Tuesday, March 26, 2019
杭州龙凤

should it be a choice that peoplcan make. Slavery

and the despair of area fashion businesses.

The last time we visited San Francisco, we noted thatits diseased streetswere filled with needles, human excrement, and pathogens.

However, in what is a stunning display of misplaced priorities, the citys supervisors have enacted decisive legislationbanning fur sales.

The ban takes effect Jan. 1 and applies to apparel and accessories featuring real fur, including coats, key chains and gloves. An amendment added Tuesday allows furriers and other retailers to sell current inventory until January 1, 2020.

Wayne Hsiung, co-founder of animal rights network Direct Action Everywhere, said in a statement that this historic act will usher in a new wave of animal rights legislation across the globe.

With this move, San Francisco becomes the third California city to ban the sale of real fur, after Berkeley and West Hollywood. Retailers (also known as area employers and the tax base) are balking at this move, and some are demanding acity-wide voterather than settling for the dictates of the social justice warriors ruling San Francisco.

It should be a citywide public vote, it shouldnt be decided by the Board of Supervisors, said Skip Pas, chief executive officer of West Coast Leather, which sells fur-trimmed items but deals largely in leather.

Pas made an additional point about what the city felt it might beable to ban next.

Whats next? Theyre going to say that you cant have beef and you cant have pork and duck in Chinatown? I mean, its a little too much.

San Francisco expected to ban fur sales, stirring backlash: Whats next? Theyre going to say that you cant have beef?

San Diego Union-Tribune (@sdut)March 20, 2018

Given the extreme behavior of many animal rights activists, you can count that the ban will inspire more drama.

San Francisco Becomes Largest U.S. City to Ban the Sale of New Fur Apparel and Accessories

ROGUELINE (@ROGUEline)March 21, 2018

Other business owners areless inclinedto resist.

Benjamin Lin, 72, owns B.B. Hawk in the South of Market neighborhood. His showroom features chinchilla, sable, fox, and Blackglama mink.

He is considering keeping his current location but selling fur at a smaller place nearby, outside San Francisco.

I cannot fight it, he said of the ban. I will not win. I do not have the energy and the money.

Lin is also considering a move to Dallas, where he will find many former Californians who have already fled the states business-crushing regulations.

The fur industry vigorously fought the ban, and may continue tochallenge the new prohibition.

The International Fur Federation and the Fur Information Council of America wrote a seven page letter to the Board of Supervisors last week opposing the measure. They argued The City should allow fur sales if they meet the criteria of a proposed Furmark Certification program. The program would document fur products through the supply chain to prove that the product has met the highest standards in environmental responsibility and the continued humane treatment of animals.

The letter warned that the ban would result in the loss of millions of dollars in tax revenues and jobs as well as the likely increase in retail vacancies in the citys core but that it also sets a very dangerous precedent in opening the door for further actions against leather and wool, already the focus of active animal rights campaigns.

Perhaps, one day, residents of San Francisco will ask, Wheres the Beef and there will be no answer other than Texas.

Meanwhile, the city will continue to be the Shithole we all love to hate.

ReactionsRT @LegInsurrection: San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists @francvs23 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists via @[email protected] FlyTheW22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists via @[email protected] FlyTheW22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists @Kemberlee Kaye22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists @College Insurrection22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists @Legal Insurrection22 Mar 2018They have people pooping the streets and this is what they concern themselves w via @[email protected] Richardson22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists and the despair of area fashion businesses. @Mississippi22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of PETAnazis animal rights activists @mathewsjw22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists ff tcot [email protected] Doo Economics22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales. Someday, if animal rights extremists get their way, residents of San Francisco will @Leslie Eastman22 Mar 2018RT @Mutnodjmet: San Francisco bans fur sales. Someday, if animal rights extremists get their way, residents of San Francisco will ask, [email protected] Insurrection22 Mar 2018San Francisco bans fur sales. Someday, if animal rights extremists get their way, residents of San Francisco will @Leslie Eastman22 Mar 2018RT @leginsurrection San Francisco bans fur sales, to the joy of animal rights activists – …and the despair of ar @David Gerstman22 Mar 2018Commentsredc1c4March 21, 2018 at 7:05 pm

nest up: Sales tax revenues are down, City leaders mystified

were a special kind of 5t()0pid here in Failifornia.

