Submitted by bostondotcom t3_ye5504 in massachusetts
Comments
bostondotcom OP t1_itvymcx wrote
Cambridge just became the fifth municipality in Massachusetts to ban the sale of fur within its community.
The ordinance, approved unanimously by the City Council at its meeting Monday night, will take effect Jan. 1, 2023, pending the approval of the state attorney general’s office.
In the ordinance, the City Council outlined some concerns about fur including risks to public health, environmental threats related to its production, and the roughly 100 million animals that are killed annually as part of the fur trade.
The ordinance also noted that although no stores in Cambridge currently sell fur, “nothing in our municipal code would prevent fur shops or sales."
The ban does have some exemptions including any used fur from secondhand stores, nonprofits, pawn shops, etc., and any “fur product used for traditional tribal, cultural, or spiritual purposes by a member of a federally recognized Native American tribe.”
The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell tweeted about the news, noting that Cambridge joins Wellesley, Weston, Brookline, and Plymouth, which have similar bans in place.
“People don’t realize how prevalent fur still is in winter clothing,” MSPCA advocacy specialist Elizabeth Magner said in a statement. “It’s used in the lining of coat hoods and even sometimes for the pompoms on hats. That’s why it’s important that cities and towns take steps like Cambridge has to ban fur.”
Read more: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2022/10/26/cambridge-adopts-ordinance-banning-fur-sales/
Dreadedtrash t1_itvzl2d wrote
I don't understand why wearing a leather jacket or having leather seats in your car is fine, but fur isn't. It is literally the same thing, just the leather has the hair scraped off of it.
ETA: I know I'm about to be downvoted for this.
Theseus-Paradox t1_itw289y wrote
I think leather is ok because the other parts of the cow are used in other processes, where as fur is typically harvested and the carcass is throw out, not being utilized in any way.
PakkyT t1_itw290m wrote
"In the ordinance, the City Council outlined some concerns about fur including risks to public health, environmental threats related to its production, and the roughly 100 million animals that are killed annually as part of the fur trade."
In other news, there are still many places where you can go buy a hamburger, chicken nuggets, or a pulled pork sandwich.
GWS2004 t1_itw4266 wrote
I wish we had the choice for fake leather in all cars. I've had it once, it was great!
GWS2004 t1_itw45sp wrote
This is a good explanation.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itw4l2c wrote
>It is literally the same thing,
Sure, if you ignore the dozens of factors that make them extremely different things.
bostondotcom OP t1_itw8608 wrote
About 85% of the fur used to produce garments comes from fur factory farms that exist specifically to raise animals like foxes, rabbits, raccoons, and mink for their fur. While the animal agriculture industry also hinges on killing animals, much of the fur trade relies on killing animals — not ordinarily used as food in the U.S. — solely for fur. The Cambridge ordinance targets these unique conditions of the fur trade!
Feisty-Donkey t1_itw95pe wrote
Honestly, there are exceptions to fur being unethical and people get weird about it but it’s true. Some brands in Louisiana have started using nutria fur, which comes from an invasive species contributing to erosion of the wetlands. They have to be hunted anyway.
Suspicious-Abies-653 t1_itwdt9r wrote
I agree 100%.
Suspicious-Abies-653 t1_itwdwik wrote
People eat beaver all the time. Just saying. 🙄
Cheap_Coffee t1_itwfc2s wrote
Please enlighten us.
Cheap_Coffee t1_itwfh1b wrote
What is the impact of this ban on Cambridge furries?
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itwg78f wrote
I'm absolutely not explaining the difference between killing animals for food and using other parts for other purposes, and the mass extermination of various species specifically for their furs. I'm not doing it. This website is stupid, but nothing is that stupid. People need to stop making stupid comparisons.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itwgiy1 wrote
What if right wing extremists stopped being triggered by completely harmless entities and started minding their own business?
Cheap_Coffee t1_itwhm1u wrote
Well, there we have it.
NoMoLerking t1_itwjb3e wrote
Oh that’s nasty.
Suspicious-Abies-653 t1_itwk1yk wrote
Please name one species that suffered a “mass extermination” over fur trade? Just one.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itwl9vq wrote
I'm not Google. Look up the historical fur trade. Look up fur farms. Look up the impact of non-native invasive species propped up by the fur trade.
Of all the things you could cry about here, the problem of mass killing animals shouldn't be one of them (even those who love meat like myself ought to be able to easily recognize that as a problem).
Cheap_Coffee t1_itwlvic wrote
"I know I made an assertion in a comment but I feel no obligation to prove it. If you can't do my homework for me then you're stupid."
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itwmiv9 wrote
What do you want from me? Honestly? What do you want me to say and do? If you're just being a jerkwad antagonist go ahead. Can I help you somehow?
Suspicious-Abies-653 t1_itwnnji wrote
I want one species.
Cheap_Coffee t1_itwnpe6 wrote
Okay, we'll start all over again.
"Sure, if you ignore the dozens of factors that make them extremely different things."
Please enlighten us.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itwwpsc wrote
No. It is your responsibility to read the article on which we are commenting.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itwx0kg wrote
And again, if you don't see a difference between animals which are raised for meat (food being a basic human necessity) and whose entire carcasses are able to be used, vs. the animals which are only raised to be skinned and then the rest of the carcasses tossed, you don't deserve my time. So screw off.
