I wrote recently on my USA Herald column that California is considering the prohibition of fur.There are a lot of reasons why prohibition tends to be cause unintended, often worse consequences.
Many of us eat meat and use many other animal products on a daily basis. It is not fair that fur sellers should be prohibited from continuing their businesses. This is what would happen if Assembly Bill 44 became law. Democratic Assemblywoman, Laura Friedman, author of the bill, wants to ban selling and manufacturing of fur products throughout the state of California and she is being supported by many animal activists.
People have invested in their fur businesses for decades and contribute to the local economy. Small fur farmers will be disproportionately affected if this bill comes into effect. Others who rely on the industry for their livelihood will no longer have jobs.
Those who believe that banning fur enhances animal welfare are mistaken. Banning reputable sellers simply drives buyers to purchase from the black market. This will increase the value of furs and encourage selling of endangered pelts. Illicit buyers and sellers do not care about where the furs come from or cruelty to animals.
“Faux” furs are not long-lasting or sustainable whereas fur is a natural, renewable and long-lasting product. Fake furs are made from synthetic fibers – plastics that don’t break down - whereas real fur biodegrades naturally with time. The plastic fibers from synthetic products end up in the ocean and make their way up the food chain.
If consumers choose to buy fur products from retailers, they should have a right to do so. Bill AB 44 sets the stage for animal rights activists to force their beliefs on the public. This could eventually result in laws that influence our daily choices about what to wear and to eat. The choice of whether we want to eat animal products, such as meat, eggs and dairy could be taken out of our hands.