Not to mention the likely extinction of the animals now raised for fur.

And remember, the city rulers will likely RAISE the taxes to pay for roving bands to enforce this edict. Kinda like the Saudi gangs that enforce the rules for The Prevention of Vice and Promotion of virtue while armed with bamboo whips. That would work well in Frisco cuz no one has a LEGAL CONCEALED HANDGUN!

To make p for the lost revenues, they will pass new taxes on something else and call it an education tax so if you oppose it, they will say you hate children.

Is there any reason to kill animals for fur?

Modern synthetics are as good or better than traditional furs, making the slaughter of animals for their skin completely unnecessary.

Is it ok to kill an animal for no reason?

Actually modern synthetics are not as good as natural fur in our climate.

I dont have the budget for fur, but theres nothing like leather for temperature *versatility*: I wear my leather jacket with multiple layers under it in the when the temperature is in the low 30s with a brisk wind, and I wear the same jacket with just a shirt when the temperature is in the low 60s with only a trace of a breeze. Any synthetic warm enough for the former, even with some help from layering, is too warm to be worn above 50 or so.

My impression is that fur does the same thing, only twenty degrees cooler.

Is it ok to kill an animal for no reason? Agreed, but wolves and bears up here kill for pleasure.

Wolves and bears kill out of necessity.

Sorry, but they kill for pleasure also especially the wolf packs.

I see your point and tend to agree with it. However, I dont agree with forcing others to agree with your view. If most people feel that killing an animal for its fur is wrong, then most people will not buy fur. Using the power of the government to force your view of morality on others is way more dangerous than killing and skinning an animal.

I quit hunting 30+ years ago. Just dont have the desire to kill healthy animals. Only thing Ive killed since then have been rabid raccoons.

But Ill sure take and savor every bite of any and all venison, rabbit or squirrel that somebody passes my way.

I do however, have a nuisance license to dispatch any beavers I come across, by any means. The anti-fur campaign has caused a beaver population explosion in agricultural areas that cost farmers a ton of dough. Imagine having $12,000/acre cropland sitting underwater instead of producing 250-300 bu/ac corn.

Agree, except for the rabid part. Raccoons are predators and varmints who kill for fun, and are target 1 at my place.

Animals exist on a spectrum. Obviously a farmer who is producing needed crops has a responsibility to protect those crops from pests. That would be an example of a justifiable killing of an animal.

Fur though What does anyone need fur for? Primaloft is as good as down in terms of warmth and is superior in the wet. Fur is bulky and is typically only used as trim, and its function (keeping wind off the face) can be entirely replaced with synthetics.

Believe me, I dont like the government either Hence why Im on this site.. Big time libertarian.

But when something is morally wrong, unjustified, should it be a choice that people can make. Slavery, meh up to you. Murder, meh up to you. Animal cruelty, up to you.

And before everyone goes crazy for me equating animals to humans, please try to understand that animals do not have to be equal in order to be worthy of moral consideration. The arguments are analogous, not equal. The point remains, if a lesser being is killed for no reason, is it justifiable?

The question is what makes killing animals immoral, in your opinion? By what standard do you decide what is moral or immoral? As far as Im concerned animals are things, not people, so they have no rights that any human need concern himself about, just as rocks and trees have no such rights.

My only moral concern with hunting and fishing is that making killing animals into a fun activity coarsens a person, and makes him less sensitive to human suffering. Killing shouldnt be fun, it should be work.

Hunting and fishing are fun. Especially as a family.

Animals are property either private or public. Fortunately weve been able to keep nut jobs from restricting our hunting rights too much.

Modern synthetics are as good or better than traditional furs

[Note: My experience has been practical rather than fashion oriented.] Having had both, I have to disagree. Natural furs by themselves are better inmoderatecold (down to -15 or so) but synthetics backed by a prime gray goose down filler are supreme in colder situations.

Just curious; did that goose down come from a synthetic goose?

Everything making up my parka as described below is totally functional except the tooled leather accents. True mukluks are superior in super cold dry environments. Eskimo culture has perfected clothing and kayaks that rival modern designs for what they are needed for. Where weight becomes a premium modern gear is great. I wouldnt consider Arctic as moderate climate as I have been in -60 F and it doesnt feel moderate to me.