Suspicious-Abies-653 t1_itx6017 wrote
I don’t recall the article mentioning “mass extinction”. I do recall you mentioning it.
astrolomeria t1_itx8yoe wrote
This is the world the atheists want.
SouthShoreSerenade t1_itx97gr wrote
>mass extinction
Reread my comment.
[deleted] t1_itxhcri wrote
[deleted]
cassandracurse t1_itxiui3 wrote
Yes, the beef industry drives the leather industry. If no one ate meat, then leather would be much less available and very expensive.
Suspicious-Abies-653 t1_itxmp5j wrote
Reread it twice. Still can’t find a mention of mass extinctions.
Your assertion. Back it up.
If you can’t, just walk away. I was wrong once too. It’s way easier.
capybroa t1_itxs7ey wrote
If you're lucky!
NesquikKnight t1_ity280z wrote
If you call pest control in Massachusetts and they get an animal from your property they have to kill it due to the risk of disease among other factors. I got my fur trapping permit this year because I got tired of paying people to come grab various animals from ripping out the insulation in my office and chuck them in a back lot somewhere. At least now I'm able to harvest the fur and parts of value during the trapping season...and yes you can eat all of the fur bearers in Massachusetts with beaver on top of that list.
Kaio_ t1_ity8p8g wrote
The Cambridge fur trade was at it's peak when I sold hides there in Assassins Creed III
misterflappypants t1_itz2fds wrote
Good luck- that would require them to have an authentic culture to fall back on. They gotta be persecuted to feel human.
dudeKhed t1_itz5ut4 wrote
People will never know the history unless we tell it…
asoneth t1_itz8ugc wrote
I still don't understand what is "unique" about the fur trade compared to animal agriculture or how someone who eats meat on a regular basis could logically object to fur.
Similar to fur, the majority of animal meat consumed in the US comes from factory farms. Similar to fur, most factory farms exist specifically to raise animals and kill them solely for meat. Pigs and raccoons are both shockingly smart and rabbits and chickens perhaps less so so it's not like there's some qualitative difference in animal intelligence.
If anything, fur and leather seem less problematic to me because they last longer. A fur coat or leather upper on a good pair of boots can last ten years. In that same time-frame a diet that includes daily meat will result in substantially more animal death.
asoneth t1_itz9v0v wrote
Agreed that food and clothing are basic human necessities.
But in modern society, food and clothing made from animals are not necessary. Animals are used for reasons of convenience, cost, and pleasure.
I believe that the primary difference is not logical but just that killing animals for food is still culturally accepted and killing animals for clothing is less so.
asoneth t1_itzb7d1 wrote
Not just leather, but eating meat as well. It seems logically inconsistent to me that someone who kills animals for food would object to killing similarly intelligent animals for clothing.
Both largely come from factory farms, both have non-animal alternatives that are almost as good, both result in a lot of unused animal carcass.
If anything, a fur coat made from two dozen foxes that lasts ten years results in substantially less animal death than a meat diet over that same timeframe.
itallendsintears t1_itzhdso wrote
Idk I’m an aspiring vegetarian (more for health then ethics) so I’m cool with this. Plenty of other ways to stay warm and look chic
chattykatdy54 t1_itzhhwg wrote
Anyone have any idea how to get rid of a fur coat?
PakkyT t1_itzhwoy wrote
You are splitting hairs acting like the fur business is intrinsically bad while the meat business is not. Both have the same things, raising animals to then kill and harvest from them except the meat industry kills wayyyyyyyyy more animals.
I always find most of these "bans" illogical (not on fur per se, but anything towns and cities want to ban), because there is always some feel good reasoning behind whatever "bad thing" is the hot topic of the time that only makes sense if it was the only thing like it (rarely) or if you put on horse blinders and ignore all the other things that are just like it (the usual).
Take plastic water bottle bans or plastic bags in grocery stores. These are some of the current bad guys to be targeted and busy bodies like to pat themselves on the back for helping the environment because they made the local grocery store stop providing them. In the meantime there are rolls of plastic bags in the produce section for customers use and just about every item comes with so much plastic packaging, the bags or water bottles they banned is not even significant. Just one "Lunchable" probably has more plastic than all the plastic bags you get from one trip to the store.
I am all for bringing your own bags to the grocery store when you remember or have them in your car, I don't buy bottled water, and I don't wear fur. But these government feel good bans are stupid and don't really help anything with what they usually target and how they implement the ban.
PakkyT t1_itzjaix wrote
>What do you want from me? Honestly? What do you want me to say and do?
I think they want you to back what you say. But like most, you love to spout off with something that doesn't make sense and then when asked to back what you are saying, you quickly backtrack with look it up yourself, anyone can find this info, do your homework, or some other excuse to not admit you made up a "fact".
You said "the dozens of factors that make them extremely different things." so it would seem simple for you to provide one or two of those "dozens of factors" right off the top of your head, but when asked you suddenly act like you are being attacked for being asked to simply back up your claims.
GWS2004 t1_itvy9lx wrote
How about state level next?