.

Reader Poll: How Do You Feel About the Fur Ban?

West Hollywood will take a final vote on its first-in-the-nation ordinance banning the sale of clothing with animal fur. Offer your thoughts on the ordinance by taking our poll.

West Hollywood is poised to become the nation’s first fur-free municipality. The ordinance banning the sale of fur apparel citywide is up for one final vote on Nov. 21. If passed, it will take effect Sept. 21, 2013.

Despite a from animal rights group PETA and the confidence of Fur Free Weho advocate , the ordinance is facing strong opposition from the and a possible from the Weho-based Fur Information Council of America. A 3-1 vote to approve a modified version of the ban last week also showed a .

So how do you feel about the city banning the sale of clothing with fur? Take our poll and share your thoughts.

Check out our West Hollywood Fur Ban topic page for full coverage on the issue.

Bayjh November 16, 2011 at 06:28 PM
A fur ban is unconstitutional, in case anyone still cares about the United States Constitution.
DNB November 16, 2011 at 06:46 PM
The ban is unconstitutional, hypocritical and stupid. And so are those who support it. People have been eating and wearing anmals since there have been people, and they will never stop. Period.
DNB November 16, 2011 at 06:48 PM
It is about want, not need. Keep your puritan values to yourself, and stop imposing your will on others.
Leila M. November 16, 2011 at 07:18 PM
If you wear leather or Uggs and eat meat you are a hypocrite and your answer should not be yes and you should not be leaving ignorant comments!
Diana Marie Bianchini November 16, 2011 at 08:09 PM
how long before comments are up-just posted a big comment..where is it?
Diana Marie Bianchini November 16, 2011 at 08:49 PM
This ban is hypocritical and unconstitutional. So it is not animal cruelty to buy and sell meat & chicken? Anyone who watched Food Inc would beg to differ. This proposed legislation is completely ridiculous! The fact that people get to vote on it makes me even sadder for our community. This proposed ban really takes away our rights on so many levels. Why would people ever try to control this yet wear leather and eat meat all day blows my mind. This is wrong to even be proposed. What's next?
BARBATSULY & SIDERIS November 16, 2011 at 10:16 PM
if you ban fur then whom is going to controll the animals and there environment furriers are the reason certain animals exist like the bobcats in the hills of california that are loosing their areas to live in because of land developers building homes a ban on fur would be a catastrofy to mother nature
Natalie D. November 17, 2011 at 03:48 AM
I think this possible ban is as hypocritical as the folks leaving comments here. There are so many problems in the world that require as much attention as this topic is receiving--but for the sake of argument, let's just focus on Los Angeles: poverty, a declining school system, and a growing unemployment crisis, just to name a few. Surely, with all of these pressing issues, there's got to be more to focus on than what material one chooses to wear? A material, might I remind you, that humankind has be sporting since the beginning of time. Like Liela M. so poignantly stated above, if you wear Uggs, or leather; heck if you use anything, including cosmetics, that contains any type of animal by-product, then you have no business saying you promote a ban on fur. I just hate folks who aimlessly throw around dirt without considering the pigsty in their own backyards, (and yes, pun totally intended). Natalie D., Los Angeles
Connie T., West Hollywood November 17, 2011 at 04:19 AM
Attn: Everyone leaving negative comments on this site. Quickly, check your bottoms. Are you sitting on a leather couch, perhaps? That's what I thought; you're a hypocrite!
joninla November 17, 2011 at 04:22 AM
I am anit-fur personally, but I think the City Council is using you and other animal activists by attempting to pass this particular law. First off, they do not have the authority under the law to pass any kind of law banning/prohibiiting othwise legal activity. They know it (or should know it) yet have brought out your intense emotinal feelings under the belief that your genuine concern for animal cruelty is actually being addressed and that this so called WeHo Law will do anything whatsoever to prevent one single animal from the cruelty. More hypocritical OF THE CITY COUNCIL and exploiting your painful emotinal feelings by brining up this never ending controversy and then caving in to all the all the 'pro-fur' money in WeHo - so that this 'so call ban on fur' has excluded basically everything, and would not apply or prevent a single fur sale (even if it were consitutional for a City to Overide the State Constitution and US Constitution. It really upsets me to know that you, personally, have had to revisit and feel the pain more than any other day becuase the City Council of West Hollywood just stirred the pot on the volitile issue for THEIR POLITICAL BENEFIT ... By what I gather is your increased support of the Current CIty Leaders. Inciting this kind of issue without having any actual positive beneifits, I feel is immoral of the City.
EthicalOne November 17, 2011 at 04:33 AM
I don't wear nor use leather. I don't wanna expose myself to formaldehyde , chrome and other garbage they use to preserve it. Many people have this bad habit of saying ARA uses leather. It annoys me . YES some may use leather. I don't for 2 reasons. 1, health reasons (as mentioned above). 2, It is not my style. I have my own skin and I am freaken proud of it. My shoes are rubber and polyester etc. NO LEATHER. When I buy stuff and I am uncertain I look carefully. I use my head. I am fool proof.
EthicalOne November 17, 2011 at 04:46 AM