Primaloft is as good as down for warmth, and is more resistant to water So

Do you know how many polyesters they have to murder to make that stuff?

Most of those who wear fur do so because they like the appearance and feel of it. There may be some (a few) who wear fur primarily to keep warm, yet if I owned a valuable fur coat Id not risk damaging it by taking it on a winter camping trip.

Besides, as good as fur is for insulation, its hard to beat down-filled nylon for warmth-per-pound, as well as durability and ruggedness. Assuming its made and designed well, of course.

Which isnotto endorse the anti-fur zealots. This zealotry leads inevitably toward no human use of animals at all: first leather and then meats will be banned, then fish and shellfish, and finally non-destructive uses such as eggs and dairy.

Theres a line between treating animals raised for human use humanely and demanding humans dont use them. Practically all of us can support humane treatment, but few of us wish to go full vegan.

Is it OK to kill a mother carrot just to eat it? Or to take her chillun while she watches? Why dont you just subsist on air?

Furs are sustainably harvested and far finer than any synthetic. I can tell the difference by sight, touch even smell. And there is nothing as buttery soft or viscerally satisfying as a nice mink or beaver. Even a coyote makes a nice trim on a jacket or coat. Nothing protects and feels like real fur and leather.

Go peddle your petroleum based chemically dyed nastiness elsewhere.

I bought my wife a $4,500 muskrat coat with a Wolf ruff fromDavid Greensin Anchorage.

David L Green, master furriers! My parka was made by them. Beaver with wolverine sub-ruff , wolf ruff and tooled caribou hide for cuffs and trim. 60 below? No problem.

My wife loves the fur I bought her at David Greens in Anchorage and loves me for buying it for her.

Ive heard theyre trying to ban screenings of John Waynes WWII classic FlyingLeathernecks. No sarcasm markers on this one my brother-in-law lives out there and swears its true!

My wife wanted to buy a fur coat on sale in California. The minute she said she was from Alaska.. it suddenly became all right to those that questioned her about the purchase.

Alaskans love all animals, some take longer to cook than others.

Leslie Eastman, GREAT line, Wheres the beef?Texas!

where will the sale of baby parts fit in ?

arent humans thought of as lower than animals to

residents who are anti abortion should use the premise of 3 billboards.

in terms of furriers moving to Texas

keep em in Kah-Lee-4-nia where they need to live with their damage.

see Kah-ned-ah and immingration woes.

They went after those who wore furs. They used to throw red paint on those wearing fur. They did not go after those wearing leather Bikers and the sexual deviant community.

Who here thinks, I want a fur heads off to SF?

Ill sell you a fur. I live in Tejas now, but its the same. I have to buy a trapping license to traffic in furs.

Who here wants to buy furs and their intentions are upset by this latest move to regulate fur trafficking?

How I lost my @ selling furs. And you cant hardly buy a good scalping knife on Amazon or eBay.

One day, humans will look back upon early humans with the horror that we ate animals.

But for now, evolutionarily, we need to still eat them, and use them for fur and leather. And medical research, unfortunately.

That said, its nice to use synthetics and alternative research when you can, and spare animals the grief.

Btw, it used to be fun to visit San Francisco.

Wouldnt go near the crime-infested leftist hellhole without a bodyguard. Even South Africa is probably safer.

How do you know that your future betters wont look at you as the 21st century disgrace, Mr. Nancy Pelosi Human 2.0?

While chuckling over their cheeseburgers. Admiring your skull as one of the trophies resulting from safari on our primitive planet.

Please, let us in on this secret knowledge of yours.

Please, let us in on this secret knowledge of yours

Id tell you. But like the saying goes, Id have to kill you

I dont think I care too much what tide-pod-eating generations will think about my meat eating habits.

One day, humans will look back upon early humans with the horror that we ate animals.

Or with amusement that we had silly qualms about it.

You mean how we modern humans are laughing about slavery, medival torture, animal cruelty, crucifixion, and dungeons of yore?

You mean how we modern humans are laughing about slavery, medival torture, animal cruelty, crucifixion, and dungeons of yore?

No, I mean how we modern humans laugh about our ancestors fear of witchcraft, their silly sexual taboos, and their belief in the divine right of kings.

