SHTREIMEL BAN? New York City Considers Banning Sale Of Fur

12

A burgeoning movement to outlaw fur is seeking to make its biggest statement yet in the fashion mecca of New York City.

Lawmakers are pushing a measure that would ban the sale of all new fur products in the city where such garments were once common and style-setters have all rocked furs over the years.

A similar measure in the state Capitol in Albany would impose a statewide ban on the sale of any items made with farmed fur and ban the manufacture of products made from trapped fur.

Whether this is good or bad depends on which side of the pelt you’re on. Members of the fur industry say such bans could put 1,100 people out of a job in the city alone. Supporters dismiss that and emphasize that the wearing of fur is barbaric and inhumane.

“Cruelty should not be confused with economic development,” said state Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Democrat from Manhattan, who is sponsoring the state legislation. “Fur relies on violence to innocent animals. That should be no one’s business.”

The fate of the proposals could be decided in the coming months, though supporters acknowledge New York City’s measure has a better chance of passage than the state legislation.

The fur trade is considered so important to New York’s development that two beavers adorn the city’s official seal, a reference to early Dutch and English settlers who traded in beaver pelts.

At the height of the fur business in the last century, New York City manufactured 80% of the fur coats made in the U.S, according to FUR NYC, a group representing 130 retailers and manufacturers in the city. The group says New York City remains the largest market for fur products in the country, with real fur still frequently used as trim on coats, jackets and other items.

If passed, New York would become the third major American city with such a ban, following San Francisco, where a ban takes effect this year, and Los Angeles, where a ban passed this year will take effect in 2021.

Elsewhere, Sao Paulo, Brazil, began its ban on the import and sale of fur in 2015. Fur farming was banned in the United Kingdom nearly 20 years ago, and last year London fashion week became the first major fashion event to go entirely fur-free.

Fur industry leaders warn that if the ban passes in New York, emboldened animal rights activists will want more.

“Everyone is watching this,” said Nancy Daigneault, vice president at the International Fur Federation, an industry group based in London. “If it starts here with fur, it’s going to go to wool, to leather, to meat.”

When asked what a fur ban would mean for him, Nick Pologeorgis was blunt: “I’m out of business.”

Pologeorgis’ father, who emigrated from Greece, started the fur design and sales business in the city’s “Fur District” nearly 60 years ago.

“My employees are nervous,” he said. “If you’re 55 or 50 and all you’ve trained to do is be a fur worker, what are you going to do?”

Supporters of the ban contend those employees could find jobs that don’t involve animal fur, noting that an increasing number of fashion designers and retailers now refuse to sell animal fur and that synthetic substitutes are every bit as convincing as the real thing.

They also argue that fur retailers and manufacturers represent just a small fraction of an estimated 180,000 people who work in the city’s fashion industry and that their skills can readily be transferred.

“There is a lot of room for job growth developing ethically and environmentally friendly materials,” said City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who introduced the city measure.

New Yorkers asked about the ban this week came down on both sides, with some questioning if a law was really needed.

“It is a matter of personal choice. I don’t think it’s something that needs to be legislated,” said 44-year-old Janet Thompson. “There are lots of people wearing leather and suede and other animal hides out there. To pick on fur seems a little one-sided.”

Joshua Katcher, a Manhattan designer and author who has taught at the Parsons School of Design, says he believes the proposed bans reflect an increased desire to know where our products come from and for them to be ethical and sustainable.

“Fur is a relic,” he said.

(AP)




12 COMMENTS

  1. The proposed legislation specifically exempts religious wear of fur. This exemption was purposely initiated and put into the proposed legislation to accommodate shtreimals.

  2. Seems reasonable. The people running the city (the Democrat establishment) really prefer to get rid of frum Jews, and that’s one way to get the message across. They run into more problems if they ban bris milah or kosher meat since they offend Muslims, which is politically incorrect.

  3. I’m sorry YWN but there are no 2 sides. A gezeirah that at least makes it harder upon a yid to follow his way of kovod Shabbos does not have an ” on the other hand”. Making people lose their business and jobs also has no second side. Some people may be able to switch to other materials.Others won’t.
    I love animals. I also know that they are meant to serve us. When they are used for that purpose, tzaar baalei chayim does not come into play. Yes, there should be laws to make sure that carte blanche is not given to hurt the animals unnecessarily, but that’s it. This is another prohibition idiocy of people who want to think they’re doing good. It must be fought and defeated. Meat would be not far down the line as well.

  4. So make it from polyester.
    Lately, the shtreimel has been out of control in the height, the width and the teasing.
    If women were obligated to wear shtreimels, the men would have already assured them for being too pretty.
    Long hair- Pritzus.
    High teased shtreimel- heavenly.
    In 10 years they will grotesquely high and wide and teased. Whats next, different colors? A la Joseph’s multi color dreamcoat?
    Feh.

  5. Maybe this will be the biggest yeshieh for yidden since the price of shtreimlech reached 6-7 thousand dollars,
    Parents are emptying their savings when it comes to making chasene(sorry not the millionaires) AND GOING BROKE

  6. Aside from the fact that you can buy feaux fur shtreimlach at much lower cost and that don’t stink when wet, think about the opportunity of all the dollars saved that can be redirected towards more worthwhile causes. Plus, all the old streimlach will be grandfathered under the new law and will become collectors items.

  7. These filthy traitorous America hating antisemitic socialist far left DemonRats must be stopped at all cost,these evil gangsters want to take away our liberties and freedom one by one,no plastic bags,no drinking straws,no furs,and these vicious animals have already introduced proposals to ban SHCHITA and also circumcision,but to these Godless monsters it is perfectly ok to kill millions of unborn babies and even some born ones,they are also introducing legislation to permit assisted suicides,and of course drugs are going to be legalized.
    These murderous monsters must be stopped one way or another,or this great country of ours will be destroyed

  8. I’m not worried about banning streimlach. It originally came into existence because of a goisher decree against yiddin, and even then many didnt follow along and never wore it. So now they want to decree in the reverse; also here not all will comply. Surely, I wont comply.

    I’m also not worried about the democrats banning leather shoes, as I’m sure they will compensate by
    legalizing shoes made of human baby hide. You know, from democraticly killed new born babies. Since, its a libsral democrat mother’s right to kill her baby if he/she is disturbing her rights. So why would anyone suspect that Pelosi/shuma (yes, shuma) would not find a use for their dead democratly
    murdered babies?

    What does disturb is the possibility of Cuomo the Homo banning shmalz and pickled herring on the grounds that it is tzar balei chaim. These liberal democrats remind me of the story when Adolf Hitler YMS”V cried when his bird died.