After fur bans, expect local animal protection laws to gain momentum

In March, San Francisco took a decisive step against the cruel fur industry by becoming the largest city in the U.S. to ban the sale of fur. The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to prohibit the sale of fur apparel and accessories, including items with fur trim like gloves and key chains. Animal protection was the primary impetus behind the law -- animals killed for their fur are routinely skinned alive, electrocuted, and poisoned.

San Francisco's law goes into effect in January 2019, though retailers may sell their current inventory until 2020. Approximately 50 retailers will be directly impacted. Second-hand stores that sell used fur may continue to operate. Prior to the vote, two fur industry organizations, the Fur Information Council of America and the International Fur Federation, attempted to sway the council's decision saying they wanted to work with the city to enact a certification program regulating the treatment of animals and environmental standards. But as Supervisor Katy Tang, who spearheaded the legislation, put it, "There's no humane way to raise an animal to peel its skin off."

In addition to the animal suffering inherent to the fur industry, fur manufacturing is also harmful to the environment. Once the skin is removed from animals, it must be treated with chemicals such as formaldehyde and ammonia to prevent rotting. In the U.S., multiple fur farmers and processors have been cited for dumping hazardous waste into our waterways. Regulations on fur production in other countries can be lax or even nonexistent. According to a 2011 study by CE Delft, "Compared with textiles, fur has a higher impact per kg in 17 of the 18 environmental categories [studied], including climate change, eutrophication and toxic emissions. In many cases, fur has impacts that are a factor 2 to 28 higher than textiles, even when lower-bound values are taken for various links in the production chain."

Animal fur is wholly unnecessary to human survival or even enjoyment considering the plethora of faux fur products now available. Long viewed as a luxury fashion item, fur plays no role in most people's lives. Despite this, the new law is still very much needed. Globally, fur sales are increasing. And fashion magazines that once did not feature fur, likely recognizing it had fallen out of the public's favor after aggressive public relations campaigns by animal advocacy groups in the '80s and '90s, are including fur on their pages again. San Francisco's ban is a significant step forward for the estimated 50 million animals, including foxes and raccoon dogs (also known as manguts or tanukis), killed by the fur industry and a clear signal that the city values the well-being of animals.

Attorneys drafting groundbreaking legislation to protect animals are well-aware that new laws are susceptible to legal challenges from groups unhappy they can no longer profit from cruelty. But San Francisco is not the first California community to enact a fur ban. That distinction belongs to West Hollywood. Berkeley also banned the sale of fur in 2017.

West Hollywood has successfully defended its law against multiple lawsuits. Fur retailer Mayfair House filed lawsuits in both state and federal court arguing that the ban was unconstitutional and the authority to regulate the market of products for wildlife rested solely with the state of California. The courts disagreed with Mayfair House's arguments and ultimately upheld West Hollywood's authority to protect animals.

San Francisco's ban carves out an exemption for the sale of fur from animals covered under California trapping laws to avoid a conflict with state law. The California Fish and Game code permits the sale of fur from animals legally trapped under a state trapping license. West Hollywood later amended its law with a similar exemption.

Prohibiting practices that most people find abhorrent is a long-standing function of government. And many people are turning to their local governments for leadership as proposed laws that challenge the status quo stall at the state and federal levels. As a result, animal protection laws are gaining momentum in local legislatures both in California and across the country. Over the last 10 years, hundreds of communities have enacted retail pet sale bans, laws that prohibit pet stores from selling puppies from commercial breeding facilities (also known as puppy mills). Eventually, states take notice. In 2017, California became the first state to enact a retail pet sale ban applying to dogs, cats and kittens. Maryland soon followed suit with a similar, though less rigorous, version in 2017.

Attorneys should expect an increased demand for lawyers skilled in both drafting novel animal protection laws and experience working with local legislators to enact them. While California lawyers interested in advocating for fur bans in their own communities have the advantage of favorable legal precedent, attorneys in other states should not be discouraged. There is tremendous support for these laws -- animal advocates and compassionate people are looking to their local governments to take a stand against cruelty.