I wonder what these fur banners shoes are made of? Are they all vegans? What did they have for lunch? Just because humans cant hear them, dont you think a field of corn is screaming as the combine comes through chopping up the stalks and ripping the kernels from the cobs? Oh! The Humanity!!

Just because humans cant hear them, dont you think a field of corn is screaming as the combine comes through chopping up the stalks and ripping the kernels from the cobs?

All we are saying is give peas a chance

SF banned Happy Meals. Okay, they banned the toy included with the Happy Meal. The zero-calorie toy was evil. Because it was happy. Cant let that go by without regulatory enhancement.

So now the same scolds ban furs. And instead of little kids crying over a stupid toy? We have have full grown SF adult residents tilting at surprise.

Plastic bags for groceries? Illegal.

Animal parts are a renewable resource. Among the biggest we have.

I wonder if diversity (i.e. color) matters.

The activists believe that animals = humans. They are known for supporting policies that stress native populations and normalize/promote predation of wild, domestic, and human prey.

Animals which are raised for slaughter should be housed in humane conditions. But, they are still being raised to produce products for human consumption. Animals raised for their fur are no exception.

If the animal rights wackos are arguing that these animals are not being raised for meat, that can be changed. We can see upscale restaurants serving chinchilla, mink, fox, etc, just as they serve beef and pork, the hides of which are turned into shoes, jackets and the ever popular pants so loved by motorcyclists and actresses.

As for banning beef, pork, chicken and other meats, this will not happen, even in SF. However, a meat tax is not far away for these liberal hotbeds. A customer a Mickey Ds will soon have to pay a sales tax, a sugar tax and sales tax for a burger and sugar based soft drink. Let the good times roll.

I wonder what they will do when plant rights activists start arguing that plants have feelings. And then there is the whole evil petroleum industry, from whose products most synthetics are made. Pretty soon the residents of San Fran will look a stone age tribe from the jungle clad in mud and naturally shed seagull and pelican feathers. Cue Twilight Zone music.

Pretty soon well have to be genderless vegans, and then well be forced to have feelings for vegetables.

I have a pair of leather boots made from genderless vegans.

Smooth and softer than a virgins inner thigh.

When did you feel michelle obamas inner thigh?

Last we heard, it felt coarse and hairy.

Surely one must contemplate the moral agony of the carnivorous fur-hater? How can one justify one and not the other?

First they came for my fur coat, then they came for my hamburgers! Today its high-end furs; tommorrow, McDonalds?

How could a ban on fur not logically extend to a ban on all human use of animals (or at least all those that require death of the animal)?

I hope Stanford University has good security for any labs that use animals for science.

So, now the last remaining normal folks that can afford fur can go buy it elsewhere. This will surely help the plummeting tax haul in loonyville.

When this doesnt satisfy the demons infested Left, theyll start jailing people wearing fur, have deferring views, etc. Be this will be another max exodus from Kalifornica. Thats OK. Just dont bring your libtard intolerance with you.

I bought some really nice crocodile belly shoes in San Fran back in 1987..still have em and wear em several times a year I wonder if reptile skin shoes, belts, purses, wallets and stuff are next????

The basic progressive approach is What else can we screw up? rather than What do we need to fix? This is just as well, because their fixes tend to be even worse than their screw ups.

Tweet AlertGoogle Ad added 9/15/14Logged In StatusNot Logged In

Clinical Professor of LawCornell Law School

Why Zionism Is Not Like Pan-Africanism and White Nationalism

Trump Keeps Pressure On Democrats During Shutdown Not Backing Down On The Wall

Republicans Blast Romney For Attacking Trump In WaPo Op-Ed

Border Patrol: Violent Mob Attacked Agents, Attempted to Push Minors Over Barbed-Wire

New York Times crossword puzzle editor apologizes for letting a racial slur slip past

Democrat Leaders WOULD NOT EVEN LISTEN to Border Security Briefing at WH Meeting

They Just Dont Care

Democrat Leaders WOULD NOT EVEN LISTEN to Border Security Briefing at WH Meeting

I like to link to people who link to me. Being linked by me is like getting anInstalanche, only smaller.

No Lawyers Only Guns and Money

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top