Besides people wearing fur looks stupid. They look like savages. We have alternatives and besides alternatives uses LESS energy than real fur. Wool is a good alternative because we don't have to kill the sheep.
orlagh sampson November 17, 2011 at 09:01 AM
I whole heartedly disagree with the ban. Orlagh S. West Hollywood
Nicole Naef November 17, 2011 at 02:16 PM
WOW! If ignorance and stupidity would hurt, I would hear you scream on my trapline all the way up here in Canada.
Jason R November 17, 2011 at 04:16 PM
The banning of fur is just another example of public officials attempting to enforce THEIR moral perspectives onto the greater public. Most public offiicials have no idea what their community wants or bothers to listen to them. Wearing Fur is no different than leather or other animal byproducts which are widely accepted. People need to open their eyes and challenge public officials passing poorly thought out laws and bans which do little to move West Hollywood forward as a community. Whats next? No clothing shops unless they contain no animal or plant bi products?
EthicalOne November 17, 2011 at 06:24 PM
Fur is cruel the way it is obtained. Many people have no clue about how fur is obtained. Now my argument. Using PCB is no different than using its alternatives when is a chemical made by scientists, but in reality PCB should NEVER be used and stay banned because it hurts the environment badly. Abortion is no different than being pro-death penalty. So conservative condemning abortion and but in favor for death penalty are hypocrites, I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty but the opposite of right-wing. AT least abortion is more humane than death penalty because the fetus is in sub-conscious levels similar of being in PVS. I do not advocate late-stage abortion unless the mother life is endangered, baby will be born with a severe disease that will kill it later in babyhood, incest, rape etc. Usually they terminate it earlier. Also Waterboarding is no different than punishing someone accept is cruel and barbaric. So fur is more barbaric to obtain than leather. Some leather can be as barbaric as fur if they're obtained by trapped animals but most leather comes from hunted animals or cattle / lifestocks. Also getting treated for hypothermia is no different than using a remnant that was firstly used as cruel human experiments on innocent Jews. Which is true, the info to treat hypothermia was firstly used on Nazi human experimentation.
Carsey Dahl November 17, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Maybe we should ban leather and wool clothing, as well. Second thought maybe we all should wear cotton only, to make sure there are no animals involved. We could all be forced to wear cotton jumpsuits. Oh wait, maybe wearing cotton means that there are little critters losing their innocent lives for our clothing. We should legislate that all people should be naked. Oh, but wait a minute, we will still be a blight on the planet, so to the "showers" we much go!
Carsey Dahl November 17, 2011 at 10:14 PM
You're not fool proof. Didn't you know that wearing cotton kills many innocent critters lives? If you don't want to sound like a hypocrite, you had better go naked!
Carsey Dahl November 17, 2011 at 10:19 PM
Apparently you don't know how fur is obtained. Mostly it is farmed on farms with guidelines the require the farmer to treat animals humanely. Life for animals on the farm is much kinder than in the wild.
joninla November 17, 2011 at 11:51 PM
THE GOAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPEARS TO BE MORE THAN SUCCESSFUL - with this absurd attempt to misuse their elected office by knowingly bringing forth a 'LAW BANNING FUR' - A well known heated controversy with intensely passionate feeling and people will to do whatever they can to advocate for the cause of the animals. The LAW as written applies to nobody, affects nothing and is beyond the authority of the City Council to pass. BUT THE GOAL HAS BEEN MET IF NOT SURPASSED. - With all the people focused on this issue which is enormous, but having nothing to do with our City or it's desire to affect positive change, NOBODY IS NOTICING THE OUTRAGEOUS MISSPENDING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ($41 MILLION DOLLARS HERE, $13 MILLION DOLLARS THERE ... Raising Parking Ticket revenue by increasing the fine per ticket and number of parking enforcement patrols, imposing restrictive ordinances on the residents while extending/waiving restrictions of big money event/venue limits on time/size/noise ...). Goal of the self declared 'progressive' City Leaders - TO MISLEAD, LIE, DISTRACT AND AS THIS FUR ISSUE GOES, FOCUS ALL ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE ISSUES AFFECTING OUR DAILY LIVES AND GAINING THE POLITICAL SUPPORT OF PEOPLE AGAINST FUR (A very popular majority opinion) AS IF THE CITY COUNCIL CARES, CAN AND WILL BE ABLE TO SAVE ANY ANIMALS WHATSOEVER FROM THEIR ELECTED MUNICIPAL SEATS. Big firestorm created to distract us from what???
EthicalOne November 17, 2011 at 11:51 PM
Minks are NOT well treated. They are semi-aquatic animals and SOLITARY. But enclosed in small cage and even with more than one mink is cruel. They do repetitive dance and even mutilate sometimes. Also they get overweight which is UNNATURAL. Minks NEVER swims in fur farms. Is like life sentence in prison for crimes you did not commit. they fat them up so it give more fur. Is just as cruel as foie gras. Minks are unhappy in those filthy cage. Also fur farms pollutes the environment alot. A farm with cattle at least they get more freedom and wander in an extremely large property. VERY HUGE for a few cows and bulls which are SOCIAL animals. Minks are SOLITARY animals. They will kill them inhumanely. I do not believe the skin alive thing because no evidence. They probably do it in China since no animal welfare in that country. Some fur are obtained by trapping which is sadistic and cruel. Trappers have no compassion. We have hunting so why have trapping when is worst than hunting. Reason is the desire of suffering, torturing and using all sort of ways to torture animals. Sport hunting and trapping shouldn't be done in any shape and or form.
