businesses

that recently sued to invalidate

our business tax, without showing

that the tax had harmed them –

costing the city $100 million.

 

Fur retailers also pander to San

Francisco's " live and let live "

history of tolerance to oppose a

ban. But they do this only to

diminish scrutiny of the fur trade.

This isn't about sexual or

intellectual tolerance. It's about

banning products derived from

animal abuse. In all, millions of

animals are killed yearly to support

this trade.

 

San Francisco is at the forefront

of many issues, from making

matricula consular ID cards

available to immigrant workers to

providing health care for

transgender city employees, adopting

instant-runoff voting to improve

elections, and passing the first

municipal solar bond. Stopping the

harm that harvesting fur causes

other mammals is a step in the

continuing path of human progress

and a sign we have reached the 21st

century.

 

Sup. Matt Gonzalez represents District Five.