Use of Fur Banned

[fredk]

Peeps, have you seen this story?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50030291

In case you cannot access the story to read it ~ California has now banned the use and sale of fur products, effective from 2023. 

That may seem a long way off but its only a few years. Its the slippery slope, where Cali leads others, especially N.I., follow quickly

Exotic furs and bear furs I get, but where does that leave deer, rabbit, squirrel and even sheep fleece?

[MikeRock]

Sad.  I grew up trapping mink and muskrats, fox and coons.  

The news report on some channel said that they would allow animal skins/furs, like goat, and cow, that were a byproduct of meat or milk production. 

Sucks.

[Hardrada]

California sux. I'm so glad I don't live there (not that I could stand the ugly broiling weather anyway...).

[Frodo]

The Government of Commiefornia has no right to ban the sale of any damn thing.

It is up to an individual to make the decision on what to buy,  not the government

 

edited

+what about the Indian tribes? not allowed to make deer skin moccasins? 

does this mean if you kill an elk for food.  you have to let the hide rot away wastefully? 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Frodo

[chrisash]

Morally is wrong to trap just for fur as the main goal, and morally its right to kill for food as the main purpose

The real question is how you draw the line between the two things, if the main aim is food then most would agree its fine, if you make your living selling the fur then its questionable

Unfortunately there is no clear answer

[Handstitched]

That will never happen here in Oz  .  So many industries that rely on meat  & its bi-products  would go under , causing so many job losses and so on. 

If its just for the pelts, then I can understand  the ban.  

However, on the flip side  of that comment ,  here we have foxes, introduced, that go after the rabbits, introduced, cane toads, introduced.You can't eat Cane Toads( well, some  brave souls have tried... yuk ) , so the skins are made into leather goods. 

Does California have any introduced pests like we have ? If so, what happens to them ? 

HS 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Handstitched

[Sheilajeanne]

Australia got the gold medal when it came to introduced species, because your flora and fauna is so very unique that it can't cope with foreign species. 

About the only introduced species in California that craft people might be interested in, other than some snakes and reptiles, is the nutria, a critter similar to the muskrat. I would imagine the ban does NOT apply to introduced species!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasive_species_in_California

[LatigoAmigo]

On 10/13/2019 at 2:04 AM, Frodo said:

+what about the Indian tribes? not allowed to make deer skin moccasins? 

does this mean if you kill an elk for food.  you have to let the hide rot away wastefully? 

The only information I've gotten has come from the news, but I understand that there are some exemptions. This came from Reuters: "Second-hand fur products are exempt from the ban, as are fur products used by Native American tribes for spiritual or cultural purposes. The ban does not include leather products or taxidermy."   (My emphasis).

[Hardrada]

6 hours ago, Handstitched said:

Does California have any introduced pests like we have ? If so, what happens to them ? 

Plenty. They end up in government.

[Sheilajeanne]

2 hours ago, Hardrada said:

Plenty. They end up in government.

    

[Rhale]

I have heard for years that someday California will fall off into the ocean,  maybe it’s that time and hopefully take all the liberals with it!

[480volt]

5 hours ago, Rhale said:

I have heard for years that someday California will fall off into the ocean,  maybe it’s that time and hopefully take all the liberals with it!

You know, one of the nice things about this forum is people generally keep politics out of it, since it has nothing to do with leatherwork. If you wanna post political opinions, plenty other places to do that.

[Sheilajeanne]

17 minutes ago, 480volt said:

You know, one of the nice things about this forum is people generally keep politics out of it, since it has nothing to do with leatherwork. If you wanna post political opinions, plenty other places to do that.

[Hardrada]

36 minutes ago, 480volt said:

You know, one of the nice things about this forum is people generally keep politics out of it, since it has nothing to do with leatherwork. If you wanna post political opinions, plenty other places to do that.

I agree with keeping politics in a separate arena. Unfortunately, the politicians have made it their business to make politics everybody's business by sticking their long dirty fingers into everything. When everything is then politicised it is impossible not to bring politics into areas where it used to be foreign.

Alas, politics nowadays has A LOT to do with leatherwork—the banning of fur by CA being a perfect example: it wasn't leatherworkers who did it or pushed for it, yet they now must bear the brunt of the legislation. Politics has a lot to do with leatherwork when tax grabs and stupid environmental regulations smother the industry and limit our choices in supplies and products we market in order to make ends meet. It's perfectly understandable that leatherworkers post about such things and share their frustration with their fellows, since writing to their elected representatives is now an exercise in futility, and in some cases only serves for the police state to open a file on those who complain via the official channels.

Some of us might be OK with the occasional political thread or blurt, as long as people don't push partisan views. Then again, it's not a secret which colour or side of the political spectrum the political oppression tends to come from, and people express it accordingly. Shutting people down and clamping down on anything that resembles politics on fora such as these only benefits those who profit from enacting retrograde regulations, such as the one being this thread's topic, and their supporters—and we know what colour they are, don't we?

Edited October 16, 2019 by Hardrada
Typo

[480volt]

46 minutes ago, Hardrada said:

I agree with keeping politics in a separate arena. Unfortunately, the politicians have made it their business to make politics everybody's business by sticking their long dirty fingers into everything. When everything is then politicised it is impossible not to bring politics into areas where it used to be foreign.

Alas, politics nowadays has A LOT to do with leatherwork—the banning of fur by CA being a perfect example: it wasn't leatherworkers who did it or pushed for it, yet they now must bear the brunt of the legislation. Politics has a lot to do with leatherwork when tax grabs and stupid environmental regulations smother the industry and limit our choices in supplies and products we market in order to make ends meet. It's perfectly understandable that leatherworkers post about such things and share their frustration with their fellows, since writing to their elected representatives is now an exercise in futility, and in some cases only serves for the police state to open a file on those who complain via the official channels.

Some of us might be OK with the occasional political thread or blurt, as long as people don't push partisan views. Then again, it's not a secret which colour or side of the political spectrum the political oppression tends to come from, and people express it accordingly. Shutting people down and clamping down on anything that resembles politics on fora such as these only benefits those who profit from enacting retrograde regulations, such as the one being this thread's topic, and their supporters—and we know what colour they are, don't we?

Sorry, you lost me after the first sentence. Maybe Johanna could be persuaded to create an area just for people to vent their political opinions, one that I would never be inclined to visit.

Again, the thing that keeps the discussion interesting and keeps people like myself hanging around year after year, is that politics are generally checked at the door. I respect that people with all different outlooks participate here, but for me personally, it’s just about the tools, the materials and the work. Gotta go to sleep now, construction work starts early.

[DV8DUG]

This is bad for me since I am a Californian. 

Bill reads verbatim ...."AB 44 would make it unlawful to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, display for sale, trade, give, donate or otherwise distribute a fur product in the state. The bill exempts certain items, including used fur."

Wonder if re-purposing is included in exemption....

[fredk]

2 hours ago, DV8DUG said:

Wonder if re-purposing is included in exemption....

re-purposing, as in, once used by a grizzly as all-weather cover and now re-purposed to trim on a human's fashion coat?

I'm being facetious/silly, don't mind me

[Rhale]

This posting started out as political,  politicians banning the use of fur in California, I came back from Vietnam to the idiots in California cussing and spitting on soldiers that had been serving their country, so I have a bit of bitterness for the state of California and some of the people who reside there!  So if you live in California and support their ideas and politics more power to you but I fought for the freedom of speech and had friends die for our freedoms so I believe I will speak about what I want when I want and certainly no one from California is going to prevent me from doing so! 

 

[Handstitched]

19 hours ago, LatigoAmigo said:

The ban does not include leather products or taxidermy." 

Um.... before leather becomes leather, as in to make stuff out of, it has hair/ fur on it . I have never seen a bald cow or sheep etc. or any other bald  animal for that matter, unless its some kind  of weird breed, or it has some genetic issues .   I know you got this from the media, but what is the difference ?  A ' fur product' is just a 'leather  product'  with hair on, just the tanning process is different to remove the hair , and different parts of the skin goes through different tanning processes to turn it into different grades, types,  colours etc. 

Isn't that just...... 'splitting hairs'  ?  ( sorry about the lame pun) 

22 hours ago, Sheilajeanne said:

Australia got the gold medal when it came to introduced species, because your flora and fauna is so very unique that it can't cope with foreign species. 

Bingo !!! You hit the nail on the head!!   Don't get me started on the floral introduced species, I'd be here all night. 

In the media lately here in Oz , its been admitted that we have lost the battle against the Cane Toad. Theres just too many now . But its nice to know that I've done something towards its eradication,even in an  insy winsy  tiny way,  turn them into leather goods. 

HS 

[Sheilajeanne]

Apparently, cane toads can even kill huge salt water crocodiles, if they eat enough of them!!  That's some SERIOUS toxin they produce!

[Tinkerton]

For those wondering, here is a link to the actual bill. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB44

[Tinkerton]

If I understand the bill correctly, it's mostly the finished products that will be banned. The hair on skins of livestock and deer are still permitted, as well as any leather where the hair has been removed. Trappers will still be able to legally sell the pelts of their catch, as long as they keep record of what and to whom it was sold for at least a year. Aboriginals will still be able to use fur products for cultural/religious purposes. Taxidermy is still permitted.

To my understanding, it's goal is mostly to curb the use of exotics and fur farms, as most of those come from overseas and is very difficult to determine the humaneness of the conditions of said products.

[LatigoAmigo]

6 hours ago, Handstitched said:

 I know you got this from the media, but what is the difference ?  A ' fur product' is just a 'leather  product'  with hair on, just the tanning process is different to remove the hair , and different parts of the skin goes through different tanning processes to turn it into different grades, types,  colours etc. 

Here is the section of the bill referencing leather, I hope it might clear up your questions:

(B) “Fur product” does not include any of the following:

(i) A dog or cat fur product, as defined in Section 1308 of Title 19 of the United States Code, as that section read on January 1, 2020.

(ii) An animal skin or part thereof that is to be converted into leather, which in processing will have the hair, fleece, or fur fiber completely removed.

(iii) Cowhide with hair attached thereto.

(iv) Deerskin, sheepskin, or goatskin with hair attached thereto.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please remember, we as Californians did not vote on this bill, it was passed by our legislature and signed by our governor.

[Sheilajeanne]

This makes NO sense! Some of the most inhumane uses of dog fur comes from Asian countries, where the animals are slaughtered for their meat, then the fur used to trim garments that are sold overseas. Sometimes the fur is falsely labelled as being from another animal, (e.g. a coyote or wolf.)

[Handstitched]

21 hours ago, Sheilajeanne said:

Apparently, cane toads can even kill huge salt water crocodiles, if they eat enough of them!!  That's some SERIOUS toxin they produce!

Yep, its a  pretty darn strong toxin alright. It kills a wide variety of native fauna.  It can sometimes be used as a narcotic....

 

.....um ..*gross warning* ...

 

.....people  lick them . Dogs are even known to get hooked on the toxin ( and end up at the vet no doubt)  as it gives off a 'high' ,according to Queensland locals that I've spoken to. 

But this is going off topic. I prefer making Cane Toad leather goods out of them . And besides, I much prefer a cold beer to get my... ' high'  

HS