EthicalOne November 17, 2011 at 11:55 PM
Wools are more acceptable because sheep aren't killed for it. Cotton and silk. I am not a bug's right. I have a line that I draw. Includes humans, animals, rare species. pets. Other side of the line are bugs etc but it doesn't mean we should wipe out bugs and utterly slaughtering them all for no reasons. Some people even value their dog above their own uncle's life. Well is kinda exaggerating but unless the uncle was abusive and bad.
EthicalOne November 18, 2011 at 05:23 AM
You're no better you wear cotton too. It is impossible to eliminate killing of animals. Aren't cotton come from plants? Fur gathering is far crueler because trappers are extremely sadistic and violent. They beat animals, drown them and stomp.
kab1200 November 18, 2011 at 05:46 AM
The fur ban is ridiculous. Remember, all you who think this and that about how the fur is obtained, they cannot damage the fur, for pity sake! Also, how much actual fur is being sold in Weho anyway? I mean, I would think we have bigger fish to fry right now. Thank you.
Carl Sandler November 18, 2011 at 06:17 AM
Fur is a God given natural renewable resource. Same as leather, feathers for pillows, hamburger, etc. A crazy world is one where we have to use synthetics to clothe ourselves, oh, and give animals, rights like human beings. I guess that would mean rats and spiders would have a right to live in our homes????
Valerie Labelle November 18, 2011 at 03:31 PM
Fur is natural, durable, recyclable and biodegrable. It's more ecologically friendly than the non-biodegradable synthetic materials out there.. Fur is Green people!! Valerie, L.A.
EthicalOne November 18, 2011 at 07:59 PM
They drown the animal, Stomp / chest compression for undamaged fur and more profit. Some will shoot. But they prefer the inhumane way such as beating with a stick, drowning and stomping,
EthicalOne November 19, 2011 at 04:21 AM
Carl there is no evidence for god. You use a lie made up by people you've never met. This is why Christianity is a bad religion. They treat animal as resource and you use a lie made up by people you have never met to commit speciesism. What did your imaginary god put man for??? Destroying the environment? Man is abusing their dominance over a lie made up by people they have never met thousands of years ago. Valerie fur isn't natural because they use all sort of toxic chemicals to preserve it so it doesn't break down. Processing of Fur We're told that fur is natural, and therefore environmentally friendly. But how can this be so? Surely, in it's natural state - being the pelt of a dead animal - it should decay quite rapidly. The fur industry proved that this is so in extensive tests carried out, but what they failed to mention was that the pelts tested were raw, as opposed to those that are actually used to make garments, which are quite heavily dressed and treated. In dressing furs, caustic chemicals such as formaldehyde and chromium are used, and these are environmental contaminants which the fur industry has been in trouble for, such as in 1991 when two fur processing plants were fined $1.6 million for "total non-compliance with hazardous waste regulations". - Tests carried out for the Ford Motor Company found that the production of wild-caught fur costs over 3.5 times as much as fake fur in energy terms, while farmed fur costs over 15 times as much as fake fur.
EthicalOne November 19, 2011 at 04:22 AM
"...the huge price difference between animal and simulated furs gives a clue as to what type of fur requires the greatest energy input and which type is the largest drain on our resources, and animal furs' prices usually run at least three times simulated furs, and often more. Simulated fur can be manufactured from petrochemicals with far, far less damage to the ecosystem, not to mention the pain and agony inflicted on creatures we are now discovering to have a spirit and feelings at least as deep and sensitive as our own. And a most important point: By what sense of misguided logic do real animal furs become called "renewable resource" and simulated furs become "not renewable?". Petroleum has been deposited on earth from the bodies of plants and animals that lived and died over aeons of time. The fur and feather trade has caused some species to become extinct and pushed others to the brink. Fossil fuels on the other hand are a long way from extinction, but when they do become really scarce we have other alternatives. We can manufacture synthetic fuels and thus polymers from water, CO2, and solar energy. More than that, we will have clean, abundant fusion energy in twenty to fifty years, and we will have our own sun-power here on earth to manufacture synthetic petrochemicals. Totally renewable! But, when animal species are gone, they are gone forever!!!"
Ali November 23, 2011 at 06:44 PM
Actually, quite a few of the retailers here in WeHo sell fur. This ban is ridiculous. They are telling people to go out of our city to go shopping. The Chamber of Commerce is against this ban. Numerous retailers have stated they will leave the City when the ban goes into effect. That means lost revenue for the City and bad press. This was done solely to fulfill a campaign promise. It is not the will of the people.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »