Fur Ban to Come Before Council Again, as Industry Opposition Mounts

The ongoing saga of continues as the City Council prepares to vote on the ban at its Monday night meeting.

“It’s coming back to the council, and we’re excited,” Councilman John D’Amico, who sponsored the ordinance after championing the fur-free cause during his election campaign, told Patch. “We’re ready to bring this to some kind of finalization.”

But as the council gets ready to vote, the West Hollywood-based Fur Information Council of America (FICA) is preparing to file a lawsuit if the ban is approved.

“We are prepared to move forward with whatever legal actions are necessary,” said . “From potential Brown Act violations on down, this is fraught with inconsistencies. It covers certain businesses, but not others. It’s quite arbitrary. There are a number of legal challenges available.”

D’Amico says the ordinance they have drafted will withstand any legal challenges.

“By the city attorney’s research, we can do it,” said D’Amico. “It violates no part of the Constitution. It violates no state or local laws. We feel what we’ve come up with is sound law.”

In May, the Knowing it would be creating a precedent that other cities might follow, the council instructed City Hall staffers to carefully draft an ordinance.

At its Sept. 19 meeting, the making headlines worldwide by becoming the first city in the nation to ban fur.

However, it turned out that several details were left out of the ordinance approved Sept. 19, so the council must hold an unusual “second first-reading” with those details included at Monday’s meeting.

Large number of Weho businesses sell fur

When D’Amico initially proposed the ban in May, he reported that only a handful of retailers in the city sold clothing items with animal fur. In September, FICA released an economic impact study showing that out of 209 apparel retailers in the city, 91 of them, or 46 percent, sold "fur apparel."

Kaplan says FICA commissioned the impact study when it became obvious the city wasn’t going to do one.

“When a city puts forth a bill like [the fur ban] that affects the business community so strongly, it’s their responsibility to investigate,” said Kaplan. “When they didn’t do it, we did.”

D’Amico questioned whether all those 91 retailers selling fur are actually located within the city boundaries. Lauren Schlau, executive vice president of Horizon Consumer Science, which produced the study, said they are.

Schlau said she used the California Board of Equalization’s second quarter 2010 tax records to determine that 209 apparel retailers were in the city. They also double-checked to ensure that those businesses had a physical location in West Hollywood, not just a mailing address.

During the week of Aug. 21-27, her staff went in person to a third of the apparel-selling stores in the city, asking if they sold fur apparel. She said 46 percent said yes.

“We just walked in and asked to speak to the owners or the managers,” said Schlau. “Frankly, we were surprised by the level of cooperation we got.”

Schlau said her people did not put a definition on what constituted "fur apparel." “We asked if they sold items containing fur. We left it to them to define,” said Schlau. “We just reported what the people told us. I feel confident in our methodology.”

D’Amico admitted they didn’t initially have a clear definition of what constituted fur apparel, but says they now have one.

“What we determined was that the federal government already defines what fur apparel and fur accessories are,” he said. “Those products require such a label. If such a product has a label, it shouldn’t be sold in our city [under the proposed ban]. We decided that is the best way to handle it all the way around.”

Businesses might leave the city

Several businesses threatened at the to move out of the city if the fur ban passes. D’Amico doubts that will actually happen, but Kaplan said it will.

“We know of seven stores that have already contacted their landlords about getting out of their lease,” said Kaplan. “The ground swell is just beginning. Businesses like to be near similar businesses. Once Balenciaga and Alberta Ferretti leave town, you can be sure others business will too.”

Kaplan points out that if those two high-end Melrose stores, which have a $2.5 million yearly revenue, leave, the city will lose their tax dollars.

“When those stores move out, their full revenue moves out,” Kaplan said. “It will have an impact on the city, without a doubt. The city will set itself up for urban blight.”

D’Amico countered by saying that designers like John Bartlett and Stella McCartney have contacted him saying they are supportive of the fur ban.

Implementation date

Although D’Amico initially suggested a Jun. 30, 2012, date for implementation of the fur ban, the ordinance going before the council on Monday will have Sept. 21, 2013, as the date it becomes effective. 

D’Amico said that date was chosen to give designers and stores almost two full years' notice to make whatever changes are needed. 

“There was lots of discussion about purchasing and designing up to a year and a half ahead of time,” said D’Amico. “We want to give designers and retailers a chance to make good on their promises and also have a second bite at the apple before they have to remove fur items.”

Kaplan pointed out there is no way of knowing what may be hot in fashion two years from now. “You don’t know how designers may decide to use fur in fall 2013,” Kaplan said.

But D’Amico said he hoped the ban will cause designers to rethink using fur.

Seen as an arbitrary ban

Many residents are questioning the seemingly arbitrary nature of the ban: Clothing items with fur will be banned, but furniture items with fur will not.

D’Amico said he did not want to include furniture, because of the presence of the . He did not want to impede the many world-renowned designers based there. 

“If it goes on the floor, it’s OK, but if you wear it, it’s not?” Kaplan asks. “So, what’s to stop a showroom in the PDC from selling a fur throw that you could also wear as a stole?”

D’Amico acknowledged that could happen. He said that the fur ban is only about the selling of fur apparel, not the wearing of it. “[The ordinance] is completely silent about the wearing of fur,” D’Amico said. 

Kaplan also questioned whether a ban supposedly motivated by concerns for animal welfare also doesn't outlaw leather, which comes from an animal’s hide.

D’Amico breaks it down to fashion versus function, noting that fur is only used as a fashion accessory, but leather has work activities connected to it in our culture.

“I’m not denying that people can find a way for this to be arbitrary,” said D’Amico. “There are many arbitrary things in the world. The water we drink is only cleaned of so many chemicals. The lines we draw around the way we live in the world are often arbitrary, yet those lines become regularized in a very short amount of time.”

Regulate vs. ban

Just days after the , the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce opposed the fur ban,

The chamber proposed using a quality assurance program known as Origin Assured (OA), which regulates countries the fur comes from and guarantees that humane standards are followed.

“Origin Assured is optional in stores,” reported Kaplan, who has contacted each council member to urge regulation rather than a ban. “But in West Hollywood, they could make it mandatory.”

Launched in 2007, OA was created to address concerns about animal cruelty. Only fur from approved species, sourced from approved countries, sold through participating auction houses, is entitled to carry the OA label.

An independent monitoring agency, Cotecna, goes from farm to auction house checking to see that the OA standards are maintained.

“The [fur] industry took this one on because designers and consumers said they wanted more transparency,” said Kaplan. “We put together a program that gave them that transparency.”

Kaplan feels OA will have greater long-term impact for improving the standards of treatment for animals than a symbolic ban of fur apparel. He points out that as more designers and retailers adopt the OA program, it forces countries like China, which has a growing fur industry, to raise their standards.

“If they want to compete in the world market,” Kaplan said, “they’ll have to meet the standards set by Origin Assured.”

D’Amico isn’t buying into the regulation idea. “Those organizations that might provide that assurance, I can’t believe it’s legal to require someone who wants to sell a product has to have some other business’ assurance that it’s an acceptable product,” he said.

Kaplan counters that any number of industries already have some form of self-regulation and labeling in place, including organic foods and diamonds.

Symbolic nature of ban

D’Amico recognizes that a ban on fur is largely symbolic, and understands that people who want it can easily drive to Beverly Hills or Los Angeles to get it. He said he wants to make people think about how our society treats animals, and to discuss it.

“I always think it is important to think about the way we live in the world," D’Amico said. “If this causes someone to stop and examine their values, then that’s important to changing the world we live in.”

Follow West Hollywood Patch on Twitter and Facebook for more updates, tips and news.

Download the movie